A girl - who had just turned 13 years old - met a man for sex sessions on Folkestone beach, a court heard.First time I’ve seen an exclamation mark in the MSM in a story of this nature…
The schoolgirl had already engaged in "highly-charged" sex talk on the social network Internet site Facebook with the 19 year old.
And when she was later interviewed by police, the teenager admitted she hadn't been a virgin at the time!
But Nicholas Culpan knew the girl's age when they agreed to meet near the harbour, Canterbury Crown Court was told.And what was she given, since she’s every bit as culpable?
Culpan, of Canterbury Road, Folkestone admitted two charges of engaging in sex with an underage girl and was given a suspended jail sentence.
David Osborne, defending, said that at the time Culpan had been suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after being the victim in an accidental shooting.And what about her, since she’s every bit as culpable?
"He is not a bright young man and has limited maturity and ability."
Culpan was given a 12-month jail sentence suspended for two years and ordered to attend a sex offences programme for 104 hours.And does she go on it too, since she’s every bit as culpable?
He will also be on the Sex Offenders' Register for 10 years.
*crickets*
24 comments:
"And what about her, since she’s every bit as culpable ? " ..
Culpable ? ..
She's downright bloody dangerous & should be publicly identified as such !!!
At 13 she is still a child(of only mentally...), even if she pretends to be adult, period.
The perp who should be punished here is her legal guardian(parent, social worker etc), for abandoning the child to let her run wild in this life-destroying way.
Culpable?
What law did she break ?
since she’s every bit as culpable?
She's not.
Since 1983 as a result of the Gillick ruling, and enshrined in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, the concept of consent being available was re-introduced for those between 13-16. That is, they can give consent but it cannot be relied on in court as a complete defence. It may, however, reduce the charge depending on the relative ages of the partners.
Where both are 13-16 the Crown has to think very carefully indeed about bringing a prosecution. The logical puzzle which the act created is that two 15 year olds snogging behind the bike shed may both be committing a sexual offence, but that is because they cannot each rely on the other's consent even when that consent is present.
So: you can consent if you are 13-16 and there is no offence in doing so. However, the other person may commit an offence by relying on that consent. The context determines what the charge is; it is possible for very young children to commit sexual offences.
Miss Levett said that when she was questioned the girl "confirmed that although she was only a week past her 13th birthday she was not a virgin at the time".
Because the report is choppy it isn't clear what the prosecutor hoped to gain by bringing up the child's sexual history. There is no question that any sex she had before the age of 13 is an absolute offence and probably accounts for her willingness to be targetted by a predatory paedophile.
I wish there was another term than "age of consent". It gives the impression that someone may have to be a certain age to give consent whereas in fact it is about the age you have to be in order for someone else to rely on that consent.
Can't see what there is in a young female except trouble for a male. Best not even thought about.
I just wonder how the police became involved. Was it them trawling Facebook, a random passerby, or did one of the 'consenting' pair changed their mind later? (wouldn't that be unusual?)
I agree if, as it is stated, the man knew the girl was 13 and still had sex with her he is guilty of a crime and should face punishment.
The problem I see is that if you go into almost any pub or club in the UK and see some young girls 'dressed up to the nines' with make-up and the works, you can almost guarantee that a proportion of them are underage.
These girls do not appear any younger to me than those of a legal +/- 3 or 4 years. Just how do you tell? I foresee the same as has reputedly happened in the US, boys asking for ID and a written consent before a date etc. (the girls apparently have financial, educational, health and criminal records check on any boys they consider a 'possibility'?!?)
Me, I'm just glad to be old enough that women my age (the only ones I have any interest in, dear God would you like to socialise with people your kids age? the inane chatter would drive me mad(der) ) are easily recognisable as such (zimmer frames and blue-rinses) so all I have to worry about is their changing their minds after the fact and making an accusation (hey, I'm Ok there too, all they can accuse me of is beating them at scrabble - I'd be a sex pest, but I just don't have the energy anymore :-( )
"She's downright bloody dangerous & should be publicly identified as such !!!"
I suspect she's actually quite notorious!
"The perp who should be punished here is her legal guardian(parent, social worker etc), for abandoning the child..."
If she's in care, there's no chance of that. Perish the thought!
"Since 1983 as a result of the Gillick ruling.."
Something else to 'thank' the Tories for...?
"Because the report is choppy it isn't clear what the prosecutor hoped to gain by bringing up the child's sexual history."
Perhaps they too felt that the man wasn't entirely to blame (morally, if not criminally) here?
"Best not even thought about."
It's denying nature to expect men not to, isn't it?
"I just wonder how the police became involved."
Me too....
" I'd be a sex pest, but I just don't have the energy anymore :-( )"
:D
Woman on a raft-
"for her willingness to be targetted by a predatory paedophile."
I'm sorry, I can't seem to find a "predatory paedophile" in this story, can you point out who it is?
Predatory paedophile is exactly the term which should be applied to one who targets and grooms for sexual purposes someone they know to be a minor.
Indeed, at the point he was told her age and still continued he became the legal definition of a 'predatory paedophile'.
But...it didn't take any grooming really, did it?
Something else to 'thank' the Tories for...?
Not really, although they did nothing to try to resolve it. Rather, it was affirmed in the context of the Children Act 1989.
It's more a logical consequence of socialized medicine and the post-war subordination of the family to the state.
Gillick took a gamble that she could enforce a particular value through the courts rather than the longer process of legislation. What she wanted was very modest: to seek a ruling that a doctor would not prescribe contraceptives without telling the parent.
Gillick didn't even challenge the right of the doctor to act in the best interests of the patient; she just wanted to know about it, on what she thought was the long-estblished convention that parents are responsible for their children. She lost in court, and it rippled through the health, education and legal systems.
The argument was put forward - and adopted - that confidentiality and the best interest of the patient over-ride all, as the doctor cannot be in a position to know if the parents will react badly.
It's a good argument, but it inevitably means that parents lose much of the ability to regulate the sexual behavior of teenage girls for whom they are responsible. (Specifically girls because of the consequences of pregnancy).
Confidentiality is not absolute; the doctor is not obliged to keep quiet but in practice it depends very much on the situation and where their obligation towards child protection begins.
The matter eventually reduces to this: if you accept the primacy of parents' right to regulate the sexual behaviour of minors then you have to accept that some children will be badly served by their families. It is probably also necessary to believe this is the exception and that society is generally better served by letting parents do this job.
Alternatively if you believe that the exceptional cases are so important that it warrants the removal of this authority from parents and tranferring it to the state, then you will have to accept that this may mean a weakening of parental authority across the society.
At the moment we seem to have schizophrenically decided to imprison single mums for failing to get 14 year old Spudulika in to school for double maths whilst simultaneously sending a message to Spudulika that she can have an abortion or a free council flat and there's not a damn thing her mum can do about it because she won't know until its too late.
A paedophile is a person with a sexual fetish for pre-pubescent children. It is not somebody who circumstancially has sex with a person under the legal age. A "predatory" paedophile would presumably be somebody who actively seeks out children for sexual purposes and rapes them.
It is also worth mentioning that the term "grooming" is part of the jargon of the Satanic Ritual Abuse myth, transported into its less unhinged descendent, the paedophile hysteria.
The age of consent was an invention of Victorian Era campaigners designed specifically to prevent young women entering into prostitution. Hence, the distinct term of a "minor" from a "child".
In sexual terms, what is the difference between a child and an adult? Firstly, physical capability and secondly a sexual impulse. A 7 year old has no sexual drive. That part of their brain has not switched on yet. Neither is their body physically suitable for sex. Hence, we reasonably see sex with a child as a crime against nature. A 13 year old girl who is past puberty and has a sexual urge is biologically an adult, whose urge happens to be illegal. Sodomy between consenting adults was illegal until a few years ago. The law is not reality. It is often rather arbitrary.
