Six footballers jailed for their part in a midnight orgy in a park with two 12-year-old girls were freed yesterday after a court ruled their victims ‘wanted sex’.It doesn’t matter what they might have wanted, they simply can’t consent. That’s a fundamental principle of of our current law. So this statement is passing strange, isn't it?
… they were released by Appeal Court judges who ruled their victims ‘wanted to have sex’ and ‘it is what young people do’.This isn’t going to sit well with the feminist crackpots. M’learned friends can think themselves very lucky Harriet Harperson and Vera ‘Pooper Scooper’ Baird are no longer at the helm of the ship of state.
In fact, maybe their absence is the key to this?
Perhaps, because it’s what our debased culture tells them? Perhaps, because it’s what those 12 year old ‘children’ told them?
The comments provoked outrage from a rape campaigner who said she was absolutely disgusted by the decision.Weeeeeeell, maybe. And maybe ‘vulnerable’ isn’t quite the right word, legally accurate as it may be…
Jill Saward, who was raped at her father’s Ealing vicarage 25 years ago, said the girls were extremely vulnerable.
Miss Saward, who once stood against Tory MP David Davis in a by-election, added: ‘The law is there to stop cases such as this. They aren’t even old enough to have Facebook accounts, and using the belief that by having Facebook they are old enough is a disgrace.And just why would they think that?
‘If there is any doubt men should say no.
‘It is also quite disgusting to think that inexperienced men think that young girls would want to have sex with multiple partners.’
Perhaps, because it’s what our debased culture tells them? Perhaps, because it’s what those 12 year old ‘children’ told them?
We have to ask why they were charged with rape in the first place, when (according to JohnB on Twitter) another option, that of 'unlawful sexual intercourse', was available to the CPS.
Perhaps the absence of the dominant feminist coterie will see some common sense in the judiciary in the next few years?
29 comments:
Where minors are determined to give evidence perhaps even that evidence is discovered that that they invited or 'gave consent' then it must be that while any adults who have committed some sexual assault can and should be considered to have not had consent, the legal guardians of the minor are also culpable of a sexually identified crime by way of neglect. Much like parents who refuse to strap their children safely into cars, have a crash, should be perused for causing death by dangerous driving even when they didn't cause the crash.
Probably the charge of rape was because since 12 year olds cannot consent to sex, it was without consent: hence rape.
In any case, since it is a serious case there would seem nothing to stop them being rearrested and charged with indecent assault or unlawful sexual intercourse......double jeopardy having gone in such cases.
The adults in this case have not been feed as innocent their appeal was in respect of the sentance for the crimes they remain guilty of.
The laws about age of consent are an utter mess. It all needs to be sorted out, I don't care how difficult that would be.
perceptions about consent are an utter mess, the law and people assume you have to prove consent was given and gained rather than demonstrate consent or the ability to give consent has been removed. An age of consent is a requirement where pedophilia is a criminal act.
"An age of consent is a requirement where pedophilia is a criminal act."
It isn't a criminal act...not yet anyways. Sex with minors (including downloading wank pictures) IS.
This case has nothing to do with paedophiles, the girls being physically mature enough to have sex (I assume).
Interesting pictures of the perpetrators, how much cleaner our country would be without them.
No being a paedophile is not criminal nor should it be as long as it does not involve an action between two or more individuals. Sexual maturity, awareness and expression is also completely independent of age, simply a consequence of experience and genetically encoded curiosity.
Sex with a minor is rape, downloading any picture you like is perfectly legal unless it depicts an offence in the jurisdiction in which you have the data in your possession.
you’re right this case has little to do with paedophilia especially considering there is much evidence the girls that were raped were expressing their awareness of and desire to engage in sex publicly.
"You can't buy smokes at the liquor store cos you'll about go to jail but they'll sell you the rope so you can hang yourself while listening to 9 Inch Nails"-Sorry World by Tim Wilson
Zaphod, it ain't just the Age Of Consent laws that are a mess. Logically the Age Of Sexual Consent and the Age of Majority should be the same. How can you be old enough to consent to sex, ANY sex, yet not be old enough to marry without mommy and daddy agreeing or be able to watch other people shagging midget amputee Nuns and donkeys on dvd?
