Two men have been sent to prison after having unprotected sex with a Swansea schoolgirl in her early teens who they met through Facebook.Good Welsh names?
Ummm….
The incidents were described when 26-year-old Rahman and 32-year-old Junaid Hussain were each jailed for three years at Swansea Crown Court.*sigh*
Judge Keith Thomas said that, after serving their sentences, both defendants would be liable to be deported to their native Bangladesh.Only ‘liable’?
Defence barristers John Hipkin and Catherine Richards emphasised their clients were now very ashamed of their conduct.Oh, I’m sure they are…
Bang goes our Takeaway on Fridays!
ReplyDeleteQuick - buy a cat...
ReplyDeleteThe UK. World's leading nation for importing predators.
ReplyDelete"liable to be deported to their native Bangladesh."
ReplyDelete...but only if they offered the teeny slut an apres bonk cigarette.
This type of behaviour is shockingly prevalent amongst the pakistani and bangladeshi communuty. Like forced marriaage which would be regarded child abuse purse and simple - but for the double standards of our PC establsihment. Woe unto Britain
ReplyDelete'Judge Thomas said prison terms were unavoidable and an aggravating feature in the case was that both defendants had had unprotected sex with the girl, creating a substantial risk she would become pregnant.'
ReplyDeleteHad she ended up the duff, the father could have kicked the threat of deportation into the long grass for good on section 8 'right to family life ' grounds.
7 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.
ReplyDeleteThe blame? Political correctness, multiculturalism, integration (or lack of it) equal cultural values (as if) and the failure of the police to act so as not to "offend" certain communities.
Three years in prison for having consensual sex. What a strange society we have become.
ReplyDeleteWith a child Ian B you tit
ReplyDeleteIf they're not married now you can bet they'll be married while they are in gaol and so can't be deported
ReplyDelete"With a child Ian B you tit"
ReplyDeleteHardly a 'child'.
...not by today's standards anyways.
She was 13-14.
Criminal responsibility, ie end of 'childhood', starts at 10 now. The girl in question could get the pill or even have an abortion without parental knowledge, let alone parental, consent so therefore she is sexually and morally an adult.
Integrating nicely by the looks of it.
ReplyDeleteJaded
...not by today's standards anyways.
ReplyDeleteNot by the standards of virtually all human societies, including ours traditionally. Ages of marriage (most societies being marriage based of course) or "consent" have tended to be closely around and after the standard age of sexual maturity for hom sap, which is about 12. Traditionally in England, it was 12 for girls and 13 for boys (it was possible to be married much younger for contractual reasons, old parish records show many marriages and betrothals of pre-pubescent children. They would not of course have been consummated).
The virtually unique high "age of consent" and indeed the legal concept of a "minor" as we now know it was brought in during the Victorian social purity era/movement (i.e. the prototype feminist/progressive movement) directly to outlaw teenage prostitution. When you hear of Victorian London being full of "child" prostitutes, it was teenagers. Laudable enough perhaps to protect younger women from the huge risks of prostitution in those days- although it seems even then the pudding was being very over-egged by Campaigners.
Anyway, from that, it gradually got transformed into treating teenagers generally as "children" and thus the current situation of lumping together teenage sex and paedophilia. We are pretty much the only civilisation that has thought a 14 year old is a child. Hence, probably, the higher prevalence of immigrants breaking this law. They haven't had a century of re-education on the matter.
Laws come and go, but biology stays much the same.
@ Ian B
ReplyDeleteIt's always fun to ask rabid Xians how old they think Mary Mother Of God was...then typically she is depicted as being 1.White and 2. well past the age of consent. Yet it's pretty much an open secret among biblical scholars that she was probably about the same age as the 'victim' in this 'crime'.
If there's grass on the park, the game's on!
ReplyDeleteThink I'll move to Spain, age of consent is 13 there.
These people have absolutely no respect for their own women .. why should we expect them to have any for ours, whose status as "non-believers" ranks below that of their own women .. ?
ReplyDeleteThe official answer is "Don't rock the boat, just carry on being enriched" ..
Only ‘liable’?
ReplyDeleteYes, if they refuse to promise to be good boys in the future.
Liable to appeal if anyone dare even think of sending them back.
ReplyDeleteLiable to get very angry as their rights have been crushed.
Liable to do it again as soon as they can.
"Quick - buy a cat..."
ReplyDelete:D
" Woe unto Britain"
And thrice woe indeed.
"Had she ended up the duff, the father could have kicked the threat of deportation into the long grass for good on section 8 'right to family life ' grounds."
Hmm, good point.
"Three years in prison for having consensual sex. What a strange society we have become."
Regardless of whether the law is an ass here, as a result of failing to keep up with biological and social changes, it is indeed the law.
@ IanB "the legal concept of a "minor" as we now know it was brought in during the Victorian social purity era/movement... directly to outlaw teenage prostitution."
