Road rules2 mins ago
What are things coming to?
13 Answers
http://www.dailymail....ening-sex-attack.html
It would appear by this judge's reasoning that just because a child wants sex, it is within the law for a gang of six men aged between 18 to 21 to carry out their wishes.
/// Last week, though, the defendants were controversially freed from jail after the Appeal Court ruled that the girls had ‘wanted sex’.///
/// In other words, according to the judgment, Katie and her friend — both just 12, remember — were not really victims at all.///
They have in fact been blamed for getting the six footballers, aged between 18 and 21, including a former member of Reading FC’s academy, into trouble and ruining their careers.
How can such a travesty of justice be allowed?
It would appear by this judge's reasoning that just because a child wants sex, it is within the law for a gang of six men aged between 18 to 21 to carry out their wishes.
/// Last week, though, the defendants were controversially freed from jail after the Appeal Court ruled that the girls had ‘wanted sex’.///
/// In other words, according to the judgment, Katie and her friend — both just 12, remember — were not really victims at all.///
They have in fact been blamed for getting the six footballers, aged between 18 and 21, including a former member of Reading FC’s academy, into trouble and ruining their careers.
How can such a travesty of justice be allowed?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the crux of this situaiton was however that the one girl had written in a text message that she was 16, so the thinking of these men would be that it was lawful for them to have sex with her. Certainly the girl in question seems to be the instigator of the whole encounter and whilst ignorance is no excuse there would be no law broken HAD she been 16. I think the real crux of the matter is that the parents of both girls have done an inadequate job in teaching them how to keep themselves safe, because I know full well my 13 year old daughter wouldn't be recjkless enough to get into a car with men she didn't know and go the park with them at midnight- that is just absurdly stupid. The men concerned were all budding footballers and we can take it that the girls might have been influenced by the ridiculous cult of fame that has sprung up around soccer players. This is a social problem of the highest magnitude, not merely an instance of some men having sex with some underage girls.
'Our lives have been ruined, and none of us are now able to go on and follow the careers that we would have chosen for ourselves,’ said de Sousa, who now lives in a council flat with his father.
‘I feel we were tricked into going to the park with them’
They raped two 12 year old girls yet see themselves as the victims
Unbelievable, just like the crazy decision to free them
‘I feel we were tricked into going to the park with them’
They raped two 12 year old girls yet see themselves as the victims
Unbelievable, just like the crazy decision to free them
although legally what they have done could be classed as paedophilia, the boys themselves are not actually paedophiles - as they believed the girls were 16...
paedophilia means sexual attraction to prepubescent people...they were not.
their crime is having sex with a minor, albeit unknowingly.
i am in no way defending them but it seems a bit much to see these 2 girls as totally blameless in this, and the boys be seen as evil monsters, just because 'legally' they cannot give consent - the fact is they not only gave consent they instigated the whole thing (and not for the first time) - just because the law does not 'recognise' their right to give consent does not mean they didnt give their consent and does not make it an attack...they did not kidnap, abuse or force the girls here...they are not sex attackers
however they should not just walk away scot free...they have committed an offence, whetehr they knew it or not...and it needs to be an example set to young men to be more careful in the future and consider the consequences of their actions, and for young girls not to take such stupid risks.
paedophilia means sexual attraction to prepubescent people...they were not.
their crime is having sex with a minor, albeit unknowingly.
i am in no way defending them but it seems a bit much to see these 2 girls as totally blameless in this, and the boys be seen as evil monsters, just because 'legally' they cannot give consent - the fact is they not only gave consent they instigated the whole thing (and not for the first time) - just because the law does not 'recognise' their right to give consent does not mean they didnt give their consent and does not make it an attack...they did not kidnap, abuse or force the girls here...they are not sex attackers
however they should not just walk away scot free...they have committed an offence, whetehr they knew it or not...and it needs to be an example set to young men to be more careful in the future and consider the consequences of their actions, and for young girls not to take such stupid risks.
"It would appear by this judge's reasoning that just because a child wants sex, it is within the law for a gang of six men aged between 18 to 21 to carry out their wishes"
With regard to girls aged between thirteen and sixteen, Section 6(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 states
"A man is not guilty of an offence under this section because he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen, if he is under the age of twenty-four and has not previously been charged with a like offence, and he believes her to be of the age of sixteen or over and has reasonable cause for the belief."
With regard to girls aged between thirteen and sixteen, Section 6(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 states
"A man is not guilty of an offence under this section because he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen, if he is under the age of twenty-four and has not previously been charged with a like offence, and he believes her to be of the age of sixteen or over and has reasonable cause for the belief."
Why did the parents let 12 year olds go off in a car full of boys?The boys may have thought th girls were 16 ? But the parents knew better.Im not excusing the men .But i do think lack of parental control leads to many problems in England today.You cant wrap them in cotton wool.But you can try and keep them out dangerous situations.Call me old fashioned but 12 year old girls should actand behave like 12 year olds and notbe textibg guy saying theyre 16 and going for drives in cars.Asking for trouble in my opinion.
difficult one!........the girls where inviting the men for sex!......the men believed that these girls were much older!........... not sure where the blame lies!......but these girls should not have been out and about at their age anyway!.............my daughter at that age would have been at home!....
1 to 13 of 13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |