At least, this judge seems to think so:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241635/Soldier-41-sex-girl-13-spared-jail-woman-judge-says-did-running.html
If you'll indulge me, I'd like to point out some fatal flaws in this choice statement:"Judge Mowat continued: 'It was clear from the evidence that she was a disturbed girl, that her behaviour was precocious in several respects, that she looked and acted older than her age and she made most of the running in this action.'"
1.) She was "disturbed". Not only was she "disturbed" but "clearly" so. What kind of fucked up monstrosity of a man wants to have sex with anyone who is clearly disturbed and thus obviously not thinking straight, regardless of their age? At a guess, a child rapist maybe...
2.) "Her behaviour was precocious in many respects". Yes and she was 13, and he was 45 and aware that was 13. I fail to see what her "precociousness has to do with anything.
3.) "She looked and acted older than her age" Yes and (please forgive me for repeating myself) she was 13, and he was 45 and aware that she was 13. I don't care if she looked 30, YOU DON'T HAVE SEX WITH A 13-YEAR-OLD CHILD. Simples!
4.) "She made most of the running". It doesn't matter if she turned up unnanouced in his bedroom, naked but for a sign saying "Take me big boy, I'm yours" - SHE WAS 13. A 13-year-old girl cannot consent to sex and you, sir, are a rapist. End of discussion.
What is so awful is that the judge doesn't realise that the most dangerous person involved in this whole case is herself. She says she gave the guy a light sentence because he is unlikely offend again and for what it's worth I agree with her; but the hugely ill-advised statement she made, seemingly in his defence, is likely to cause many, many other men to offend, because she's basically just said it's ok if she looks a bit older than her age.
08 January, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Holy crap, I think someone should take a sledgehammer to this Judge's private parts. If anyone had sex with my daughter at the very young age of 13, I would do much worse to the man than what I proposed above...
ReplyDeleteUnder UK law, the age at which sexual activity with a child is as rape, and hence at which an adult who has sex with a child is a child rapist, is 12 or under.
ReplyDeleteWhile sexual activity with a child of 13-15 is classed as unlawful, the law also recognises that they are capable of consent, and draws a strong distinction between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity - hence why this man was charged with unlawful sexual activity, and wasn't charged with rape.
You can call him a child *abuser*, sure, but calling him a child *rapist* is a flat-out lie.
Ah, you again. I love how you're so passionate about defending men who sexually abuse children. It's good to have a hobby.
ReplyDeleteSee also http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2010/01/mail-accuses-man-of-flirting-with.html
ReplyDeleteAnd, well, most of the rest of the paper
I love how having sex with children is ok, so long as it's mentally ill children.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, for any other budding media lawyers out there, take note that I did not, at any point, call this guy a child rapist. I simply offered a child rapist as one example of the sort of person who might want to have sex with a mentally ill child. You're really going to have to try harder than that to catch me out.
ReplyDeleteHmmm....I haven't checked the law recently but I'm certain it was 13 rather than 12 hence why the judge made a point of stating she was 'just short of 14' so technically it would be considered rape? Whatever the legal technicalities though a 41 year old man has a moral responsibility, if not a legal one, to not fuck a 13 year old girl.
ReplyDeleteif only he was a film director, then he'd be A-OK -__________-
ReplyDelete