Thursday, 12 January 2012

No, Really! What The Hell’s Going On In Oxford?

A mother has told of her anger after the teenager who sexually abused her young daughter was handed an eight-day community work order for his crimes.
Her daughter was eight. Eight

And just how had the two met?
Last night the mother of the eight-year-old victim – a foster carer who had taken the boy into her home – was joined by campaigners in condemning the sentence.

Oh, and it appears he likes them even younger:
The teenager was convicted of one charge of engaging in sexual activity with a girl under 13, two charges of inciting a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity, and two counts of assault on a girl under 13.
The charges also involved another victim, aged five.
We aren’t told who that was, but we can assume it’s from a completely different family as this mother makes mention only of her daughter.
The Ministry of Justice said the supervision order could include therapy work with a specialist.
‘Could’, you’ll note. Not ‘Damn well will get therapy until he hollers ‘Uncle’…’
Ministry of Justice spokesman Georgina Mear said: “Individual sentencing decisions are matters for the independent judiciary, based on the circumstances of each case and how best to address the causes of offending behaviour.

Youth Rehabilitation Orders require young offenders to work closely with a team of specialists to address offending behaviour, and to be referred to specialist treatment services where appropriate.”
Yes, thanks for that regurgitation of your mission statement, love, but we already know just what value it is.

And what I want to know is….was this a state-sponsored fostering, or a private arrangement? If the former, then maybe someone’s got some questions to answer.


WitteringsfromWitney said...

Unfortunately, it is not just Oxford, is it Julia?

Standards of sentencing appear to be a complete and utter joke!

Captain Haddock said...

I know what kind of "therapy" I'd be inclined to give him, if it were my daughter ..

He'd be singing soprano ..

Tattyfalarr said...

By the age of 14 this boy will have been taught in State Schools all he needs to technically know about sex but nothing about moral responsibility or legal obligations.

The State creates ticking bombs, utterly fails to deal with the consequences and parents are left to attempt intervention yet stay the right side of the law.

I always thought it'd be the other way round. That if a parent failed in their legal and moral responsibility to raise their child that The State would intervene.

Silly me.

SadButMadLad said...

Where was the CRB system to protect the victims in this case? The all knowing CRB system that doesn't allow any child to come to harm.

Tattyfalarr said...

SadButMadLad...there are a number of State organisations in place, including the CRB, to attempt to protect children from adults but none specifically designed to even try to protect them from each other. (As far as I know, anyway).

As I've said's a case of "wind em up and watch em go".

Surely *that* is "child abuse".

Anonymous said...

The 'authorities' will have been aware of his history, and probably his predilection for little girls. The question is, was the foster carer, the mother informed. If not I would have Social worker blood on my hands in her situation.

As for the sentence, I no longer have any disgust left for the idiots in charge.

I agree with Captain Haddock about what the result would be if it had been my daughter. Failing that, he should be locked up permanently. Before the bleating from the liberals begins, the reason I believe so is because there is not one bit of evidence that pedophiles can be, let alone ever are, reformed. If it, as the evidence suggests, is impossible, then why bother? And stop and think of all the children who face abuse because you believe scum like this have any rights in society.

I disagree vehemently with Tattyfalarr on one point, that of insinuating that this partly a result of state education. I'm no fan of the laughable 'education' system in this country, but what about all those boys who are faced with the same 'education' and then don't go on to be criminals and perverts? This argument is the same as that for allowing those 'poor' rioters off because they lived in self-made squalor (moral if not physical). What about all those poor who abide by the law?

It is not experience or situation that makes a pervert or criminal, it is their choice, as such I believe the severest sentence possible should be given. (I'll volunteer to pull the trigger, if that gives a better view of my perspective)

Frankie said...

Another contributor once quipped that such a person as this needed professional help... The services of a professional hangman!

Tattyfalarr said...

Able...I disagree vehemently with Tattyfalarr on one point, that of insinuating that this partly a result of state education.
I don't insinuate I (think) I state clearly exactly what I mean and if you don't understand please feel free to ask. I will always clarify any genuine confusion.
In my opinion State Education certainly DID play a part in encouraging this boy's sexual feeling BUT his actions are a direct result of his own inability or refusal to control his urges.
No doubt, in part, because of a lack of consequences.
Comparing what I said to what has been in excuse of rioters is just silly so I'll overlook that.

JuliaM said...

"Unfortunately, it is not just Oxford, is it Julia?"

Would that it were! We could build a big wall around the place... ;)

"...but nothing about moral responsibility or legal obligations."

To be fair, if he doesn't learn that AT HOME, there's not a hell of a lot more the school can do...

"The 'authorities' will have been aware of his history, and probably his predilection for little girls. The question is, was the foster carer, the mother informed. "

I guess it depends on whether or not a state agency was involved, or whether this was some 'private', off-the-books arrangement.

NickM said...

I'll do the therapy for free. I already have two spoons and a rusty farming implement.

Tattyfalarr said...

To be fair, if he doesn't learn that AT HOME, there's not a hell of a lot more the school can do...

True and to be even fairer...and I mean to all concerned with regard to sex education...schools shouldn't really be tasked with just half the job in the first place and even then only the bits they choose. Shambolic doesn't even begin to describe the current set-up.

Anonymous said...


Apologies. My point, was perhaps not clearly stated. It was that the 'usual supects' will use just such an excuse for his behaviour. The fact remains that circumstances, education, family life, experience whilst playing a part in who a person becomes never, never excuses behaviour which they, and everyone else, know is wrong.

For every person who commits a crime supposedly because of their experience, you will find thousands of good law-abiding people with similar or worse experiences.

So to clarify, you 'stated' that exposure to state education "creates ticking bombs", thus 'suggesting' that all boys thus exposed are capable of, and will at some point, commit such crimes. That is fallacious, and I guess from reading other of your posts which I generally agree with, was not your intent.

This 'implies' the exact argument used by the extreme left - that all men are potential/probable violent/rapists/pedophiles. From you this becomes all state educated boys are potential pedophiles.

And yes whilst the rioters excuse was 'it's not my fault, it's being poor/non-white/societies failings', here it becomes 'it's not his fault he was educated in state schools'. I doubt that was what you meant.

Oh and whilst I appreciate the sarcasm "if you don't understand please feel free to ask. I will always clarify any genuine confusion" ;-)

Tattyfalarr said... apology necessary really and I wasn't being sarcastic, I meant that in a friendly kinda way :) <---look... smiley face.

Anyhoo...I didn't mean to "imply" anything. I'm in total agreement with you that reasons are used as excuses and they never should be.

The way I see it is that since certain sexual predilictions are against the law... and failure to control the urge (for whatever reason) will result in an offence being committed...and since the authorities don't deal with it in any meaningful kinda way...then for christs sake let's not encourage them either.

Education is currently considered to be the key to resolving "children's" sexual issues but IMHO it's failing miserably in so many ways. This is just one of them.

That's all I meant... :)

Anonymous said...


Agreed and thanks

Hey, I have to use those silly smiles both because nobody can tell the difference between me serious and not, apparently whilst verbosity is a skill I was born with, clarity is quite beyond me at times, and interpretation seems to be waning as I get older.

Oh and I'm grateful for every opportunity to discus things with those with an informed opinion. Feel free to use sarcasm too. I am well known locally for my keen sense of humour, in fact not a day goes by without a colleague or a friend telling me I am full of wit (at least I think it was wit they said, hmm, yes definitely)