[Z]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yes you can.

No you can't. If he dragged her there and raped her, 100% blame would be at his feet, or if he was a trusted relative who abused a position of trust then he'd be fully to blame too, but that is not the situation so that cannot be how you proportion blame. From what we know, he took advantage of an under age girl who willingly went home with him. That's not to say she deserved to be abused, nobody does, but if she consented and he took advantage then that simply isn't the same thing as him abusing her.

[Livia]

So does anyone think that the parents of this 13 year old bear any responsibility for her promiscuousness (whether that's perceived or actual - the judge said she was sexually experienced) and for allowing herself to be taken back to a man's house for sex?

I'm 27, and there is no way in hell I would have a 13yr old girl back to my flat alone, unless she was a relative.

There is no need to put yourself in that position to begin with. Either he asked her back to his house, which is seriously dodgy, or she invited herself, and he said it was ok, which is seriously dodgy.

She didn't break in. Why put yourself in a position where an accusation can be made, never mind a sex act performed?

[Z]

Originally Posted by Livia

So does anyone think that the parents of this 13 year old bear any responsibility for her promiscuousness (whether that's perceived or actual - the judge said she was sexually experienced) and for allowing herself to be taken back to a man's house for sex?

Yes. Might sound harsh but why is their 13 year old daughter in a position to meet a much older man and go back to his house? And be sexually experienced by the age of 13? Either there's some serious lack of parenting going on, or they're not being strict enough with her.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

I'm 27, and there is no way in hell I would have a 13yr old girl back to my flat alone, unless she was a relative.

There is no need to put yourself in that position to begin with. Either he asked her back to his house, which is seriously dodgy, or she invited herself, and he said it was ok, which is seriously dodgy.

She didn't break in. Why put yourself in a position where an accusation can be made, never mind a sex act performed?

Well he was in posession of paedophilic material anyway, going by that article, so it's pretty clear why he put himself in that position. It's obvious this wasn't an accident; but what's not clear is whether he invited her back and took advantage of her innocence or whether she invited herself back and forced the situation, which is what is being implied by the barrister's accusations.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Zee

No you can't. If he dragged her there and raped her, 100% blame would be at his feet, or if he was a trusted relative who abused a position of trust then he'd be fully to blame too, but that is not the situation so that cannot be how you proportion blame. From what we know, he took advantage of an under age girl who willingly went home with him. That's not to say she deserved to be abused, nobody does, but if she consented and he took advantage then that simply isn't the same thing as him abusing her.

She didn't consent to it though, 13 year olds don't have the Right of Consent period and this man should have known that. Placing the blame on the girl is stupid since the man should have known better, it was his responsibility to rebuke her advances.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

Yes. Might sound harsh but why is their 13 year old daughter in a position to meet a much older man and go back to his house? And be sexually experienced by the age of 13? Either there's some serious lack of parenting going on, or they're not being strict enough with her.

Absolutely her parents need to be looked into but for a 41 year old man to bring a 13 year girl back to his house and have sex with her, then out of those two in that situation he is 100% in the wrong.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Livia

As far as I can see the judge didn't call the girl a "sexual predator", he said she was "predatory". He also said she looked older than she was and that she was "sexually experienced". So, where do her parents figure in all this? When I was 13 my parents knew where I was every single minute of the day.

You can't live in a society where young girls are sexualised at an early age and then expect them to not to be sexual. Some 13 year olds are extremely provocative and many are already sexually active. Now I am not for one minute saying that she deserved to be abused, not at all. But if you're expecting a 13 year old to be all ankle socks and Barbie dolls, go and stand outside a school disco when it's kicking out and have a look at the children dressed up like streetwalkers.

Good Post.........I agree as a Society we cannot complain too much when young teenage children become sexually active to the point of being "predatory" when they are bombarded by psuedo sexual imagery from all forms of advertising from a very early age. Coupled with the almost criminal ease with which hardcore pornography is assessable is it any wonder we have so many young teenagers with a casual attitude to sex with many different partners and in this case age groups.

However, having said all that the man in question has no right thinking he was a victim in this case. He invited this young schoolgirl into his home and probably encouraged her to perform on him. He was clearly in the wrong and as an earlier poster has said........sex with a minor is still classed as statutory rape and he should have received a jail sentence for his actions.

And to hear the girl classed as predatory by the Judge is unacceptable as the man was over 3 times her age and should have known better.

What sort of message does this case send out to other would be Peadophiles ??

[Z]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

She didn't consent to it though, 13 year olds don't have the Right of Consent period and this man should have known that. Placing the blame on the girl is stupid since the man should have known better, it was his responsibility to rebuke her advances.

But this man had paedophilic material in his possession. This is not a regular man, this is a man with an attraction to underage children. It was his responsibility, of course, and nobody is blaming the girl for his attraction to underagers - but if she encouraged him to have sex with her then that is a different set of circumstances to a more black and white scenario of a man forcibly having sex with an underage girl against her will. Okay, she didn't legally consent to it because she's not legally allowed to, but that doesn't mean she didn't say "yes I want you to do this" to him, which is what is being suggested by the barrister.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Absolutely her parents need to be looked into but for a 41 year old man to bring a 13 year girl back to his house and have sex with her, then out of those two in that situation he is 100% in the wrong.

How can he be 100% to blame if the girl willingly came back with him, stripped off and performed a sex act on him? That reads completely differently to "41 year old man takes 13 year old girl back to his house and has sex with her against her will." I don't understand why nobody else is seeing this distinction? Nobody is excusing the criminality of what the man did - the focus is purely on whether the girl was an unwilling victim or a willing participant: the quote from the barrister implies the latter.

[Tom4784]

It doesn't matter whether or not she was willing, a crime is a crime.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

But this man had paedophilic material in his possession. This is not a regular man, this is a man with an attraction to underage children. It was his responsibility, of course, and nobody is blaming the girl for his attraction to underagers - but if she encouraged him to have sex with her then that is a different set of circumstances to a more black and white scenario of a man forcibly having sex with an underage girl against her will. Okay, she didn't legally consent to it because she's not legally allowed to, but that doesn't mean she didn't say "yes I want you to do this" to him, which is what is being suggested by the barrister.



How can he be 100% to blame if the girl willingly came back with him, stripped off and performed a sex act on him? That reads completely differently to "41 year old man takes 13 year old girl back to his house and has sex with her against her will." I don't understand why nobody else is seeing this distinction? Nobody is excusing the criminality of what the man did - the focus is purely on whether the girl was an unwilling victim or a willing participant: the quote from the barrister implies the latter.

He is 100% to blame because having sex with a minor/or sexual acts with a minor is illegal............ So unless that child somehow managed to over power him, tie him down and perform sexual acts on him against his will then yes he is the one who is 100% in the wrong and to blame.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It doesn't matter whether or not she was willing, a crime is a crime.

Yeah but is a thief as bad as a murderer? Is a tax evader as bad as a rapist? There are levels of criminality and I believe this case falls under that category. This is not as clear cut as other cases concerning paedophilia and sex under the age of consent; if the barrister's comments are justifiable, that is.

13yr olds have sex, and it isn't always anything to do with parents or upbringing. 13yr oods wanting to have sex with 41yr olds, suggests that maybe some kind of incidents in her past may have occurred, but it's all amateur psychology until we know.

[Nedusa]

Fortunately the law is very clear on this, it doesn't matter if she gave 100% consent, the 41 year old man cannot engage in any form of sexual activity with this girl. If he does then he is commiting an act of statutory rape.....clear and simple. The young girl is under the age of sexual consent therefore cannot legally engage in any form of sexual activity with this man.

It matters not how predatory she is, he has the responsibility to protect her from herself if needs be. He should consider himself very lucky not to have gone to jail for his actions (or inactions).

[Z]

I think his sentence is ridiculously lenient regardless of the circumstances, but if, as I have been arguing could be the case, she was the one pursuing the encounter, then it should rightfully be more lenient than a standard sentence for statutory rape, in my opinion.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

I think his sentence is ridiculously lenient regardless of the circumstances, but if, as I have been arguing could be the case, she was the one pursuing the encounter, then it should rightfully be more lenient than a standard sentence for statutory rape, in my opinion.

Why should it? Statutory rape means the person (consenting or not) is below the age where her consent means anything. So whether or not she persued this should be irrelevant

[Z]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Why should it? Statutory rape means the person (consenting or not) is below the age where her consent means anything. So whether or not she persued this should be irrelevant

Because I think there's a difference between aggressively forcing a situation and consenting to an illegal situation - to others that might not be important and I respect that but to me, there is a difference and I can't ignore that.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Zee

She could be anywhere up to 18 years old if she was in a school uniform; the barrister said she looked and acted older - evidently this man is a paedophile owing to material he owned and he was probably well aware of the fact she wasn't of age; but you can't give him 100% responsibility over what happened if she willingly went back to his house. That's unrealistic.

