Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Outrage As Man Walks Free After Admitting Sex With 13-Year-Old Girl Called A 'predator' By The Judge

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/outrage-as-man-walks-free-after-admitting-sex-with-13yearold-girl-called-a-predator-by-the-judge-8748494.html

Anti-sexual abuse campaigners, among them the author who successfully put Jane Austen on the £10 note - before having to fend off the resulting torrent of online rape threats, have reacted angrily after it emerged that a man who admitted having sex with a 13-year-old girl walked free from court; while his victim was described by the judge and prosecution as a sexually “predatory”.

Neil Wilson, 41, faces having his eight-month suspended jail sentence reviewed after the Attorney General Dominic Grieve agreed to look into the case yesterday. And the Crown Prosecution Service was forced to admit that its own prosecutor acted “inappropriately” when he placed a portion of the responsibility upon the victim in court.

..

The girl was accused in court of ‘egging her abuser on’ and was described as “looking older” than her thirteen years, something the judge said he would consider in Wilson’s favour. But anti-rape campaigners railed at the accusation that the young victim was promiscuous. They argued that it helped facilitate the sexual abuse of children.

The support group Rape Crisis (England and Wales) said it was “appalled and bitterly disappointed” at what it called “shocking and entirely unacceptable treatment of a 13-year-old sexual violence victim in court”.

A spokesman said that the charity “utterly refutes the strong implication of the judge’s comments that a child’s behaviour can somehow mitigate that of an adult who perpetrates sexual violence against her”.

The spokesman added: “This is not only a gross misinterpretation of the law but also a sad and clear signal that we still have some way to go before rape survivors can confidently expect both social and criminal justice in this country.”

Obviously what happened isn't really discussed, lots of talk of grooming etc... and talking about other cases but nothing solid about what happened.

Is there any more details about what actually happened and why the prosecution thought the child egged on the sexual contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell. By the sound of it the girl willingly had sex with him, and yet she's described as a 'victim of sexual violence'. This is a thoroughly dangerous lack of perspective IMO.

The geezer's apparently a dirty old man, and I have no problem with him doing a few months bird to emphasise to him and others that it's not acceptable to shag 13 year olds, however old they look. But if every girl or woman involved in any kind of co-ercive or (as in this case) not-legally-consensual sexual relationship is now automatically a 'victim of sexual violence' then that IMO demeans the experiences of those women who actually are beaten, or forced at knifepoint etc.

It is, in effect, saying that the act of having penetrative sex is automatically an act of violence unless the woman is of legal age to consent, and is definitely of sound enough mind to give said consent. Anyone with any common sense knows that that is not automatically true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell. By the sound of it the girl willingly had sex with him, and yet she's described as a 'victim of sexual violence'. This is a thoroughly dangerous lack of perspective IMO.

The geezer's apparently a dirty old man, and I have no problem with him doing a few months bird to emphasise to him and others that it's not acceptable to shag 13 year olds, however old they look. But if every girl or woman involved in any kind of co-ercive or (as in this case) not-legally-consensual sexual relationship is now automatically a 'victim of sexual violence' then that IMO demeans the experiences of those women who actually are beaten, or forced at knifepoint etc.

It is, in effect, saying that the act of having penetrative sex is automatically an act of violence unless the woman is of legal age to consent, and is definitely of sound enough mind to give said consent. Anyone with any common sense knows that that is not automatically true.

You haven't been keeping up. Consent these days can be retroactively withdrawn, as since Yewtree the position is that the "victim" must be believed, and if she has mrning after regrets, you're done for. "Minor" abuse (such as touching a bottom) has been elevated to the status of life-ruining sexual assault. Be afraid, very afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any more details about what actually happened and why the prosecution thought the child egged on the sexual contact.

that is often the rule in the reporting of these kinds of cases. the papers inveigh against the guilty man but provide almost no information for readers to form an independent opinion. this was true in the recent Graham Ovenden trial. Lots of innuendo and vague references to unspecified abuse but very little detail. it was only after reading Anna Raccoon's blog that I realised how weak was the prosecution case. Coyness in reporting is one of the drivers of the current yewtree witch hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'v'e met a few 13 year old predator girls, but not many! :blink::o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell. By the sound of it the girl willingly had sex with him, and yet she's described as a 'victim of sexual violence'.

The state and the meeja have taken over the Church's traditional function of Penalising Anyone Who's Getting Something We're Not.

Of course if the girl had been unwilling it would've been a serious crime!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't been keeping up. Consent these days can be retroactively withdrawn, as since Yewtree the position is that the "victim" must be believed, and if she has mrning after regrets, you're done for. "Minor" abuse (such as touching a bottom) has been elevated to the status of life-ruining sexual assault. Be afraid, very afraid.

Very true. Now if I could just track down all the various women who goosed me in nightclubs when I was a young man I'd be on to a winner! :D

I'v'e met a few 13 year old predator girls, but not many! :blink::o

No, me neither TBH, but when I was 16 I went to help out as a stage hand at a song and dance production my mate's teenage am-dram group was putting on- obviously with the aim of meeting some girls, who he correctly pointed out considerably outnumbered the lads, predictably enough. One girl took a real shine to me- I'm talking a proper crush; she was tall, blonde, and well past puberty shall we say. Unfortunately she was also 14 1/2, so I very reluctantly declined on the basis that I didn't think there was much chance that merely kissing and holding hands would satisfy either of us until she was of age, and I wasn't prepared to risk a statutory rape charge. She was properly heartbroken- tears, the lot. Gutting really, as she was an absolute scorcher.

The point is that had I not been so principled, I could I reckon have had entirely consensual sex with this girl even though it would have been illegal. Would that have made me guilty of sexual violence? Of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if these anti this and that groups make similar comments and are outraged by cases the opposite way around ?

I have no idea - but there are loads of them. If they don't make similar comments - that's pretty shocking.

If they do then fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC running with this story this morning and had a little bit of film showing kids wearing socks probably all under 10.

What I'm interested in knowing is if the description given by the prosecution was accurate and truthful. Surely if we are interested in justice all the facts need to be heard in court for a fair judgement to be made irrespective of how uncomfortable it is to hear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Very true. Now if I could just track down all the various women who goosed me in nightclubs when I was a young man I'd be on to a winner! :D

The point is that had I not been so principled, I could I reckon have had entirely consensual sex with this girl even though it would have been illegal. Would that have made me guilty of sexual violence? Of course not.

My mate's sister definitely made a not very subtle play for me when I was 18 and she was 13. Obviously I firmly rejected it... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'v'e met a few 13 year old predator girls, but not many! :blink::o

What precisely do you mean by "met" MrPin?

And I remind you that you are still under oath...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What crossed my mind is that bit from Trainspotting where Rents pulls in a disco a girl who you would put at 18 with her make-up and going out clothes, then finds himself the morning after eating breakfast with her parents when she walks in dressed in her school uniform.

That said whilst I could easily believe 15 for an "I didn't know" defence 13 is stretching it too far IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said whilst I could easily believe 15 for an "I didn't know" defence 13 is stretching it too far IMO.

I seem to remember that some time ago someone posted a 12 or 21 quiz - IIRC most of us would've been in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't some of these images, very strictly speaking, child porn?

I believe so, if the prosecution wishes to view it that way. Mere possession of a picture of a "child" under 18, or who LOOKS under eighteen can be an offence. What's bizarre, is that that series of pictures has some 21 year-olds, possession of photos of them could be used in court to send you down. I believe in OZ a guy got done for possession of a cartoon - because the t1ts weren't big enough thus it could have been considered a representation of a child. I'll try to find the link to the news item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't some of these images, very strictly speaking, child porn?

Doubt it, I don't see anything pronographic in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/barrister-who-called-13yearold-sex-abuse-victim-predatory-is-barred-from-similar-cases-8750521.html

The barrister who called a 13-year-old abuse victim sexually "predatory" in court will not be used in similar cases pending an investigation, it has been announced today.

Separately, the Office for Judicial Complaints said it would be considering complaints against the judge in the case, who appeared to accept the prosecutor’s comments when sparing the girl’s 41-year-old abuser jail.

The action follows a campaign by an equalities group – first reported by The Independent – against “victim blaming” after details of the case emerged earlier this week.

..

In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said that Robert Colover, QC, the prosecutor in the case at Snaresbrook Crown Court should not have used the word “predatory” and confirmed that he would be investigated by Director of Public Prosecution Keir Starmer. The statement added that the use of the word is “of real concern to the CPS”. It said: “It is not consistent with the work that we have undertaken alongside the judiciary and others in the past year to improve attitudes towards victims of abuse. We expect all of our prosecutors, including self-employed barristers who act on our behalf, to follow our guidance in these very difficult cases.

“The DPP will be undertaking a review of this case to determine what happened and to decide what action needs to be taken. We are now considering the involvement of this barrister in sexual-offence prosecutions and have advised his chambers that we will not instruct him in any ongoing or future cases involving sexual offences in the meantime.”

So now the barrister himself is under investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that some time ago someone posted a 12 or 21 quiz - IIRC most of us would've been in trouble.

Indeed. A friend of mine has a 12 year old daughter, and when dressed up you'd think she's 17-19 years old.

and to add, a woman I know is around mid twenties but you'd possibly think she may be just under/over legal age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite telling that he plead guilty - one would assume he didn't think he had much chance of winning in court.

Based on the facts we have I think it's reasonable to assume he knew full well she was only thirteen - no matter how old she looked.

So is it reasonable for a 41 year old to have sex with a 13 year old, even if both partners consent? I would argue definitely not, regardless of the gender of either partner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it reasonable for a 41 year old to have sex with a 13 year old, even if both partners consent? I would argue definitely not, regardless of the gender of either partner

It is certainly illegal. I doubt may people would agree with it.

I suppose it is reasonable in as much as he would be able to look after any possible offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.