The act of rape requires a penetrative act, is that correct?
I think when victims are underage there is much less grey area. The beeb's recent news item on this focussed on Marie and two male perps. Regardless of whether Marie technically committed rape or not, she was a ringleader and as such should/will get harsh sentencing.
The act of rape requires a penetrative act, is that correct?
I think when victims are underage there is much less grey area. The beeb's recent news item on this focussed on Marie and two male perps. Regardless of whether Marie technically committed rape or not, she was a ringleader and as such should/will get harsh sentencing.
It does and afaik not necessarily by male penis either.
It's different when it's a woman though. Mothers are loving whereas from a father perspective he could be seen as predatory. I am not convinced she is a paedophile sorry.
You can't compare this to a monster like Ian Watkins.
It's different when it's a woman though. Mothers are loving whereas from a father perspective he could be seen as predatory. I am not convinced she is a paedophile sorry.
You can't compare this to a monster like Ian Watkins.
It's different when it's a woman though. Mothers are loving whereas from a father perspective he could be seen as predatory. I am not convinced she is a paedophile sorry.
You can't compare this to a monster like Ian Watkins.
This kind of post is exactly why I said yesterday that it's better to call such scumbags child abusers, not paedos. Too many people will argue semantics etc., about the p word... but there's no arguing with 'child sex' abuser, to which for completeness I would usually add the word 'scum'.
Having said that, your post comes across as a bit odd.
That's a different offence though, rape in English law can only be done by a penis.
This kind of post is exactly why I said yesterday that it's better to call such scumbags child abusers, not paedos. Too many people will argue semantics etc., about the p word... but there's no arguing with 'child sex' abuser, to which for completeness I would usually add the word 'scum'.
Having said that, your post comes across as a bit odd.
It's different when it's a woman though. Mothers are loving whereas from a father perspective he could be seen as predatory. I am not convinced she is a paedophile sorry.
You can't compare this to a monster like Ian Watkins.
She is no less a monster than Watkins.
The idea of female abusers goes against a lot of our perceived wisdom about gender and society, it's perhaps easier to be in denial.
Don't you? What does this tell you? :
"She was found guilty of offences including rape, conspiracy to rape and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity."
Comparing the sexual abuse she committed with some other random sexual abuse case (there's always one 'worse') in a way that seems to try and lessen what she did, is what makes your post seem odd.
That's a different offence though, rape in English law can only be done by a penis.
Yet one of the offences she's been found guilty of is rape......not inciting it or whatever but actual rape. I know we've covered this before in other cases, but this does seem to be different.
Yet one of the offences she's been found guilty of is rape......not inciting it or whatever but actual rape. I know we've covered this before in other cases, but this does seem to be different.
Yeah, you can be prosecuted for many (maybe all?) crimes through Joint Enterprise - a kind of 'aiding and abetting' or joining in. You can get the same conviction as the person who physically did it, even if you didn't do the act yourself. It's not uncommon for say gang members who were at the scene to be charged with e.g. a stabbing offence under Joint Enterprise, even though they didn't do the actual stabbing.
It's a historical thing relating to how rape was always defined in English law but we can only guess why. A few 'Western democracies' or States now define it as you would.
But what's in a name anyway? The maximum sentences and ranges for both are the same AFAIK.
Yeah, you can be prosecuted for many (maybe all?) crimes through Joint Enterprise - a kind of 'aiding and abetting' or joining in. You can get the same conviction as the person who physically did it, even if you didn't do the act yourself. It's not uncommon for say gang members who were at the scene to be charged with e.g. a stabbing offence under Joint Enterprise, even though they didn't do the actual stabbing.
The Joint Enterprise thing is interesting.
I think the label of "rapist" is very important - it has a particular stigma that other crimes don't have. She didn't actually commit rape, but she fully deserves to be labelled as a rapist.
Yeah, you can be prosecuted for many (maybe all?) crimes through Joint Enterprise - a kind of 'aiding and abetting' or joining in. You can get the same conviction as the person who physically did it, even if you didn't do the act yourself. It's not uncommon for say gang members who were at the scene to be charged with e.g. a stabbing offence under Joint Enterprise, even though they didn't do the actual stabbing.
