LISTEN HERE
 Jessica Goyder is the latest musician to put her singles on our site. Listen here
| THE INSIDER
 Get the lowdown inside the corridors of power in Oxfordshire here.
| SEND AN OBITUARY
Send us a tribute to someone who has passed away
| ON YER BIKE
 Get the view from the gutter with cycling group Cyclox in Oxfordshire
|
|
|
|
Judge claims paedophile victim 'dressed provocatively'
 |
| Judge Julian Hall |
A child protection charity has attacked a decision to save a paedophile from a long jail term after a judge said his 10-year-old rape victim dressed "provocatively".
Window cleaner Keith Fenn, of Starwort Path, Blackbird Leys, could be free in just four months after admitting twice having sex with the child.
Kidscape has branded the sentence dished out by Judge Julian Hall as a "disgrace" and called for him to be axed from the bench.
Judge Hall, who hit the headlines after telling another paedophile to buy his child victim a bicycle, could have jailed Fenn for at least five years.
At Oxford Crown Court on Friday, Judge Hall described the rape in a park in Henley-on-Thames, as an "absolute crime", but insisted it was an "exceptional" case because of the girl's perceived maturity.
Fenn, 25, was given concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences, but could will be free in months after spending eight months in jail on remand.
His friend Darren Wright, 34, was given a nine-month jail term for inciting the girl to engage in a sex act on the same night on October 14, last year. Unemployed Wright had also served eight months, so was immediately freed.
Judge Hall said: "It is an absolute crime because she was only 10.
"In my experience this has been the most difficult sentencing exercise I have ever had to decide on. The circumstances in this case are exceptional.
"It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively.
"Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16, that was a matter that was accepted."
The court was told the girl approached the two men in Henley-on-Thames.
"They started chatting in the street and she told them she was 16.
After making their way to a recreation ground in Luke Avenue, the girl - who cannot be named for legal reasons - had oral and full sex with Fenn.
In a police interview, when asked about whether she gave consent, she said: "I'm in the middle, I don't actually know."
Later Wright forced the girl to commit a sexual act on him at his home in Mount View, Henley-on- Thames.
Fenn had admitted two counts of rape of a child aged under 13 years and Wright admitted one charge of causing or inciting sexual activity with a child aged under 13 years.
Michele Elliot, from Kidscape, said: "This particular case really took my breath away because I cannot imagine a 25-year-old man not realising how old she was.
"This sentence is a disgrace.
"What message does this send to anyone considering doing the same?
"He should be off the bench.
"A decision like that is utterly ridiculous.
"Clearly, some judges seem to be a law unto themselves."
Both men were placed on the Sex Offenders' Register for 10 years.
5:30am Monday 25th June 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Paranoid male, London UK on 8:02am Mon 25 Jun 07
This is why all men should insist on checking a womans passport before taking things further, as I defy anyone to be able to predict to 100% accuracy the age of anyone under 16
This is why all men should insist on checking a womans passport before taking things further, as I defy anyone to be able to predict to 100% accuracy the age of anyone under 16
Posted by: kelly, bic on 8:57am Mon 25 Jun 07
Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.
Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.
Posted by: Anon on 9:19am Mon 25 Jun 07
This Judge has made the headlines for all the wrong reasons. His leniency when sentencing paedophiles is laughable. How can the parents of any child expect to see justice when a case is tried by this individual? Given the number of child abuse cases this Judge presides over, I would hope that he takes note of the public outrage his recent actions have caused, to ensure justice is handed down on his current cases.
This Judge has made the headlines for all the wrong reasons. His leniency when sentencing paedophiles is laughable. How can the parents of any child expect to see justice when a case is tried by this individual? Given the number of child abuse cases this Judge presides over, I would hope that he takes note of the public outrage his recent actions have caused, to ensure justice is handed down on his current cases.
Posted by: Rebecca, Oxford on 9:46am Mon 25 Jun 07
I completely agree with you Anon - this judge is an absolute disgrace, and should never be allowed to judge again, especially on cases such as these, as he seems to consistently show leniency to paedophiles and sex offenders.
I find his attitude and comments towards these sick individuals, and the poor victims that have to live with what has happened to them, absolutely disgusting and cannot believe that he is still allowed in court.
Something must be done before he stops anymore of these people to get off far more leniently than they ever should.
I completely agree with you Anon - this judge is an absolute disgrace, and should never be allowed to judge again, especially on cases such as these, as he seems to consistently show leniency to paedophiles and sex offenders.
I find his attitude and comments towards these sick individuals, and the poor victims that have to live with what has happened to them, absolutely disgusting and cannot believe that he is still allowed in court.
Something must be done before he stops anymore of these people to get off far more leniently than they ever should.
Posted by: Rebecca, oxford on 9:54am Mon 25 Jun 07
I completely agree with you Anon - this judge is an absolute disgrace, and should never be allowed to judge again, especially on cases such as these, as he seems to consistently show leniency to paedophiles and sex offenders.
I find his attitude and comments towards these sick individuals, and the poor victims that have to live with what has happened to them, absolutely disgusting and cannot believe that he is still allowed in court.
Something must be done before he stops anymore of these people to get off far more leniently than they ever should.
I completely agree with you Anon - this judge is an absolute disgrace, and should never be allowed to judge again, especially on cases such as these, as he seems to consistently show leniency to paedophiles and sex offenders.
I find his attitude and comments towards these sick individuals, and the poor victims that have to live with what has happened to them, absolutely disgusting and cannot believe that he is still allowed in court.
Something must be done before he stops anymore of these people to get off far more leniently than they ever should.
Posted by: Jane, Oxford on 10:31am Mon 25 Jun 07
Once again Judge Hall makes another horrendous sentence. Yes, young girls do wear make up and older clothes, but don't tell me that these perverts couldn't tell that she was younger, this was exactly what they wanted.
When these Judges make laughable sentences like this, it makes me wonder whether they have similar tendencies and have sympathy with the perverts - although of course if someone actually accused them of that, I expect they'd be in court and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Once again Judge Hall makes another horrendous sentence. Yes, young girls do wear make up and older clothes, but don't tell me that these perverts couldn't tell that she was younger, this was exactly what they wanted.
When these Judges make laughable sentences like this, it makes me wonder whether they have similar tendencies and have sympathy with the perverts - although of course if someone actually accused them of that, I expect they'd be in court and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Posted by: Ella, Oxford on 10:52am Mon 25 Jun 07
You know - this judge allows innocent people to be sent to prison also. He also lets police grasses get away with any offence they come up for in court.
You know - this judge allows innocent people to be sent to prison also. He also lets police grasses get away with any offence they come up for in court.
Posted by: Gemz, oxford on 12:17pm Mon 25 Jun 07
What was this judge thinking. does it matter how old this child was rape is rape and shouldnt be taken lightely just becuase she dressed older. Judge Hall should be kicked off the bench as he is a disgrace to the whole justice system
What was this judge thinking. does it matter how old this child was rape is rape and shouldnt be taken lightely just becuase she dressed older. Judge Hall should be kicked off the bench as he is a disgrace to the whole justice system
Posted by: Carol, Oxford on 1:02pm Mon 25 Jun 07
This is scandalous, how dare he suggest a child is to blame for dressing in an adult fashion manner? This sentence is truly a joke and must be folowed up by higher authorities.