As it goes, I'm just reading a scholarly book called War In Human Civilisation. It starts by describing the "state of nature"; the small tribes we all lived in until civilisation kicked off. Like chimps, in general males stayed with their tribe whereas females were, shortly after puberty, traded to another tribe for marriage. Since such tribes maintained an artifical sex ratio in preference for males- because they are needed for war and defence- the marriage age was generally around 13 for girls, and 20s or even 30s for men.
The standard human age of puberty is around 12 for girls and 14 for boys. There is no rational scientific reason to thus believe that it is abnormal for 13 year old girls to choose to have sex. Evolution isn't stupid. The age of consent in our society at 16 is higher than in any other society in history and higher than in many other countries. The age of 18 preferred by the Americans is even more divorced from reality. There is no rational reason to believe therefore that a particular male who has sex with a girl of 13 has any mental abnormality at all. He has broken the law, but only in the same sense that gays broke the law 50 years ago. As with many Progressive Laws- the gay laws, the drug laws, obscenity laws- you get a lottery effect in which some people get caught and most people get away with it. The "paedophile" has simply replaced the "homosexual" as the icon of the Most Depraved Male.
There are a small number of persons whose sexuality has gone wrong to the extent that they desire children. Of those, some or many will aggress against children. We must do what we can to protect children from them. But cases such as this pathologise normal human behaviours, in the way that the gay laws did. No doubt, at some point in the future we will realise the mistake, and regret it, and say, "never again". And then we will find some other group to pathologise, and do it all again to them.
it didn't take any grooming really, did it?
There's no mystery here; sex offenders have to find ways of transfering supervision to themselves or find children who are less well-supervised.
For the first they will have to work at getting into a position of trust and that usually requires some professional standing.
Alternatively, they can try to find the dopier mothers who are desperate for attention (Nabokov depicted this in Lolita) or the least-well supervised girls in care (Rochdale).
Even where offenders use the professional context for abuse they aren't stupid; they will select the more vulnerable children as these are much easier to discredit if an accusation is made, plus the victim is much more likely to put up with abuse because they want the approval and opportunities the coach/supervisor has access to.
Woman. On. A. Raft.
You're talking crazy talk. This is a nineteen year old lad who had sex with a younger teenager. There is no hint of "predation" or coercion, no hint that he was some kind of "sex offender" who maneuvered himself in some evil manner. Just a lad and lass who did what comes naturally.
And she was 13, sexually experience already, like sex and wanted to do it again.
That is all there is to it.
The schoolgirl had already engaged in "highly-charged" sex talk on the social network Internet site Facebook with the 19 year old.
Let's re-write that in the correct format: "Culpan has already engaged the schoolgirl in highly-charged sex talk" OK, maybe that could happen if he was under the mistaken impression she was an adult. But:
Nicholas Culpan knew the girl's age when they agreed to meet near the harbour.
He knew he was persuading a child to meet him with a view to sex, having identified the desperate girl who would do this in order to win his approval. And after only two days. Result.
Culpan admitted two charges of engaging in sex with an underage girl.
He didn't sing a quick chorus of "Young Girl" or tell her he'd wait for her. Luckily for Culpan, he was able to play the consent card beautifully as he secured someone who a week earlier would have been unable to give consent in any legal terms. That would have put him in a world of legal trouble including rape and possible abduction.
sexually experience already, like sex and wanted to do it again.
Irrelevant to the case. Interesting that you should focus on it, though, as if being a victim of abuse somehow justifies the next abuser.
Woman On A Raft,
you seem to be suffering from some kind of inability to connect with the reality of what happened. The girl was not abused. She had sex, because she wanted to. This is not abuse, is it?
Frankly, your comments here are typical of Feminism. Women have no agency. Men are responsible for everything. If a woman does do something you disapprove of, an evil man must have forced her or tricked her. Women don't enjoy sex, only men do. Any sex that is in violation of your puritan moral code is "abuse".
You are fighting with nature. You are going to lose. Like all Progressives, you will do immense damage in the losing. It's a bit like Hitler versus the Russian Winter.
