13 year old girl described as 'predatory' in court...

[Helmet Cole]

A guy I know fosters teenagers. One 13-year old asked him if he'd like her to wank him off.

Was he right to refuse? Or should he just have said "Ah fuck it, this girl's sexually active, let's have some of that"?

Make your own minds up.

As I understand it (and I'm happy to be wrong about this) the bloke was out on the piss, she was dolled up and looked about 20. Also according to the defence lawyer she is a bit of a slag anyway and certainly knows her way round the inside of a blokes pants, which further added to the illusion that she was of legal age?

 

[stonerblue]

Whether the girl was a 'sexual predator' or not she is still a 13 year old girl.
Whilst I understand that some youngsters are more sexually experienced these days that doesn't make it right and nor, in my opinion anyway, make it acceptable for it to be used as a defence or a mitigating factor for a man of 41 years of age to have sex with her.
The barrister concerned should be effin ashamed.

Thankfully he's getting shit off his own profession for his comments, and has been suspended from any further 'child sex' cases.

I can't believe posters in this thread who not that long ago were calling for convicted paedo's to be hung drawn and quartered yet try and defend this bloke.

 

[Bigga]

Maybe I will be glad when all forms of porn are removed from the net and society and I see no more pairs of bare breasts in my newspaper because I think we may have gone more than beyond the lowest level when we start queuing up to defend child molesters.

I see women sexualised all the time, it's normal now and we are seen as objects for men to ogle and we are never good enough for you if we haven't had our breasts enlarged to an abnormally overstuffed size. Every stretchmark, follicle of hair or blemish removed and even then we aren't good enough for you. We're too sexy, not sexy enough, too thin too fat. Is it any fooking wonder our little girls are so confused ? Too bent out trying to please men and a society where all you have to do is be perfect.

Men want sexy but then it's your fault for trying to be to too sexy and you asked for it. So I'd like all this stopped now so we can get back to a decent moral society when we know what wrong is. I'll happily take some responsibility for having a dress too short if you like, I'm a big girl i can take it but I won't ever ever accept a child being told she deserved it because she acted to sexy or older than she was.

Wobble your heads please !

That is such a sweeping statement about men. As if somehow women overlook sexy. And never coo over muscle men and have expectations. Face it. we all sexualise each other.
Our girls are confused by the womens magazines telling them they are fine the way they are until you turn the page and they are told how they can lose weight, change themselves, look like Rihanna or Amy Childs.

But I do agree that the 41 yo has the ultimate responsibility. She more than likely was willing in some way but I can't understand a 41 yo thinking that makes it ok unless they have some mental illness which stops them thinking straight.

It's no less a sweeping statement than all 13 year old are tarts and whores. The industry and society are sick and a lot needs to be done to restore the innocence of youth and respectable values IMO

I'm interested in this statement, really. Very vague statement that doesn't blame anyone outright OR name any 'industry' in particular...

 

[I'm With Stupid]

As I understand it (and I'm happy to be wrong about this) the bloke was out on the piss, she was dolled up and looked about 20. Also according to the defence lawyer she is a bit of a slag anyway and certainly knows her way round the inside of a blokes pants, which further added to the illusion that she was of legal age?

As I understand it, that's bollocks.

During the trial, Judge Peters had been told by Mr Colover: “The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced.

“She appeared to look around 14 or 15 and had the mental age of a 14 or 15-year-old despite being younger than that.

Oh, she appeared 14 or 15. That makes it alright then. Oh, hang on a second, a 41 year old fucking a 14 or 15 year old is still illegal. It's like getting caught fucking an 8 year old and saying "Sorry, I thought she was 10."

“There was sexual activity but it was not of Mr Wilson's doing. You might say it was forced upon him despite being older and stronger than her.”

Wilson had watched the girl strip out of her school uniform before she performed a sex act on him.

I wonder what made her look "about 20." Must've been the school uniform.

 

[Plaything of the gods]

Oh, she appeared 14 or 15. That makes it alright then. Oh, hang on a second, a 41 year old fucking a 14 or 15 year old is still illegal. It's like getting caught fucking an 8 year old and saying "Sorry, I thought she was 10."