ReplyDeleteQuite so but it was not for their benefit, it was done to cut down the numbers of the Gentry getting the clap.
We're not talking of age related teenagers fucking around under age, but grown men fucking around with a 13 yo kid.
ReplyDeleteMy daughters are grown up now, but at 13, any grown man clumsy enough to fuck around with them would certainly be clumsy enough to fall off a roof/motorway flyover or under the bucket of a "Passing" JCB, You know that kind of thing.
The difference between my kids, and those who are abused (that's what we're talking here abuse) is they invariably don't have a daddy who would take a dim view.
So basically, you're saying that consensual sex is reasonable grounds for murder? What's the justification for that, precisely?
ReplyDeleteNow where precisely did I mention murdering anyone? I just brought up serious "Elfinsafety" dangers for clumsy people.
ReplyDeleteI like your definition of "Consensual" though, just because a threat isn't specifically overt, it doesn't mean there's no threat does it?
An example would be if your mother had her driveway tarmaced by Gypos, but didn't particularly want it doing. No threats are forthcoming from said Gypos, but she feels she can't say no.
Would you also say her decision to have her driveway done was consensual?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to add, that many of those grooming children for sex, actually do make some serious threats as well as utilising peer pressure.
ReplyDeleteDo you suppose these fuckers" ever target the kids (or any known relatives) of people known colloquially as "Harry the hitman" or Dave "Chopper" Chapman?
I can't say I've ever heard of any, but if it has, I sure it was only the once.
Budvar, threat is already against the law, and we have lots of mechanisms for dealing with that. What we're discussing here is a girl who seemed to be quite eager to get her end away.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that nature decided this thing for us. It developed a clear line in the sand between the sexually immature and the sexually mature, and littered the human body with strong visual indicators to allow us to tell the two states apart. In sexual terms, the word "child" makes no logical sense applied to the post-pubescent. Hence, we get an illogical grey area where biological adults are legally children. Hilarity, or in this case prison sentences, ensues.
I know you take the view that youngsters- well, only girls actually- need to be protected from having sex. The problem here is back with nature again; nature designed us to find sex highly enjoyable, in order to encourage us to do it. So, it doesn't seem at all clear what you want to protect such a girl from. Enjoying herself? Why?
Or does it only become enjoyable when the clock clunks over at 12:01:01 on her sixteenth (or eighteenth, or twentyfirst, take your pick) birthday?
You're using the same excuses/mitigation all kiddy fiddler use to justify their actions.
ReplyDeleteIf the girl was say 7, with the onset of a condition known as "Precocious puberty" she may well have been gagging for it, but do you think that being fucked by a grown man would be ok?
Contrary to your belief, there's a reason we have age limits for a multitude of things, child soldiers and voting in elections, to name 2.
Is it because they're physically incapable? No, you're just as dead being shot by a kid of 9 as you are by someone at 29. We extend universal suffrage to include anyone capable of putting a cross in a box we end up being ruled by Barney the dinosaur and Big bird.
The reason is they're emotionally/phychologically not ready to make a qualified choice.
"The reason is they're emotionally/phychologically not ready to make a qualified choice."
ReplyDeleteBy that logic we should raise the Age of Consent to 21 or better 25..infact I'd contend that the majority of humanity never reaches a level of mental maturity enough to make a qualified decision about whom they share body fluids with.
Budvar, I'm not using "excuses", I'm trying to look at the situation calmly and rationally, which I appreciate is simply not politically correct at the moment. But, you know, screw political correctness.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that people are not "emotionally or psychologically fit" is an incredibly common Progressivist argument and a central driver of the general infantilisation of the population. What is entirely unclear from those arguing that teenagers should be lumped into the same category as children in the matter of sex is what precise harm is supposed to occur to them if they do have sex. I don't think I've ever seen anyone who really in their heart believes that a 13 or 14 year old boy getting his end away will be harmed by the experience; many people (probably correctly) think it would do him all sorts of good.
So it comes down to girls. What's special about girls' reactions? I really would like to know in specific terms what the particular harm is. Nobody ever says so. I don't think they know. THey just have this idea that girls should be pure, or something.
Now, there is certainly a potential for pressure, "abuse", or what have you. But we aren't talking about that, we are talking about a blanket prohibition; and you can only justify one of them when the action is intrinsically harmful. You used the example of an old lady pressured into having her driveway tarmacced by Gypsies.
Well, that certainly can occur. But we don't have a general prohibition on driveway repairs, do we?
So, let's take a hypothetical. A 14 year old girl, gagging for a shag. She has one, and enjoys it. Now, what specific harm occurred?
"So basically, you're saying that consensual sex is reasonable grounds for murder?"
ReplyDeleteLegally, she cannot consent for another three years.
"...I'd contend that the majority of humanity never reaches a level of mental maturity enough to make a qualified decision about whom they share body fluids with."
That's (sadly!) a good point!
"So it comes down to girls. What's special about girls' reactions? "
Simple biology - girls can get pregnant.