I suppose in most peoples minds the word 'rape' has impact so it's a pity it's gender based. Lets face it, serious sexual assault doesn't raise the hair on ones neck in the same way as rape does.
The only good thing is she must surely be going down for life, though quite what it will be set at will be interesting to see.
Interesting read here from Blacks neighbours, each of whom found her polite and pleasant. The Close she lived in is also quite 'neighbourly' and decent looking too. Not rough at all. Just goes to show you never know who/what you might be living next door to.
I think the label of "rapist" is very important - it has a particular stigma that other crimes don't have. She didn't actually commit rape, but she fully deserves to be labelled as a rapist.
Only just seen your post after posting mine up and this is exactly my thoughts too.
Yeah but Watkins did worse with Kate Blagden than this mother.
Does this give you some kind of solace; the fact that IYO a worse, non-female perp is out there? I'm not getting at you specfically, IMO people are very uncomfy with female child sex abusers generally.
Does this give you some kind of solace; the fact that IYO a worse, non-female perp is out there? I'm not getting at you specfically, IMO people are very uncomfy with female child sex abusers generally.
I am always surprised when a female is involved. You would think they would be more compassionate towards a child.
Comments
I think when victims are underage there is much less grey area. The beeb's recent news item on this focussed on Marie and two male perps. Regardless of whether Marie technically committed rape or not, she was a ringleader and as such should/will get harsh sentencing.
You can't compare this to a monster like Ian Watkins.
she sounds like a cuddly teddy bear
That's a different offence though, rape in English law can only be done by a penis.
This kind of post is exactly why I said yesterday that it's better to call such scumbags child abusers, not paedos. Too many people will argue semantics etc., about the p word... but there's no arguing with 'child sex' abuser, to which for completeness I would usually add the word 'scum'.
Having said that, your post comes across as a bit odd.
It does in England and Wales, not sure about elsewhere.
There is also an offences of assault by penetration which covers anything else used in the penetration.
Do you know she abused? Your post is more odd.
She is no less a monster than Watkins.
The idea of female abusers goes against a lot of our perceived wisdom about gender and society, it's perhaps easier to be in denial.
Watkins gave babies drugs for gods sake.
This rotten tumour of a person facilitated card games with children as prizes.
Both are greatly evil people. I'm not getting into a Who's A Worse Paedo? situation.
Watkins victims were given to him by their own mothers.
Don't you? What does this tell you? :
"She was found guilty of offences including rape, conspiracy to rape and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity."
Comparing the sexual abuse she committed with some other random sexual abuse case (there's always one 'worse') in a way that seems to try and lessen what she did, is what makes your post seem odd.
Maybe them being Muslim was irrelevant in that case, just like anyone in this story purporting to be Christian would make no difference.
Has someone given you drugs? She's guilty.
Yeah but Watkins did worse with Kate Blagden than this mother.
Says who?
Rape is rape, abuse is abuse, a persons sex/background/culture/religion/ethnicity has no bearing the matter.
Yeah, you can be prosecuted for many (maybe all?) crimes through Joint Enterprise - a kind of 'aiding and abetting' or joining in. You can get the same conviction as the person who physically did it, even if you didn't do the act yourself. It's not uncommon for say gang members who were at the scene to be charged with e.g. a stabbing offence under Joint Enterprise, even though they didn't do the actual stabbing.
The Joint Enterprise thing is interesting.
I think the label of "rapist" is very important - it has a particular stigma that other crimes don't have. She didn't actually commit rape, but she fully deserves to be labelled as a rapist.
The only good thing is she must surely be going down for life, though quite what it will be set at will be interesting to see.
Interesting read here from Blacks neighbours, each of whom found her polite and pleasant. The Close she lived in is also quite 'neighbourly' and decent looking too. Not rough at all. Just goes to show you never know who/what you might be living next door to.
Does this give you some kind of solace; the fact that IYO a worse, non-female perp is out there? I'm not getting at you specfically, IMO people are very uncomfy with female child sex abusers generally.
I am always surprised when a female is involved. You would think they would be more compassionate towards a child.