Why can't you just stand back for one second and ask yourself whether the things you believe make any sense? The girl was simply a normal girl indulging her natural sex drive. Like most girls, she sought partners who are a few years older (teenage girls see their age peers as callow and juvenile). For heaven's sake, it's not that hard to understand.
Frankly, your comments here are typical of Feminism.
Waiting for the Godwin infraction
It's a bit like Hitler versus the Russian Winter.
Bingo - with extra points for managaging to work in the Russian winter instead of the Holocaust.
Like most girls, she sought partners who are a few years older
I expect she did. That's why it is unlawful for adults to fuck children, even if they are invited by the foolish girls/boys.
He's 19. He has full agency, along with the vote, and it is indeed his responsibility to make sure he's got reliable consent before having sex with anyone. It's his dick, he's in charge of it, not her and not anybody else.
Her agency was fully reflected in the charge which was of unlawful sex with an underage girl. It looks like they used s.9 of the SOA but the court reports seem to use wording in the Sexual Offences 1956 Act, which was replaced by the 2003 Act. It might just be poor court reporting not using the precise words.
Please refer to s.9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
I have stepped back and considered. I'm quoting Rodney Atkins which best demonstrates that this is not a feminist issue and why you are wasting your time.
http://youtu.be/aBXBTMU1JRs
Cleaning My Gun
Try that link again:
Cleaning My Gun
Is that the best you can do? A link to some american pop video. No, I didn't watch it.
It's interesting that you just can't engage with the issue. You declare that the evil male has agency, but the female does not. Where is your support for this assertion? The law?
Look, we are agreed what the law is. The issue is whether the law is an ass. You have to step outside the law to deal with that issue. In the same way as, it is illegal for a woman in Saudi to drive a car. Arguing about that comes down to whether or not women are actually unfit to drive cars, not what the Saudi law states. Take this-
I expect she did. That's why it is unlawful for adults to fuck children, even if they are invited by the foolish girls/boys.
You haven't addressed the point. It is merely a repeat of your assumption that it should be illegal for teenage girls to choose to have sex. You have made no attempt to explain why.
The simple reason for that is that you cannot explain why. There is no reason on God's green Earth why, except for the Feminist dogma you are trotting out. You may as well say,
"Some women would like to drive cars. That is why it is against the law".
You see? It's a meaningless statement. It just says "we stop X doing this because X wants to do it".
Oh, and that doesn't breach Godwin's Law either; it was a metaphor for the hopeless battle against the forces of nature.
Think of it this way; laws are meant to prevent harm. Can you actually describe the harm that any and all teenage girls will experience if they have sex? What, precisely is this harm you are so worried about? What is the form and effects of the "abuse"?
Garbled the Godwin's Law paragraph...
Oh, I looked up the song on Wikipedia. Apparently it's some redneck thug boasting about threatening to murder any lad who touches his daughter.
Good grief.
"The matter eventually reduces to this: if you accept the primacy of parents' right to regulate the sexual behaviour of minors then you have to accept that some children will be badly served by their families. "
And we know how the state (and the lawmakers) do hate so very much the idea that some cannot be 'saved'...
"Evolution isn't stupid."
No, indeed. But it is blind to consequences other than those necessary for survival...
"For the first they will have to work at getting into a position of trust and that usually requires some professional standing."
But this lad had no such position - he was, as Ian B points out, no more than 6 years old (and I'll take a chance on guessing his mental age wasn't quite that advanced).
"Frankly, your comments here are typical of Feminism."
Ian, I can't think of a regular blog commenter here who's less likely to ever be accused of the dreaded 'R' word... ;(
"Let's re-write that in the correct format: "Culpan has already engaged the schoolgirl in highly-charged sex talk" "
Or....'the girl engaged Culpan in...'
We don't know who fired the gun, we just know the racers crossed the finish line together.
"It might just be poor court reporting not using the precise words. "
Yes, I'd bet on that.
Post a Comment