Thing is though that very few people are actually mature enough at 18 to make life changing decisions like 'do I really want to have sex with this person/doll/farmyard animal' let alone sign any contract to have a mobile phone.
They should re-raise the Majority AND sexual consent to 21 or, better still, scrap it all together.
As Mike points out:"Sexual maturity, awareness and expression is also completely independent of age, simply a consequence of experience and genetically encoded curiosity" and judge each case like this on its merits...did the girl have an 'adult' understanding of what sex entails, of contraception and her unalienable right to an orgasm and a newspaper expose fee.
nuns don't have sex with others or attract a capital N
"nuns don't have sex with others or attract a capital N"
True but there aren't probably many amputee midget ones either, with or with a capital 'N'...I'd guess.
(I tend to over capitalize nouns because in the language i think in all nouns are 'rit large).
SBC, It's completely unrealistic to expect humans to refrain from sex until they're "mature"!
Sex is not a privelege, to be granted or withheld by the state.
The word "paedophile" should be used for one who has sex with a child, before puberty.
Arguably the law should concern itself further, to discourage adult men from taking advantage of 15yr-old girls. That needs a different word, and a different scale of sanctions.
A 17yr-old boy with a 15yr-old girlfriend should never, ever, be of interest to the law.
Leaving things as they are is causing a lot of serious damage.
Interesting case AP. The law isn't the law. The obvious answer is to change to statutory rape. But what would that change?
I dealt with a gang-rape in the 70s in which the eldest boy was 15 (of 6). They were all treated more harshly.
We need to do more about the adolescent world - it's even more stupid than the one I experienced.
I guess it's a mistake to leave these matters to the legal system. How do girls like this act so stupidly and how do the boys not know it's so wrong? There's a clear job for education - this said the sentences should have stood and the Appeal Court is a disgrace.
Just as an aside, how do any 'men' want any of this? It reeks of hating women.
Perhaps, because it’s what our debased culture tells them? Perhaps, because it’s what those 12 year old ‘children’ told them?
This is the crux of the issue.
I've just noticed Zaphod. There are rules about these things in all societies. The state or tribe does get in the way. Our law makes these offences much more serious once the man is 24. I usually prefer less to more rules - but this is an area in which we need to have much clearer ones. The idea is to have rules and stick to them.There was no excuse for these arses, but our law is wrong.
It's not enough for laws to be "clear".
They must, at the least, do more good than harm.
Any law which is regularly flouted, but with serious consequences for that tiny minority who do get caught, is a bad law.
Many 15yr-olds do have sexual experiences. This will never be prevented by the threat of legal penalties.
the state, society, individuals and any group financialy and/or practicaly rewarding the concequences of children or adults having sex with children certainly promotes it.
Emotional reward or punishment probably play a role in this but then emotions are mostely the responsibility of the individual who experiences them IMHO.
FFS mostly, strange how often people refuse to take responsibility for their emotions.
in fact increasingly strange how more people claim that they are incapable of bieng responsible or it is someone else's responsibility for them feeling sad :( happy :) woo hoooooooooooooo! angry x{ grrrrrr etc.
"...the legal guardians of the minor are also culpable of a sexually identified crime by way of neglect."
I have a deep suspicion that those 'legal guardians' in this case are state officials.
"In any case, since it is a serious case there would seem nothing to stop them being rearrested and charged with indecent assault or unlawful sexual intercourse......double jeopardy having gone in such cases."
True...
"The laws about age of consent are an utter mess. It all needs to be sorted out, I don't care how difficult that would be."
Far, far too difficult (translation: career ending) for any of our current crop of politicians, I fear.
"Just as an aside, how do any 'men' want any of this? It reeks of hating women."
Heard any rap music lately?
"This is the crux of the issue."
I think so. It seems to me that it isn't just the girls in the case that lack any self-respect, but the males too.
There is an elephant in the room with this story.
Jaded
"There is an elephant in the room with this story."
-Jaded
There is? Which one?
this one:
http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.com/2011/07/like-using-boy-who-cried-wolf-as.html
Women never lie and it is a rare occurance FFS don't ya know
A large grey one called Nellie not the one Mike saw....
Can't say any-more i'm afraid.
Jaded
don't be afraid, give it a fish, they like fish I've been reliably informed
Shh! Don't mention the elephant! (Or the fish).
What?
Post a Comment