I too have the experience of Jane, above, this judge is very keen to assist police in lenient or non existent sentencing for 'informants'. and show absolutley no compassion to others.Maybe these paedophiles has been 'helpful' with information on other cases.
This is scandalous, how dare he suggest a child is to blame for dressing in an adult fashion manner? This sentence is truly a joke and must be folowed up by higher authorities.
I too have the experience of Jane, above, this judge is very keen to assist police in lenient or non existent sentencing for 'informants'. and show absolutley no compassion to others.Maybe these paedophiles has been 'helpful' with information on other cases.
Posted by: Ellajo, London on 1:17pm Mon 25 Jun 07
In no way is this Child responsible for the actions of the two predatory men who raped her. They are paedophiles. A 10 year old can never be mistaken. A 10 year old is not a sexual being. A 10 year old looks very different to a 16 year old...and I know this because I used to 10...and 16...the difference is massive and clear to any reasonable individual. I have yet to meet a Child of 10 who looks any other than a Child of 10. The very suggestion that this vulnerable child was 'asking for it'is repugnant. This child was wearing jeans and a singlet, normal everyday attire for many children and women in the 21st century. The provocative underwear the child was wearing at the time, was, actually beneath the jeans and top she was wearing and would not have been revealed had these sick and perverted individuals not stripped this Child in order to rape her. What does this Judge think he is doing, he had a duty to protect her and sentence these men appropriately and in accordance with the severity of the crime. This Child was raped because those two men took full advantage of the Child's vulnerability. To save their necks they pleaded innocence, in that they told the court they thought the 10 year old was 16. PAH! The Judge is every bit as guilty as the two paedophiles and is complicit in this crime. This Child will carry the scars of this abuse for the rest of her life.... How must this Child feel knowing that the Judicial system has failed her at every turn, it confirms her worthlessness, that she is not valued and this RAPE was her fault. Judge Julian Hall must be struck off, he is not fit to preside over any case of this nature, he is a danger to the public, and in particular, Children and Women. My thoughts are with the 10 year old Child...you are valid, you matter and society cares. Children in care need to be protected, where were the people caring for this child, how could she be out on her own. Children in Care are not treated like third class citizens and it's about time this stopped.
In no way is this Child responsible for the actions of the two predatory men who raped her. They are paedophiles. A 10 year old can never be mistaken. A 10 year old is not a sexual being. A 10 year old looks very different to a 16 year old...and I know this because I used to 10...and 16...the difference is massive and clear to any reasonable individual. I have yet to meet a Child of 10 who looks any other than a Child of 10. The very suggestion that this vulnerable child was 'asking for it'is repugnant. This child was wearing jeans and a singlet, normal everyday attire for many children and women in the 21st century. The provocative underwear the child was wearing at the time, was, actually beneath the jeans and top she was wearing and would not have been revealed had these sick and perverted individuals not stripped this Child in order to rape her. What does this Judge think he is doing, he had a duty to protect her and sentence these men appropriately and in accordance with the severity of the crime. This Child was raped because those two men took full advantage of the Child's vulnerability. To save their necks they pleaded innocence, in that they told the court they thought the 10 year old was 16. PAH! The Judge is every bit as guilty as the two paedophiles and is complicit in this crime. This Child will carry the scars of this abuse for the rest of her life.... How must this Child feel knowing that the Judicial system has failed her at every turn, it confirms her worthlessness, that she is not valued and this RAPE was her fault. Judge Julian Hall must be struck off, he is not fit to preside over any case of this nature, he is a danger to the public, and in particular, Children and Women. My thoughts are with the 10 year old Child...you are valid, you matter and society cares. Children in care need to be protected, where were the people caring for this child, how could she be out on her own. Children in Care are not treated like third class citizens and it's about time this stopped.
Posted by: julie on 1:26pm Mon 25 Jun 07
I'm wondering if there is some sort of petition or public action that can be taken to call for this judge to be sacked? This is a horrendous story; made worse by the ludicrous ruling.
I'm wondering if there is some sort of petition or public action that can be taken to call for this judge to be sacked? This is a horrendous story; made worse by the ludicrous ruling.
Posted by: Anon (again!) on 1:50pm Mon 25 Jun 07
I would welcome some sort of public petition to object to the leniency of the Judge Halls sentencing of paedophiles. Bikes for compensation and 8 months for rape? He is currently presiding on a case concerning the abuse of a number of very young girls. He needs to be pulled up before he makes any more disastrous decisions and lets dangerous paedophiles back on the streets or allows them to escape with minimal (laughable) jail time.
I would welcome some sort of public petition to object to the leniency of the Judge Halls sentencing of paedophiles. Bikes for compensation and 8 months for rape? He is currently presiding on a case concerning the abuse of a number of very young girls. He needs to be pulled up before he makes any more disastrous decisions and lets dangerous paedophiles back on the streets or allows them to escape with minimal (laughable) jail time.
Posted by: ann, oxon on 1:54pm Mon 25 Jun 07
this judge should be sacked,this poor child ,has been through enough with out this judge basicly saying that she asked for it to happen ,just for the way she dressed.
he needs his head testing.
this judge should be sacked,this poor child ,has been through enough with out this judge basicly saying that she asked for it to happen ,just for the way she dressed.
he needs his head testing.
Posted by: Richard, Chelmsford on 1:55pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Yet again we have been let down by the authorities of this country. But rest assured if you fail to pay your council tax or use a mobile phone while driving expect the full might of the courts to come down on you.
Yet again we have been let down by the authorities of this country. But rest assured if you fail to pay your council tax or use a mobile phone while driving expect the full might of the courts to come down on you.
Posted by: ann, oxon on 1:59pm Mon 25 Jun 07
the judges ethics should be qestioned,is he on the side of law or paedophiles.
the judges ethics should be qestioned,is he on the side of law or paedophiles.
Posted by: Rebecca, Oxford on 2:13pm Mon 25 Jun 07
There is another story on this website:
http://www.thisisoxf
ordshire.co.uk/news/
tiooxmail/display.va
r.1496141.0.mp_urges
_appeal_against_rape
_sentence.php
It's about an MP who is appealing to the Attorney General about this Judge. I am going to contact the MP to applaud what he is doing and to suggest that if he started a petition he would be easily able to collect many signatures from outraged members of the public. If anyone else wants to do the same, you can find his web page by putting in "Mike Penning, Hemel Hempstead MP" into a search engine, and contacting him through it.
Thankfully someone is doing something to try and stop this judge before anymore victims have to suffer his ludicrous sentencing.
There is another story on this website:
http://www.thisisoxf
ordshire.co.uk/news/
tiooxmail/display.va
r.1496141.0.mp_urges
_appeal_against_rape
_sentence.php
It's about an MP who is appealing to the Attorney General about this Judge. I am going to contact the MP to applaud what he is doing and to suggest that if he started a petition he would be easily able to collect many signatures from outraged members of the public. If anyone else wants to do the same, you can find his web page by putting in "Mike Penning, Hemel Hempstead MP" into a search engine, and contacting him through it.
Thankfully someone is doing something to try and stop this judge before anymore victims have to suffer his ludicrous sentencing.
Posted by: Dan, Reading on 2:31pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Is it possible for a group like the Oxford Mail to put a petition together to get this judge removed from power? seldom have I seen such a mockery of law in the UK
Is it possible for a group like the Oxford Mail to put a petition together to get this judge removed from power? seldom have I seen such a mockery of law in the UK
Posted by: Fred, Oxford on 3:23pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Disgraceful. These two criminals knew exactly what they were doing. They must have known that a 10 year old is not as developed as an older person and therefore taking away her innocence with such a dreadful act deserves serious punishment. Why do we have people in prison who can't afford their council tax whilst dangerous people like this are back on the streets. The law is an a**e and this Judge proves it.
Disgraceful. These two criminals knew exactly what they were doing. They must have known that a 10 year old is not as developed as an older person and therefore taking away her innocence with such a dreadful act deserves serious punishment. Why do we have people in prison who can't afford their council tax whilst dangerous people like this are back on the streets. The law is an a**e and this Judge proves it.
Posted by: John, Ireland on 3:54pm Mon 25 Jun 07
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex.
If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex.
If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
Posted by: Eric, Lancashire on 4:34pm Mon 25 Jun 07
I have long been of the opinion that a great many judges are themselves paedophiles. The obscene leniency of this sentence has done nothing to change that opinion
I have long been of the opinion that a great many judges are themselves paedophiles. The obscene leniency of this sentence has done nothing to change that opinion
Posted by: Worried on 4:34pm Mon 25 Jun 07
[quote][bold]kelly[/bold] wrote:
Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.[/quote] I absolutely disagree with this sentiment.
Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old.
Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy.
In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators.
It's time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children.
For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that.
kelly wrote:
Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.
I absolutely disagree with this sentiment.
Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old.
Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy.
In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators.
It's time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children.
For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that.
Posted by: ellajo, London on 5:03pm Mon 25 Jun 07
John from Ireland - this vulnerable child, of 10, has been in care since she was 4 years old.
I don't know if you have experience of being in care, but one thing you are starved of when living in care is
is love and affection. This 10 year old did want something.... but sex? No! What she wanted was to feel loved, special, valued, that she mattered to someone.
Every Child wants to feel those things, but it is not an invitation to abuse, it is shocking that you can even say this, much less write it down, its reprehensible.
Children 'need and want' affection, it is how that need is interpreted that is in question in the case of paedophiles. Affection is what
she needed and craved and so would you if you had been in care from infancy.
It is unbelievable that men cannot distinquish between love and affection from sex. The fact that men seem to think that a child of 10 'wants sex' speaks volumes about some of the men within our society.
John from Ireland - this vulnerable child, of 10, has been in care since she was 4 years old.
I don't know if you have experience of being in care, but one thing you are starved of when living in care is
is love and affection. This 10 year old did want something.... but sex? No! What she wanted was to feel loved, special, valued, that she mattered to someone.
Every Child wants to feel those things, but it is not an invitation to abuse, it is shocking that you can even say this, much less write it down, its reprehensible.
Children 'need and want' affection, it is how that need is interpreted that is in question in the case of paedophiles. Affection is what
she needed and craved and so would you if you had been in care from infancy.
It is unbelievable that men cannot distinquish between love and affection from sex. The fact that men seem to think that a child of 10 'wants sex' speaks volumes about some of the men within our society.
Posted by: Michael McManus, standlake on 5:18pm Mon 25 Jun 07
This judge is a disgrace, It would not suprise me if in the next case he gives the victim jail
This judge is a disgrace, It would not suprise me if in the next case he gives the victim jail
Posted by: Anon, Newcastle on 5:31pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Judge Julian Hall should be jailed himself. as a paedophile sympathiser!!!
Judge Julian Hall should be jailed himself. as a paedophile sympathiser!!!
Posted by: Kevin, Kuala Lumpur on 5:41pm Mon 25 Jun 07
This is why I emigrated, I could not have my children growing up with this sort of thing going on!
This is why I emigrated, I could not have my children growing up with this sort of thing going on!
Posted by: daddymoos, Mars (I wish!) on 5:51pm Mon 25 Jun 07
just found a petition to try and stop out of date judges handing down stupid sentences... can be found at:-
http://search.petiti
ons.pm.gov.uk/kbroke
r/number10/petitions
/search.lsim?ha=1157
&sc=number10&qt=incr
ease+sentencing+for+
paedophiles
more people that sign it the more chance something will be done.any person convicted of sexual abuse against a child should get a life sentence which starts once the judgement is handed down. no time off for time already served. they should lose their human rights the moment they commit the crime. personally i would have the lethal injection for this crime... the ONLY way we could be 100% sure they would not reoffend.
just found a petition to try and stop out of date judges handing down stupid sentences... can be found at:-
http://search.petiti
ons.pm.gov.uk/kbroke
r/number10/petitions
/search.lsim?ha=1157
&sc=number10&qt=incr
ease+sentencing+for+
paedophiles
more people that sign it the more chance something will be done.any person convicted of sexual abuse against a child should get a life sentence which starts once the judgement is handed down. no time off for time already served. they should lose their human rights the moment they commit the crime. personally i would have the lethal injection for this crime... the ONLY way we could be 100% sure they would not reoffend.
Posted by: Sheila, England on 5:56pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Its amazing how stories are changed and things are made up by the media! if only people really knew the whole story....
[bold]****In a police interview, when asked about whether she gave consent, she said: "I'm in the middle, I don't actually know."****[/bold]
Its amazing how stories are changed and things are made up by the media! if only people really knew the whole story....
****In a police interview, when asked about whether she gave consent, she said: "I'm in the middle, I don't actually know."**** Posted by: daddymoos, the moon! on 6:20pm Mon 25 Jun 07
we are talking about paedophiles in general and if found guilty in a court of law they should be heavily punished.
we are talking about paedophiles in general and if found guilty in a court of law they should be heavily punished.
Posted by: Worried on 6:24pm Mon 25 Jun 07
No, you're not.
You're talking about this particular case. That's the relevent article and that's the relevent comment.
You are as much to blame for creating victims for the predators through allowing the loss of childhood through selfishness for profit and vanity, just as everyone is.
By not taking a stand against this, we're all adding to the problem. What sentence for us all?
No, you're not.
You're talking about this particular case. That's the relevent article and that's the relevent comment.
You are as much to blame for creating victims for the predators through allowing the loss of childhood through selfishness for profit and vanity, just as everyone is.
By not taking a stand against this, we're all adding to the problem. What sentence for us all?
Posted by: Matt, Newark on 7:03pm Mon 25 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Gemz[/bold] wrote:
What was this judge thinking. does it matter how old this child was rape is rape and shouldnt be taken lightely just becuase she dressed older. Judge Hall should be kicked off the bench as he is a disgrace to the whole justice system[/quote] It wasn't rape, the problem is that newspapers misrepresent the facts to sell more papers. It was consentual and apparantly after having a look at the girl the judge agreed that she could look 16. Some people hit puberty earlier, and without a picture it's hard to decide what to believe. For now though, if you cut through all the bullshit of the media and find the real story, the 2 year sentence is a very good one, if the defendant should of gone to jail at all.
Gemz wrote:
What was this judge thinking. does it matter how old this child was rape is rape and shouldnt be taken lightely just becuase she dressed older. Judge Hall should be kicked off the bench as he is a disgrace to the whole justice system
It wasn't rape, the problem is that newspapers misrepresent the facts to sell more papers. It was consentual and apparantly after having a look at the girl the judge agreed that she could look 16. Some people hit puberty earlier, and without a picture it's hard to decide what to believe. For now though, if you cut through all the bullshit of the media and find the real story, the 2 year sentence is a very good one, if the defendant should of gone to jail at all.
Posted by: yvonne, tampa, fl on 7:22pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Matt in Newark, are you stupid or a sympathizer, maybe you should be locked up too, how can you be so ignorant to post your thoughts, what are you????????
Matt in Newark, are you stupid or a sympathizer, maybe you should be locked up too, how can you be so ignorant to post your thoughts, what are you????????
Posted by: Viv Drohan, OX$ 2JP on 7:27pm Mon 25 Jun 07
OH, how I agree with the 'Kidscape' comments.
With Judge Julian Hall's history of outrageously lax dealings with child sex offenders one is forced to wonder where his 'loyalties' lie on these issues. With regards to other instances of his "ruling" over a Court of Law.... I can only surmise that he resides on a different planet to the most of us 'normal' folk!!! HE MUST BE SACKED...NOW!
OH, how I agree with the 'Kidscape' comments.
With Judge Julian Hall's history of outrageously lax dealings with child sex offenders one is forced to wonder where his 'loyalties' lie on these issues. With regards to other instances of his "ruling" over a Court of Law.... I can only surmise that he resides on a different planet to the most of us 'normal' folk!!! HE MUST BE SACKED...NOW!
Posted by: Kit, Oxford on 7:34pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Please all lodge official complaints about this judge at
tinyurl.com/ybphfb
It is absolutely crazy that he is letting sick people get away with this - there is no way you could mistake a 10 year old for a 16 year old.
Please all lodge official complaints about this judge at
tinyurl.com/ybphfb
It is absolutely crazy that he is letting sick people get away with this - there is no way you could mistake a 10 year old for a 16 year old.
Posted by: Chris, London on 8:16pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Let's get a few things straight:
1. As science has long accepted, children of all ages are sexual beings (yes, right from birth, probably before - if this revolts you, consider what you mean by 'sexual'). In particular, puberty can begin as early as 8 years old, and it is quite possible for a girl to be physically developed by 10; hence quite possible to be mistaken for a 16 year old. I don't know if this particular girl did look 16 or not, but nor do any of the other people on this thread writing things like 'A 10 year old can never be mistaken. A 10 year old is not a sexual being'.
2. This is not a case of rape: the sex was entirely consensual. It is only called 'rape' because British law deems that children under 13 cannot give their consent - but, of course, if Fenn really thought she was 16, then he would have had no reason to ignore her protestations of eagerness.
3. As Matt from Newark has already pointed out, if you take these things into account, then (if Fenn really did think the girl was 16, which is a big if) his crime was simply to be mistaken. He thought he was having consensual sex with someone of legal age. He's still committed a crime, but a 2-year sentence does not seem too lenient for making a mistake. And, incidentally, to the idiotic commenter who wrote 'no time off for time already served': time already served is not exactly 'time off', given that it's spent in police custody/detention! Or perhaps you'd like to spend your next tea break in police custody?
A note in advance to all those who will accuse me of being a 'sympathiser' (something that has absurd overtones of 'collaborator'): a rational debate on the whole issue is only possible once hysteria (on both sides) is given up. Rape (ie. non-consensual sex) is clearly a problem; but it seems to me to be much more a grey area whether sex with someone under the current age of consent is such a problem. I don't just mean that the current age of consent might possibly be too high, but rather that the whole idea of age of consent might possibly be muddled and should perhaps be scrapped (please don't ignore my 'might possiblys' and 'perhapses'). In any case, the issue is something which needs to be debated calmly and rationally, without hysterical accusations flying. I recall the posts on the story when Judge Hall was accused of lenient sentencing over a man who had put his hands down a young girl's pants: one poster gave out his wife's name and work address and encouraged sexual assault on her (the post has since been removed).
Let's get a few things straight:
1. As science has long accepted, children of all ages are sexual beings (yes, right from birth, probably before - if this revolts you, consider what you mean by 'sexual'). In particular, puberty can begin as early as 8 years old, and it is quite possible for a girl to be physically developed by 10; hence quite possible to be mistaken for a 16 year old. I don't know if this particular girl did look 16 or not, but nor do any of the other people on this thread writing things like 'A 10 year old can never be mistaken. A 10 year old is not a sexual being'.
2. This is not a case of rape: the sex was entirely consensual. It is only called 'rape' because British law deems that children under 13 cannot give their consent - but, of course, if Fenn really thought she was 16, then he would have had no reason to ignore her protestations of eagerness.
3. As Matt from Newark has already pointed out, if you take these things into account, then (if Fenn really did think the girl was 16, which is a big if) his crime was simply to be mistaken. He thought he was having consensual sex with someone of legal age. He's still committed a crime, but a 2-year sentence does not seem too lenient for making a mistake. And, incidentally, to the idiotic commenter who wrote 'no time off for time already served': time already served is not exactly 'time off', given that it's spent in police custody/detention! Or perhaps you'd like to spend your next tea break in police custody?
A note in advance to all those who will accuse me of being a 'sympathiser' (something that has absurd overtones of 'collaborator'): a rational debate on the whole issue is only possible once hysteria (on both sides) is given up. Rape (ie. non-consensual sex) is clearly a problem; but it seems to me to be much more a grey area whether sex with someone under the current age of consent is such a problem. I don't just mean that the current age of consent might possibly be too high, but rather that the whole idea of age of consent might possibly be muddled and should perhaps be scrapped (please don't ignore my 'might possiblys' and 'perhapses'). In any case, the issue is something which needs to be debated calmly and rationally, without hysterical accusations flying. I recall the posts on the story when Judge Hall was accused of lenient sentencing over a man who had put his hands down a young girl's pants: one poster gave out his wife's name and work address and encouraged sexual assault on her (the post has since been removed).
Posted by: anon 2, Oxford on 8:52pm Mon 25 Jun 07
I agree that sentences should be harsh for sex offenders. However, I would place some blame on the girl's parents. How could they allow her to dress provactively at her age? Fashions leave nothing to the imagination and girls do dress inappropriatly.
I agree that sentences should be harsh for sex offenders. However, I would place some blame on the girl's parents. How could they allow her to dress provactively at her age? Fashions leave nothing to the imagination and girls do dress inappropriatly.
Posted by: Mr Vertigo on 8:56pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Mob rules. None of you have the slightest clue about what you speak. There's a bandwagon and you get on it. You all think you can read a headline and draw a conclusion about a complex case. None of you have a clue.
Mob rules. None of you have the slightest clue about what you speak. There's a bandwagon and you get on it. You all think you can read a headline and draw a conclusion about a complex case. None of you have a clue.
Posted by: Lara on 9:10pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Judge Hall is absolutely outrageous in his decision to allow these monsters back into society. Whether she was ten or not, rape is rape!
Judge Hall is absolutely outrageous in his decision to allow these monsters back into society. Whether she was ten or not, rape is rape!
Posted by: concerned, Oxford on 9:24pm Mon 25 Jun 07
Matt, Newark and Chris, London. I think the concept your are suggesting is that of "jail bait" ie: a child (girl) looking/acting older than she actually is. HOWEVER, I find it extremely hard to imagine that any NORMAL adult male would not be able to distinguish a 10 yr old from a 16 yr old, despite her demeanour.....UNLESS he wanted to ignore that fact!
I can only assume (because of your comments) that you might encompass the thought of a teenage 'liason' ?!? But SURELY if you were approached (unsolicited) in a street by an obviously young girl (and even 16 is still very young) would YOU feel it was OK/normal to have sex with her.. not knowing anything about that girl??? Maybe I am being naive
Matt, Newark and Chris, London. I think the concept your are suggesting is that of "jail bait" ie: a child (girl) looking/acting older than she actually is. HOWEVER, I find it extremely hard to imagine that any NORMAL adult male would not be able to distinguish a 10 yr old from a 16 yr old, despite her demeanour.....UNLESS he wanted to ignore that fact!
I can only assume (because of your comments) that you might encompass the thought of a teenage 'liason' ?!? But SURELY if you were approached (unsolicited) in a street by an obviously young girl (and even 16 is still very young) would YOU feel it was OK/normal to have sex with her.. not knowing anything about that girl??? Maybe I am being naive
Posted by: Steve, Oxford on 10:31pm Mon 25 Jun 07
It saddens me to read all of this and once again realise the type of society I live in. The violent rape of a 10 year old would of course be a sad and serious offence that would be, in any court in this land, severly punished. All you out there who judge this case on the three or four paragraphs that most newspapers and websites have used to sum up what is a complicted case cannot be wholly to blame: these news outlets have a duty to the truth which they have seriously neglected in this instance. However, I find it unforgivable to answer an opposing opinion on a matter, any matter, with accusations and insults: "Matt in Newark, are you stupid or a sympathizer, maybe you should be locked up too".
For those who were not in the court when the judge sentenced these two men: This was not a violent attack, it was not rape in anything other than the legal definition of the word. It was not a knowingly paedaphilic act. Whether or not Kit from Oxford can believe it there are people out there who look older than they are...especially when dressed in a certain way and put in a certain situation. This is not in any way to blame this girl. She is 10 years old and cannot be expected to understand fully the consequences of her actions. There sometimes situations where no one is to blame...at least not in the manner in which those of you who like to witch-hunt are looking for. There are no aggresive predators in this case - these men are not a danger to your children, they are just normal men who made a tragic mistake, and if you think that the months that they have spent in custody is all the punishment they will get then you are kidding yourself...just read the bile and anger in the comments above and remember this is just the tip of the iceberg. Their names and addresses have been published by this paper. Their lives will never be the same.
We must all remember that we all are not judge and jury - none of us have heard all the facts in this case, and therefore none of us are fully able to criticise the judge's decision for sentence. He alone has heard all there is to hear - from the defendants, from the young girl, from social services and from any and all other sources available to the court. If you think he made this decision without a great deal of consideration, knowing that he would get this backlash, then you cannot have given it very much thought.
When people lash out like those have in the comments above it does nothing to help the young girl at the centre of the case, it does nothing to help society and it does nothing for justice. We must learn that not everything is always black and white. A quick and thoughtless reaction often does more harm than no reaction at all.
It saddens me to read all of this and once again realise the type of society I live in. The violent rape of a 10 year old would of course be a sad and serious offence that would be, in any court in this land, severly punished. All you out there who judge this case on the three or four paragraphs that most newspapers and websites have used to sum up what is a complicted case cannot be wholly to blame: these news outlets have a duty to the truth which they have seriously neglected in this instance. However, I find it unforgivable to answer an opposing opinion on a matter, any matter, with accusations and insults: "Matt in Newark, are you stupid or a sympathizer, maybe you should be locked up too".
For those who were not in the court when the judge sentenced these two men: This was not a violent attack, it was not rape in anything other than the legal definition of the word. It was not a knowingly paedaphilic act. Whether or not Kit from Oxford can believe it there are people out there who look older than they are...especially when dressed in a certain way and put in a certain situation. This is not in any way to blame this girl. She is 10 years old and cannot be expected to understand fully the consequences of her actions. There sometimes situations where no one is to blame...at least not in the manner in which those of you who like to witch-hunt are looking for. There are no aggresive predators in this case - these men are not a danger to your children, they are just normal men who made a tragic mistake, and if you think that the months that they have spent in custody is all the punishment they will get then you are kidding yourself...just read the bile and anger in the comments above and remember this is just the tip of the iceberg. Their names and addresses have been published by this paper. Their lives will never be the same.
We must all remember that we all are not judge and jury - none of us have heard all the facts in this case, and therefore none of us are fully able to criticise the judge's decision for sentence. He alone has heard all there is to hear - from the defendants, from the young girl, from social services and from any and all other sources available to the court. If you think he made this decision without a great deal of consideration, knowing that he would get this backlash, then you cannot have given it very much thought.
When people lash out like those have in the comments above it does nothing to help the young girl at the centre of the case, it does nothing to help society and it does nothing for justice. We must learn that not everything is always black and white. A quick and thoughtless reaction often does more harm than no reaction at all.
Posted by: katie g, australia on 12:54am Tue 26 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Paranoid male[/bold] wrote:
This is why all men should insist on checking a womans passport before taking things further, as I defy anyone to be able to predict to 100% accuracy the age of anyone under 16[/quote] So... let's see, a man who is in his late 20's or early thirties thinks it's okay to have forced sex with a 16 year old?? Can you not see the distorted thinking here?? And,as has been said, forced sex is forced sex. But then, you need pergaps more than half a braincell to realise that. Taking things further does not include rape, buddy. Oh, and for the record: if a woman does not have public hair, she is a child.
Paranoid male wrote:
This is why all men should insist on checking a womans passport before taking things further, as I defy anyone to be able to predict to 100% accuracy the age of anyone under 16
So... let's see, a man who is in his late 20's or early thirties thinks it's okay to have forced sex with a 16 year old?? Can you not see the distorted thinking here?? And,as has been said, forced sex is forced sex. But then, you need pergaps more than half a braincell to realise that. Taking things further does not include rape, buddy. Oh, and for the record: if a woman does not have public hair, she is a child.
Posted by: furious, Australia on 2:02am Tue 26 Jun 07
[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote:
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex. If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age. [/quote] The fact remains that she was 10 yrs old. I have never seen someone that old look 16 and the only proof that we have that she was consenting is that the PEDOPHILES who RAPED her say that she consented... because she never admitted to consenting. and the fact still remains that they had sex with a 10yr old.
John wrote:
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex. If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
The fact remains that she was 10 yrs old. I have never seen someone that old look 16 and the only proof that we have that she was consenting is that the PEDOPHILES who RAPED her say that she consented... because she never admitted to consenting. and the fact still remains that they had sex with a 10yr old.
Posted by: furious, Australia on 2:20am Tue 26 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Worried[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]kelly[/bold] wrote: Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.[/quote] I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old. Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy. In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators. It\'s time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children. For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that. [/quote] It does not matter what underwaer the person is wearing!! the only way to see underwear is to take off the clothes over it.
Worried wrote:
kelly wrote: Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.
I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old. Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy. In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators. It\'s time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children. For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that.
It does not matter what underwaer the person is wearing!! the only way to see underwear is to take off the clothes over it.
Posted by: furious, Australia on 2:36am Tue 26 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Worried[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]kelly[/bold] wrote: Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.[/quote] I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old. Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy. In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators. It\\\'s time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children. For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that. [/quote] It does not matter what underwaer the person is wearing!! the only way to see underwear is to take off the clothes over it.
Worried wrote:
kelly wrote: Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.
I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old. Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy. In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators. It's time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children. For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that.
It does not matter what underwaer the person is wearing!! the only way to see underwear is to take off the clothes over it.
Posted by: Vanessa Brown, Australia on 4:16am Tue 26 Jun 07
It doesn't matter how provocatively the girl was dressed, this is not an adequate defence in the case of an adult rape victim.
It doesn't matter how provocatively the girl was dressed, this is not an adequate defence in the case of an adult rape victim.
Posted by: rose on 4:54am Tue 26 Jun 07
This judgement is a disgrace, showing complete lack of understanding of the emotional developmental stage of a 10year old. It perpetuates the abuse. It would be a community benefit from the media to report an understanding of the reasoning and background of a judge who should come to such a conclusion. One would have to ask the question, does he condone paedophilia?
This judgement is a disgrace, showing complete lack of understanding of the emotional developmental stage of a 10year old. It perpetuates the abuse. It would be a community benefit from the media to report an understanding of the reasoning and background of a judge who should come to such a conclusion. One would have to ask the question, does he condone paedophilia?
Posted by: Paranoid male, London UK on 6:30am Tue 26 Jun 07
I remember a story a male friend of mine in his 30's told me once, he dare not tell anyone else, and you can see why..
He is a ladies man, well travelled, experienced, a people person, so if anyone could tell the true age of a woman, its him.
One night he had arranged a party at his place, invited friends, and was having a nice time chatting up the ladies when one particular woman took his attention. He didn't know which one of his friends had invited her along too, but they got on well and she appeared interested in taking things further. As his thoughts turned to sex later, she suddenly became ill and out of nowhere, her mum appeared (one of his friends..) and started complaining to him about why was 'he' allowing her 12 yr daughter to drink alchol!
He was very shaken by the idea that he could think she looked 18 not 12, and came to realise that my paranoid approach to women was perhaps not so daft after all, if even he had trouble telling the true age of a girl.
You can go to almost any pub/nightclub and find girls there under age, drinking quite openly, with fake ID, acting in an adult manner.
If we want to make a difference, then we should start to put our house in order and insist these premises actually uphold the legal drinking age, as very few bother in reality.
I remember a story a male friend of mine in his 30's told me once, he dare not tell anyone else, and you can see why..
He is a ladies man, well travelled, experienced, a people person, so if anyone could tell the true age of a woman, its him.
One night he had arranged a party at his place, invited friends, and was having a nice time chatting up the ladies when one particular woman took his attention. He didn't know which one of his friends had invited her along too, but they got on well and she appeared interested in taking things further. As his thoughts turned to sex later, she suddenly became ill and out of nowhere, her mum appeared (one of his friends..) and started complaining to him about why was 'he' allowing her 12 yr daughter to drink alchol!
He was very shaken by the idea that he could think she looked 18 not 12, and came to realise that my paranoid approach to women was perhaps not so daft after all, if even he had trouble telling the true age of a girl.
You can go to almost any pub/nightclub and find girls there under age, drinking quite openly, with fake ID, acting in an adult manner.
If we want to make a difference, then we should start to put our house in order and insist these premises actually uphold the legal drinking age, as very few bother in reality.
Posted by: Paranoid Male, London UK on 6:44am Tue 26 Jun 07
I see no one else has really picked up on the dreadful state of council care homes. Having visited them and friends there myself in the past, I can tell you they are full of new age social workers whose hands are tied by the law which prevents them from bringing up children in a parental way, and allows any behaviour to occur.
Local pimps recruit from the homes knowing the girls are easy prey and our great child care services do nothing to stop it, as it would infringe on the childs right of freedom.
Whilst I'm not a religious person myself, I see the old fashioned approach of locking children up at home and not letting them out when they misbehave as something rather practical, that religious friends of mine have a much harder attitude to dealing with their children and not allowing them to get away with dressing as they like.
I see no one else has really picked up on the dreadful state of council care homes. Having visited them and friends there myself in the past, I can tell you they are full of new age social workers whose hands are tied by the law which prevents them from bringing up children in a parental way, and allows any behaviour to occur.
Local pimps recruit from the homes knowing the girls are easy prey and our great child care services do nothing to stop it, as it would infringe on the childs right of freedom.
Whilst I'm not a religious person myself, I see the old fashioned approach of locking children up at home and not letting them out when they misbehave as something rather practical, that religious friends of mine have a much harder attitude to dealing with their children and not allowing them to get away with dressing as they like.
Posted by: kelly, bic on 8:24am Tue 26 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Worried[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]kelly[/bold] wrote: Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.[/quote] I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old. Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy. In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators. It's time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children. For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that. [/quote] ok so i missed out the words 'with in reason' I was talking about short skirts etc. When i was ten I was still playing with barbies. You're totally right that childrens childness is almost wiped out by the age of ten. And it's very sad I think. Sorry I should have worded my post slightly better. Unfortunately in our world we cannot wear what we like but...in an ideal world they should be able to wear whatever and feel safe. I have seen those so called garments for sale and have also been rupulsed that the market even consider selling them for children. I wasn't allowed them till I was about 14. But I was never allowed t-shirts with those sorts of slogans on, I'm only 20 now so it wasn't that long ago. The long and short is. This 'judge' is wrong and was periodically wrong. Also some one stated it was only rape because she was under age! you're wrong. If you read the whole artical she was forced to perform sexual acts later on, they still vialated her personal space. A grown man approaching on a ten year old even if he did think she was 16. It's still not right!!!
Worried wrote:
kelly wrote: Ok so she was provocatively dressed, that made her look 6 years older did it? Not only that to force the young girl into a sexual act is always a crime no matter if she was 40 and provocatively dressed. Women and men for that matter should be able to wear what they like and be safe.
I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. Girls and boys under 16 should not be allowed to wear what they want. Thongs on sale for children (in Oxford) as young as 5. T-shirts with slogans from hot chick to the word sl.ut splashed across them for girls not even 10 years old. Society is sacrificing children and childhoods for profit and the vanity of the parent who wants their little ones to dress like mummy or daddy. In allowing this unfettered irresponsibility we (all of us) create victims for the predators. It's time to call a halt to this, let the kids have their childhood and let parents actually take some responsibility for these matters with their children. For those who say we should be able to wear what we like and feel safe, ignore the niavety of children in situations they have no experience of. There are those out there who will seek to exploit every situation. Stupidity fails to recognise that.
ok so i missed out the words 'with in reason' I was talking about short skirts etc. When i was ten I was still playing with barbies. You're totally right that childrens childness is almost wiped out by the age of ten. And it's very sad I think. Sorry I should have worded my post slightly better. Unfortunately in our world we cannot wear what we like but...in an ideal world they should be able to wear whatever and feel safe. I have seen those so called garments for sale and have also been rupulsed that the market even consider selling them for children. I wasn't allowed them till I was about 14. But I was never allowed t-shirts with those sorts of slogans on, I'm only 20 now so it wasn't that long ago. The long and short is. This 'judge' is wrong and was periodically wrong. Also some one stated it was only rape because she was under age! you're wrong. If you read the whole artical she was forced to perform sexual acts later on, they still vialated her personal space. A grown man approaching on a ten year old even if he did think she was 16. It's still not right!!!
Posted by: kelly, bic on 8:33am Tue 26 Jun 07
It's all just very wrong!! Very wrong indeed. We must try and sign this petition hopefully it will do some good!! We need to protect the children. As I said above dressing with in reason etc but it still remains that they should be able to be safe. a 25 yr old and a 16yr old is still a bit weird. it's a shame!!
It's all just very wrong!! Very wrong indeed. We must try and sign this petition hopefully it will do some good!! We need to protect the children. As I said above dressing with in reason etc but it still remains that they should be able to be safe. a 25 yr old and a 16yr old is still a bit weird. it's a shame!!
Posted by: Laraine Santagato, usa on 8:56am Tue 26 Jun 07
I realise I am far from the crowd, but it seems to me the child acts very old for her age. The story I am reading says she was raised in foster care since 4 years of age, maybe she learnt her sexual skills being molestered in such homes, or and watching **** films, how else would she know at age 10 to have any kind of sexual skills ?someone, somehow, or somewhere has to have taught her ? maybe I'm missing something here. There are 2 sides to every story and I am probably not hearing it all, and if it was rape as reported by many, then the judge is an arse and deserves to be disbarred. Its a very sad story, I have no answers, just offering my thoughts.I would think the child would need some sort of counseling after this mess, she has to be injured in many ways.
I realise I am far from the crowd, but it seems to me the child acts very old for her age. The story I am reading says she was raised in foster care since 4 years of age, maybe she learnt her sexual skills being molestered in such homes, or and watching **** films, how else would she know at age 10 to have any kind of sexual skills ?someone, somehow, or somewhere has to have taught her ? maybe I'm missing something here. There are 2 sides to every story and I am probably not hearing it all, and if it was rape as reported by many, then the judge is an arse and deserves to be disbarred. Its a very sad story, I have no answers, just offering my thoughts.I would think the child would need some sort of counseling after this mess, she has to be injured in many ways.
Posted by: Steve, Oxford on 9:21am Tue 26 Jun 07
I must correct these "facts" that you people throw around so dangerously:
1. SHE WAS NOT FORCED. At any time, in any way. The papers have this wrong and this was conceded by the prosecution and admitted by the girl.
2. SHE LOOKS 16+ AND TOLD THE MEN THAT SHE WAS 16. The prosecution conceded that she was, and I quote from the prosecutor "this was a girl in a woman's body".
It is just not right to witch-hunt like this. This is not one of those cases, and I know they exist and I truely believe that predatory violent men who attack and rape young girls should be jailed for a very very long time - BUT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES. If you don't belive me then get a copy of the court transcript yourself (you can get it from Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.) and READ IT before condemning and viciously verbally attacking in a situation where YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS.
I must correct these "facts" that you people throw around so dangerously:
1. SHE WAS NOT FORCED. At any time, in any way. The papers have this wrong and this was conceded by the prosecution and admitted by the girl.
2. SHE LOOKS 16+ AND TOLD THE MEN THAT SHE WAS 16. The prosecution conceded that she was, and I quote from the prosecutor "this was a girl in a woman's body".
It is just not right to witch-hunt like this. This is not one of those cases, and I know they exist and I truely believe that predatory violent men who attack and rape young girls should be jailed for a very very long time - BUT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES. If you don't belive me then get a copy of the court transcript yourself (you can get it from Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.) and READ IT before condemning and viciously verbally attacking in a situation where YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS.
Posted by: Kristina on 11:15am Tue 26 Jun 07
[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote:
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex. If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age. [/quote] John, how on earth can you say that this child wanted to have sex?
Where you there yourself?
did she tell you this?
John wrote:
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex. If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
John, how on earth can you say that this child wanted to have sex?
Where you there yourself?
did she tell you this?
Posted by: Steve, Oxford on 11:57am Tue 26 Jun 07
[quote] John wrote:
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex. If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
John, how on earth can you say that this child wanted to have sex?
Where you there yourself?
did she tell you this?[/quote]
My God Kristina, can't you read my post above? I mean, its right above yours but you didn't bother to read it? [bold]She told the court[/bold] . It is in the transcript of the Judge's remarks.
John wrote:
The young girl wanted to have sex with them. It is only rape because she was under 13 and a girl under 13 cannot consent to having sex. If they honestly believed her to be 16 (like she said she was) then this is not a case of rape as they believed her to be of consenting age.
John, how on earth can you say that this child wanted to have sex?
Where you there yourself?
did she tell you this?
My God Kristina, can't you read my post above? I mean, its right above yours but you didn't bother to read it?
She told the court . It is in the transcript of the Judge's remarks.
Posted by: Steve, Oxford on 12:12pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Though, so be absolutely fair, as far as I know she did not say she wanted sex. However, it was consentual, in that she appeared and acted as though she wanted what was happening to happen, and did not indicate in any way that she did not. With the second defendant, it would appear that she possibly instigated the only sexual interaction between them, which was masterbation.
Why can we not at least consider the possibility that the real end result here is that this girl needs help and has possibly been treated very badly thorughout her life...I don't mean sexually, just has not been given the love and stability that we all need in life. Why is it so necessary for us to have to go after someone?
Though, so be absolutely fair, as far as I know she did not say she wanted sex. However, it was consentual, in that she appeared and acted as though she wanted what was happening to happen, and did not indicate in any way that she did not. With the second defendant, it would appear that she possibly instigated the only sexual interaction between them, which was masterbation.
Why can we not at least consider the possibility that the real end result here is that this girl needs help and has possibly been treated very badly thorughout her life...I don't mean sexually, just has not been given the love and stability that we all need in life. Why is it so necessary for us to have to go after someone?
Posted by: Jane, London on 1:54pm Tue 26 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Paranoid male[/bold] wrote:
This is why all men should insist on checking a womans passport before taking things further, as I defy anyone to be able to predict to 100% accuracy the age of anyone under 16[/quote] Yes I completely agree in passport checking (providing they have a passport-kids these days!).
As any adult with average intelligence wouldn’t be able to tell the different between a 10 year old kid and a 16 year old.
Like that would require common sense! We can’t have that now can we.
I don’t care if they thought she was 160, what are two 25/34 year olds doing having sex with a 16 (or so they thought-whatever!) year old in a park at night?
And the 10 year old kid can even say she consented etc but 10 year old don’t have the emotional or intellectual capacity to fully understand and gasp the situation and make such a judgment.
The judge should be taken off the bench, he is so out of touch and I find it quite disturbing that someone with that way of thinking could preside over such a case.
But it’s not really surprising, as lots of judges and people in positions of power are pedophiles themselves or know people who are, and want to protect their friends.
Rather than the kids-the ones who they should be protecting.
Paranoid male wrote:
This is why all men should insist on checking a womans passport before taking things further, as I defy anyone to be able to predict to 100% accuracy the age of anyone under 16
Yes I completely agree in passport checking (providing they have a passport-kids these days!).
As any adult with average intelligence wouldn’t be able to tell the different between a 10 year old kid and a 16 year old.
Like that would require common sense! We can’t have that now can we.
I don’t care if they thought she was 160, what are two 25/34 year olds doing having sex with a 16 (or so they thought-whatever!) year old in a park at night?
And the 10 year old kid can even say she consented etc but 10 year old don’t have the emotional or intellectual capacity to fully understand and gasp the situation and make such a judgment.
The judge should be taken off the bench, he is so out of touch and I find it quite disturbing that someone with that way of thinking could preside over such a case.
But it’s not really surprising, as lots of judges and people in positions of power are pedophiles themselves or know people who are, and want to protect their friends.
Rather than the kids-the ones who they should be protecting.
Posted by: Steve, Oxford on 2:37pm Tue 26 Jun 07
[quote]As any adult with average intelligence wouldn’t be able to tell the different between a 10 year old kid and a 16 year old.