..but he can't have verified her age because she was 13yrs old and if he was in anyway not sure of that, then he shouldn't have taken her back to his house, for me a 41yr old shouldn't be taking any 'unknown' girl in a school uniform back to his house no matter how old she looks to him or how 'grown up' she acts because she wasn't a grown up Zee, she was a child...if a child gets into the car of a stranger, apparently willingly..is that any of that child's fault..?...why is it not 100% his responsibility when she was a child..

Originally Posted by Zee

Yeah but is a thief as bad as a murderer? Is a tax evader as bad as a rapist? There are levels of criminality and I believe this case falls under that category. This is not as clear cut as other cases concerning paedophilia and sex under the age of consent; if the barrister's comments are justifiable, that is.

the analogies aren't really right though because they don't compare with each other like for like, which this does...she's no less violated or abused because she might not have struggled or said no, it was up to him to not allow it to happen...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

Because I think there's a difference between aggressively forcing a situation and consenting to an illegal situation - to others that might not be important and I respect that but to me, there is a difference and I can't ignore that.

But the whole reason that there is an age of consent is because 13 year olds are not legally allowed to make that decision for themselves, it's there to protect them from themselves as well as from adults who might take advantage of them.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

But the whole reason that there is an age of consent is because 13 year olds are not legally allowed to make that decision for themselves, it's there to protect them from themselves as well as from adults who might take advantage of them.

Yeah... I think Livia's point is a very good one... where is the criticism of her parents or guardians in all of this? A crime was committed and a young girl has either had her life ruined, or it was already in some form of disrepair because she was seeking out a sexual encounter with an older man.

[Livia]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the girl was able to consent, nor that the man wasn't 100% in the wrong. The outcry in the press as far as I can see seems to centre around the comments that the girl was sexually experienced and predatory. She is thirteen years old.

While the man is undoubtedly 100% to blame and in my opinion should have been jailed, the fact that there are 13 year old girls in this country who are both sexually active and sexually provocative, and that some people are not deeply concerned by that, is a damning indictment on the whole of our society.

[Kizzy]

''you cannot wave an uncorked bottle in front of an alcoholic and then be outraged when they take a drink''.

This is probably the single most disgusting thing I have ever read on this forum and makes a mockery women everywhere who protest against the premise that the way women dress and act in some way justifies the abuse they suffer...
What makes it all the more disgusting is that it was said in the defence of a man who assaulted a child and not a woman.
There is no grey area in law it is black and white there should be no 'extenuating circumstances' that excused this man from his actions, sex with a 13yr old is illegal consensual or not for a reason.

http://slutmeansspeakup.org.uk/

''The protest movement was sparked by a Canadian policeman who advised students to "avoid dressing like sluts" to avoid being victimised.

Since then, thousands of people worldwide have taken to the streets to highlight a culture in which they say the victim, rather than the abuser, is blamed''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13739876

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

Yeah... I think Livia's point is a very good one... where is the criticism of her parents or guardians in all of this? A crime was committed and a young girl has either had her life ruined, or it was already in some form of disrepair because she was seeking out a sexual encounter with an older man.

Oh yeah, I do agree that her parents need to be looked at and questioned for sure. But I'm talking just about the situation between the man and the child and as far as I'm concerned in that situation between those two, blame lays solely at his feet

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Livia

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the girl was able to consent, nor that the man wasn't 100% in the wrong. The outcry in the press as far as I can see seems to centre around the comments that the girl was sexually experienced and predatory. She is thirteen years old.

While the man is undoubtedly 100% to blame and in my opinion should have been jailed, the fact that there are 13 year old girls in this country who are both sexually active and sexually provocative, and that some people are not deeply concerned by that, is a damning indictment on the whole of our society.

..yeah, I totally agree, I feel that she was let down badly before she was in that man's house and then sadly let down further by the courts...

[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

wow, that's pretty shocking and it happened in England too, I was really surprised by that, I was expecting it to be a country that's more behind the times when it comes to womens rights. That judge needs sacking

And a Lady Judge to take his place