[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

[Marc]

Originally Posted by 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

I think this is a ridiculously exaggerated response and pretty rude

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marc

I think this is a ridiculously exaggerated response and pretty rude

It is my opinion marc...
This is not the subject to be throwing around your glib responses either.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It is my opinion marc...
This is not the subject to be throwing around you glib responses either.

Excuse me?

And how exactly would you describe your response to Livia then?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marc

Excuse me?

And how exactly would you describe your response to Livia then?

I'm not being drawn out on this, if you didn't like my tone that is your issue but I expressed how I felt and my response reflects that.

[DanaC]

Thanks

Meant to pick up on this earlier, but got distracted by the posts that followed:

Originally Posted by 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

Excellent post. Totally agree. And thanks for the links!


I think this was a really interesting debate. Definite food for thought.

[AnnieK]

The fault does lie entirely at the feet of the man, in my opinion. The girl did not commit an illegal act, he did. Unfortunately, this only highlights what a lot of women who bring these kind of cases to court are faced with. I attended court with a family member who had been raped (date rape) and she was faced with similar comments from the prosecutor and witnesses about her sexual history and her life was effectively ruined by bringing this case to court (in her mind) and now has no faith in the justice system and would never advise anyone to make a complaint as the mistakes made and slurs implied were devastating, not taking into account the state she was in on the night of the assault, the physical evidence, bruising, bleeding etc all the prosecution were interested in was that she was a single girl with a past...anyway, my point in this is that this happens regularly in cases such as these where the victim bears (wrongly) the blame for the assaults and in my opinion the justice system needs reviewing on this. This is only in the press as this victim is an underage girl but it is a pitfall that faces a lot of women when they are brave enough to face their abuser and speak out in a court.

[Z]

Incredible.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Zee

Incredible.

Judge Nigel Peters has been criticised after
describing a sex abuse victim as 'predatory'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2bHumM1KE

[CaudleHalbard]

I wouldn't wish to comment on this case because we, the public, only ever get told a fraction of the story.

I would merely observe that in a country like, for example, Spain this case would never even have come to court. Why? Because the age of consent is 13 in Spain. Funny old world isn't it?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

I wouldn't wish to comment on this case because we, the public, only ever get told a fraction of the story.

I would merely observe that in a country like, for example, Spain this case would never even have come to court. Why? Because the age of consent is 13 in Spain. Funny old world isn't it?

http://now.msn.com/spain-raises-age-...t-marriage-age

[Z]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

http://now.msn.com/spain-raises-age-...t-marriage-age

Well what do you know! Good on Spain for finally changing it!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

Well what do you know! Good on Spain for finally changing it!

Yeah, jeez about time too

[CaudleHalbard]

Spain is only 'consulting' on the age of consent. It is still 13.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

Spain is only 'consulting' on the age of consent. It is still 13.

I know that, I never said otherwise, but they obviously feel it's not right if they're planning on raising it

[Z]

Marriage at 14 especially is completely obscene, I don't know if it's frowned upon in Spain but what kind of family would be comfortable with their 14 year old getting married?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

Marriage at 14 especially is completely obscene, I don't know if it's frowned upon in Spain but what kind of family would be comfortable with their 14 year old getting married?

I know, it's probably one of those really old laws that they were too lazy to get around to changing

[Kizzy]

All laws within the EU can be considered 'arbitrary' then by that fuzzy logic.
The fact remains that 16 is the law in this country and as such a crime was committed.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

All laws within the EU can be considered 'arbitrary' then by that fuzzy logic.
The fact remains that 16 is the law in this country and as such a crime was committed.

I agree, talking about Spain and their laws is a different arguement for a different day. Trying to broaden this debate by bringing up other countries laws doesn't change the facts in this case. He bears total responsibility for what happened regardless of the girls actions. He committed a criminal offence knowingly and should be punished accordingly.

Using the girls so called willingness to engage in the act as mitigation is indefensible and should not have been allowed in open court as it is irrelevant to his actions. He should have been given a prison sentence in accordance with normal sentencing guidelines for offences such as these........!!!

[Ammi]

A barrister who described a 13-year-old victim of sex abuse as "predatory" in court has been suspended from sexual offence cases pending a review.

Robert Colover has been criticised for his remarks, in which he also described the girl as "sexually experienced".

The Crown Prosecution Service said he would not be instructed in sex cases while it considered his situation.

Neil Wilson, 41, admitted abusing the girl at his home in Romford, London, and was given a suspended jail term.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) described Mr Colover's language as "inappropriate".

The CPS said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would carry out a review and decide what action to take.

A CPS spokesman said: "We are now considering the involvement of this barrister in sexual offence prosecutions and have advised his chambers that we will not instruct him in any ongoing or future cases involving sexual offences in the meantime."

The CPS added: "The word predatory in this context should not have been used and is of real concern to the CPS.

"It is not consistent with the work that we have undertaken alongside the judiciary and others in the past year to improve attitudes towards victims of abuse.

"We expect all of our prosecutors, including self-employed barristers who act on our behalf, to follow our guidance in these very difficult cases."

The Metropolitan Police said the word "predatory" did not did not appear in any police material concerning the victim.

A Met spokesman said: "The Metropolitan Police Service is aware of reports in the media surrounding terminology used by the prosecution barrister in the case of Neil Wilson.

"This is not terminology the Met Police Service would use to describe a victim in such a case, and was not used by the officer who provided testimony in this case."

Prime Minister David Cameron said he supported the position of the CPS.

He said: "I think the CPS are absolutely right to say that what one of their lawyers said was not appropriate. It isn't appropriate. We need a criminal justice system that stands up properly for victims.

"The victims should always be at the centre of our thinking and I'm pleased the CPS have made that statement and I'm also pleased that the attorney general has said that he is personally going to look into this case."


Labour has written to the Bar Standards Board to ask it to investigate whether Mr Colover had breached its code of conduct.

Shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry said: "It is appalling that, after the scandals of Jimmy Savile and Rochdale, these awful Lolita prejudices are still being served up in court, and by the prosecution of all people."

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said a prosecutor must draw to a court's attention any matter that assists the defendant - and it is not at all unusual.

But, our correspondent added, the prosecutor needed to scrutinise the potentially mitigating material carefully and the language in which it is expressed.

The police were alerted to the actions of Wilson, who now lives in York, after his victim told a friend. Images of child sex abuse were also found on Wilson's computer.

Wilson later admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.

Mr Colover, who was employed by the CPS at Wilson's sentencing hearing at London's Snaresbrook Crown Court on Monday, said: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced."

The judge, Nigel Peters, said that when deciding Wilson's punishment he had taken into account the prosecution's comments that the girl looked and behaved older than she was.

Wilson's eight-month jail term was suspended for two years. The Attorney General's Office said the sentence had been drawn to its attention as "possibly unduly lenient".

Details of the case came as the head of the judiciary in England and Wales said a select pool of judges with specialist training would be created to handle complex child abuse cases, amid concerns at the way some child witnesses were treated in court by lawyers.

Javed Khan, chief executive of independent charity Victim Support, said: "Victims of sexual abuse should be praised for their bravery in coming forward not censured and have their credibility called into question, least of all by the prosecution."

However, Carl Gardner, a former government legal adviser, warned that most people commenting on the case did not know the full facts.

Paul Mendelle, a criminal barrister and former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said the behaviour of the victim is not usually a mitigating factor.

An online petition on Change.org calling for the CPS to investigate the language used by Mr Colover has been signed by 30,000 people

[Ninastar]

i think greg and livia put my thoughts across very well. i think both the parents and the man are to blame.

[Z]

The third last and second last sentences of that article Ammi posted just above say it all for me really; that the barrister's words were in context and I assume he would not use those words lightly.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Zee

The third last and second last sentences of that article Ammi posted just above say it all for me really; that the barrister's words were in context and I assume he would not use those words lightly.

I'm shocked everyone got so bent out of shape because he referred to a sexually experienced 13 year old as predatory, instead of getting angry that a 13 year old actually is sexually experienced and predatory.

I think he should have added that her parents are inadequate and irresponsible.

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm shocked everyone got so bent out of shape because he referred to a sexually experienced 13 year old as predatory, instead of getting angry that a 13 year old actually is sexually experienced and predatory.

I think he should have added that her parents are inadequate and irresponsible.

Agree with this 100%.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm shocked everyone got so bent out of shape because he referred to a sexually experienced 13 year old as predatory, instead of getting angry that a 13 year old actually is sexually experienced and predatory.

I think he should have added that her parents are inadequate and irresponsible.

Yeah definitely agree with all of that. You can argue that parents can't control who their kids want to be - but at the age of 13 you can still keep them in the house and not let them do whatever they want in their free time.