Like that would require common sense! We can’t have that now can we.
I don’t care if they thought she was 160, what are two 25/34 year olds doing having sex with a 16 (or so they thought-whatever!) year old in a park at night?
And the 10 year old kid can even say she consented etc but 10 year old don’t have the emotional or intellectual capacity to fully understand and gasp the situation and make such a judgment.[/quote]
1. As I have said before, everyone in the case, prosecution and defence alike, agreed that she looked at least 16. Whether or not you believe it, there are people out there who look drastically older than their age. How she was dressed was only important in that it gave further credence to the idea that she looked older than she was. We generally don’t expect children to dress in this manner.
2. Legally you are correct - a 10 year old cannot consent - that is why this offence is rape even though there are none of the usual hallmarks of rape - force, resistance, any behaviour, verbal or physical, which indicate a lack of consent. Of course had she been 16 then this would not have been rape. It may well have been considered extremely seedy activity by the general public, but it would not have been a sexual offence. The fact that despite how she looked she is actually 10 is the only reason we are talking about this, and is the fact that people have such a hard time dealing with it without resorting to knee-jerk opinions.
3. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that points 1 and 2 above are true, and that anyone would believe that she was 16, and that both men thought she was consenting, if not even instigating. Are these men now as "evil" and "disgusting" as a man who follows a schoolgirl home from school, one who looks 10 years old, grabs her and takes her to the park and forcefully rapes her? Should they be judged in the same manner? Aren’t these two situations qualitatively different? I think that when most of you sit down and think about it you would agree that they are. One should be treated with much more leniency than the other. The other should be jailed for a very very long time.
Whether you believe me or not this judgement was fair and well considered. Again, I urge you to find out and read the facts before commenting on a website read by many people in this area. Your remarks will have a much wider effect than you think. Understanding the situation has to be the only fair way forwards…you cannot expect to hold a reasonable and educated opinion on any matter when you don’t know anything about it.
As any adult with average intelligence wouldn’t be able to tell the different between a 10 year old kid and a 16 year old.
Like that would require common sense! We can’t have that now can we.
I don’t care if they thought she was 160, what are two 25/34 year olds doing having sex with a 16 (or so they thought-whatever!) year old in a park at night?
And the 10 year old kid can even say she consented etc but 10 year old don’t have the emotional or intellectual capacity to fully understand and gasp the situation and make such a judgment.
1. As I have said before, everyone in the case, prosecution and defence alike, agreed that she looked at least 16. Whether or not you believe it, there are people out there who look drastically older than their age. How she was dressed was only important in that it gave further credence to the idea that she looked older than she was. We generally don’t expect children to dress in this manner.
2. Legally you are correct - a 10 year old cannot consent - that is why this offence is rape even though there are none of the usual hallmarks of rape - force, resistance, any behaviour, verbal or physical, which indicate a lack of consent. Of course had she been 16 then this would not have been rape. It may well have been considered extremely seedy activity by the general public, but it would not have been a sexual offence. The fact that despite how she looked she is actually 10 is the only reason we are talking about this, and is the fact that people have such a hard time dealing with it without resorting to knee-jerk opinions.
3. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that points 1 and 2 above are true, and that anyone would believe that she was 16, and that both men thought she was consenting, if not even instigating. Are these men now as "evil" and "disgusting" as a man who follows a schoolgirl home from school, one who looks 10 years old, grabs her and takes her to the park and forcefully rapes her? Should they be judged in the same manner? Aren’t these two situations qualitatively different? I think that when most of you sit down and think about it you would agree that they are. One should be treated with much more leniency than the other. The other should be jailed for a very very long time.
Whether you believe me or not this judgement was fair and well considered. Again, I urge you to find out and read the facts before commenting on a website read by many people in this area. Your remarks will have a much wider effect than you think. Understanding the situation has to be the only fair way forwards…you cannot expect to hold a reasonable and educated opinion on any matter when you don’t know anything about it.
Posted by: Andy on 2:44pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Having read the comments of some of the males I am saddened that there are so many men who are so controlled by their genitals that they have convinced themselves that this CHILD was not raped. What planet do you men live on. YOU CAN'T TELL IF A CHILD IS UNDER AGE. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR TROUSERS FOR A MOMENT AND CONVERSE AND YOU MAY THEN DESCOVER THAT YOU ARE FLIRTING WITH A CHILD. DAFT TWATS.
Having read the comments of some of the males I am saddened that there are so many men who are so controlled by their genitals that they have convinced themselves that this CHILD was not raped. What planet do you men live on. YOU CAN'T TELL IF A CHILD IS UNDER AGE. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR TROUSERS FOR A MOMENT AND CONVERSE AND YOU MAY THEN DESCOVER THAT YOU ARE FLIRTING WITH A CHILD. DAFT TWATS.
Posted by: Jess, oxon on 6:16pm Tue 26 Jun 07
this judge should not be allowed to work anymore,I am disgusted by this outcome.I am local to one of these men and I fear for my childrens safety. Even if the girl looked 16 and dressed like an adult that does not mean they are free to abuse her.My partner is the victim of growing up in care and being abused and it makes these victims become violent and angry in later life.I also think the adult responsible for this girl should be up in court for lack of parenting of a ten year old.
this judge should not be allowed to work anymore,I am disgusted by this outcome.I am local to one of these men and I fear for my childrens safety. Even if the girl looked 16 and dressed like an adult that does not mean they are free to abuse her.My partner is the victim of growing up in care and being abused and it makes these victims become violent and angry in later life.I also think the adult responsible for this girl should be up in court for lack of parenting of a ten year old.
Posted by: Steve, Oxford on 7:26pm Tue 26 Jun 07
I think I am going to stop commenting because obviously very few others actually read what anyone who has a different opinion to them writes. I am now banging my head against a wall.
I will say one last thing and I hope it sinks in:
Jess...these men are NOT A DANGER TO YOUR CHILDREN. They are not predatory paedophiles. I can only ask you to re-read what I said in all my post above to try to convince you of this.
I know you won't believe me but it bears saying anyway as it is the truth.
I think I am going to stop commenting because obviously very few others actually read what anyone who has a different opinion to them writes. I am now banging my head against a wall.
I will say one last thing and I hope it sinks in:
Jess...these men are NOT A DANGER TO YOUR CHILDREN. They are not predatory paedophiles. I can only ask you to re-read what I said in all my post above to try to convince you of this.
I know you won't believe me but it bears saying anyway as it is the truth.
Posted by: Wendy, london on 8:04pm Tue 26 Jun 07
regardless of how old you are and you found sum1 to be with you would still have sex with them would you not? this girl has clearly been abused in the past and has obviously been taught how to perform sexual acts. do u no any 10 year olds who know how to do these sort of things?(and that wear raunchy lingerie?) how u dress and act can determine how old u look and she clearly lied to them about her age! everyone here needs to read the full story and stop alleging a load of rubbish that is uttter ****. get the facts ryt before u contribute ure own views please.
regardless of how old you are and you found sum1 to be with you would still have sex with them would you not? this girl has clearly been abused in the past and has obviously been taught how to perform sexual acts. do u no any 10 year olds who know how to do these sort of things?(and that wear raunchy lingerie?) how u dress and act can determine how old u look and she clearly lied to them about her age! everyone here needs to read the full story and stop alleging a load of rubbish that is uttter ****. get the facts ryt before u contribute ure own views please.