That is not a good analogy as an 8 or 10 year old would not be sexually mature, by which I mean pubes, hips, etc.

The Law says - and quite arbitrarily - "15 years and 364 days illegal, 16 years anyone in town can have a go."

Nature says "old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher", as my old work colleagues used to say. Just consider the rabbits, chimps, any other animal you care to name.

Apart from age (a definite) and sexual maturity (a fuzzy definition), there is also emotional maturity, or ability to give consent (an even fuzzier definition).

The whole area is a minefield, but one thing I do know. A sixteen year old boy going on the sex offenders register because he has been screwing his fifteen year old girlfriend shows that the Law truly is an Ass.

 

[Helmet Cole]

As I understand it (and I'm happy to be wrong about this) the bloke was out on the piss, she was dolled up and looked about 20. Also according to the defence lawyer she is a bit of a slag anyway and certainly knows her way round the inside of a blokes pants, which further added to the illusion that she was of legal age?

As I understand it, that's bollocks.

During the trial, Judge Peters had been told by Mr Colover: “The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced.

“She appeared to look around 14 or 15 and had the mental age of a 14 or 15-year-old despite being younger than that.

Oh, she appeared 14 or 15. That makes it alright then. Oh, hang on a second, a 41 year old fucking a 14 or 15 year old is still illegal. It's like getting caught fucking an 8 year old and saying "Sorry, I thought she was 10."

“There was sexual activity but it was not of Mr Wilson's doing. You might say it was forced upon him despite being older and stronger than her.”

Wilson had watched the girl strip out of her school uniform before she performed a sex act on him.

I wonder what made her look "about 20." Must've been the school uniform.

Fair enough - I should have read the rest of the thread, or even the news first! Count me in with the baying lynch mob then.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Oh, she appeared 14 or 15. That makes it alright then. Oh, hang on a second, a 41 year old fucking a 14 or 15 year old is still illegal. It's like getting caught fucking an 8 year old and saying "Sorry, I thought she was 10."

That is not a good analogy as an 8 or 10 year old would not be sexually mature, by which I mean pubes, hips, etc.

The Law says - and quite arbitrarily - "15 years and 364 days illegal, 16 years anyone in town can have a go."

Yeah, but as a legal defence, it's piss poor. You're basically defending yourself by claiming that you thought you were doing something that was against the law anyway. At least pretend you thought she was 16 ffs.

 

[jma]

I see there's the usual rush to make judgements on this case here, based upon very little real knowledge of it.

But what concerns me more are those who seem to suggests, because they have witnessed or heard about some sexualised or sexually active chilldren of a young age, that this is 'most XX year olds are like these days'.

Not only is it not true (although I don't doubt their stories about the specific children that they have witnessed) but, for me, it betrays a pretty unhealthy perspective (and I don't mean that in a 'lock him up' type way, before it's misinterpreted).

 

[Plaything of the gods]

Oh, she appeared 14 or 15. That makes it alright then. Oh, hang on a second, a 41 year old fucking a 14 or 15 year old is still illegal. It's like getting caught fucking an 8 year old and saying "Sorry, I thought she was 10."

That is not a good analogy as an 8 or 10 year old would not be sexually mature, by which I mean pubes, hips, etc.

The Law says - and quite arbitrarily - "15 years and 364 days illegal, 16 years anyone in town can have a go."

Yeah, but as a legal defence, it's piss poor. You're basically defending yourself by claiming that you thought you were doing something that was against the law anyway. At least pretend you thought she was 16 ffs.

I wasn't doing anything. Honest guv.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I see there's the usual rush to make judgements on this case here, based upon very little real knowledge of it.

But what concerns me more are those who seem to suggests, because they have witnessed or heard about some sexualised or sexually active chilldren of a young age, that this is 'most XX year olds are like these days'.

Not only is it not true (although I don't doubt their stories about the specific children that they have witnessed) but, for me, it betrays a pretty unhealthy perspective (and I don't mean that in a 'lock him up' type way, before it's misinterpreted).

I agree.
And, as stonerblue perceptively alluded to, these folk are invariably the first to start a self-appointed, self-righteous lynch mob whenever suspected paedophiles are arrested.
Go figure.