I agree they had to print the reason but say a Catholic did it and got the girl pregnant and said he didn't use a condom because The Pope said not to would they have been keen to run with that angle
The thing that seems to be overlooked is that he "groomed" her over the internet.
That's a criminal offense on it's own isn't it?
And the reason it's taken seriously is because experience tells us that it has become a way that older men can almost brainwash underage girls into thinking they do want sex. Or offering support and friendship and the price is sex.
So where does the consent come into it?
Just have to add the attitudes on here about "men can't help themselves, it's biology innit" are pretty disgusting in this day and age.
The law made a judgement in this case which presumably acknowledged that they were both young and the gap between his and her age small hence why he didnt get a prison sentence. It doesnt make the law wrong, it just demonstrates the discretion in sentencing.
At 14 it wouldnt have been viewed as statutory rape.....she was below the age where it was deemed (by law) that she had capacity to consent.
I'm very aware of the Fraser Guidelines as I work within them every day. And as I made clear in my post, at the age of 14 she was above the age where she can be deemed to give consent, if she is deemed competent. This covers being able to consent to medical procedures, and medication. 16 is the legal age in which sexual consent can be deemed to be given, but in actual fact it's highly unusual for any legal action to be taken in 2 consenting teenagers having sex when 1 is below the age of 16 years, if both are deemed to have capacity.
Under the age of 13 it's a different ballgame entirely.
I'm very aware of the Fraser Guidelines as I work within them every day. And as I made clear in my post, at the age of 14 she was above the age where she can be deemed to give consent, if she is deemed competent. This covers being able to consent to medical procedures, and medication. 16 is the legal age in which sexual consent can be deemed to be given, but in actual fact it's highly unusual for any legal action to be taken in 2 consenting teenagers having sex when 1 is below the age of 16 years, if both are deemed to have capacity.
Under the age of 13 it's a different ballgame entirely.
What has any of that got to do with this thread. The girl was 13 and the man was 18 and no evidence has been given about her capacity to consent
Yes.... he met her through f/book, booked a hotel room 50 miles away for them, came out of the bathroom wearing a condom... and the worthless 13 years old girl supposedly seduced him because he was sexually naive and didn't know it was illegal.
The religious angle/ weird school is pulled out of the bag - even though it taught him sex before marriage is wrong - to complete a ridiculous defence story.
Perhaps his next load of bullshit will be tried on with someone of legal age.
I agree they had to print the reason but say a Catholic did it and got the girl pregnant and said he didn't use a condom because The Pope said not to would they have been keen to run with that angle
The thing that seems to be overlooked is that he "groomed" her over the internet.
That's a criminal offense on it's own isn't it?
And the reason it's taken seriously is because experience tells us that it has become a way that older men can almost brainwash underage girls into thinking they do want sex. Or offering support and friendship and the price is sex.
So where does the consent come into it?
Just have to add the attitudes on here about "men can't help themselves, it's biology innit" are pretty disgusting in this day and age.
I agree with all that. It's not as if these were two fifteen-year-olds who developed a friendship or mutual fancy and ultimately boy-girl relationship involving sex. Despicable excuse making on behalf of a cunning adult 18 year-old male who, it appears from the report, made a flimsy pretence of sexual naivety and ignorance of right and wrong.
Yeah this smells of bullshit, but I suspect we don't know the full details yet (The Mail and The Sun are liable to omit important facts to further their sensationalist agenda).
I'll wait until more details become known before commenting, there is more to come I am sure. But he must be smirking all over his "immature" adult face at the moment... :rolleyes:
Despicable excuse making on behalf of a cunning adult 18 year-old male who, it appears from the report, made a flimsy pretence of sexual naivety and ignorance of right and wrong.
I don't necessarily believe the defense, but I think it's possible for an 18 year old to be more sexually naive than a 13 year old, and to be as ignorant of right or wrong, as a 13 year old. But it may require a mental condition.
He's obviously a right mug though.
When I was 18, I generally thought all the girls my age were full of shit.
I still get the odd underage twerp trying to flirt despite me being the ripe old age of 30-something.
The subject of underage sex with an older partner is a really tricky one, as it's very common, and there's lots of things to take into consideration. However, regardless of the age difference, whether they've had sex before, how old they look, how mature they are, if they initiate it - having sex with someone under the age of 16 is illegal.
There must be some undisclosed reason as to why it ended up in court. It comes across as very premeditated - it'd be a bit more understandable if they were in a relationship or knew each other prior, but seemingly they spoke over facebook and then met up at a hotel for sex.
As others have mentioned, the fact he was using social networking, knew about contraception and had sex outside of marriage, is far removed from the innocent, naive man he pretends to be.
Muslims respect their mothers so much that I do not understand how they can find women worthless
It astounding how people still do not understand the difference between certain groups thinking, many moderate Muslims have a 'them and us attitude' never mind the ones that are brought up in a Muslim school. In a Muslims eyes any non Muslim is a infidel and is worthless unless they can be converted. That is why you never hear about Muslim men preying on Muslim women.. Because it is rarer than hens teeth in this country especially because their are all these young white girls to attack. It is unbelievable that a school is allowed to teach such bigotry in this country but I'm not suprised some people are so desperate to be loved and so scared of being called a racist they won't call a spade a spade.
It astounding how people still do not understand the difference between certain groups thinking, many moderate Muslims have a 'them and us attitude' never mind the ones that are brought up in a Muslim school. In a Muslims eyes any non Muslim is a infidel and is worthless unless they can be converted. That is why you never hear about Muslim men preying on Muslim women.. Because it is rarer than hens teeth in this country especially because their are all these young white girls to attack. It is unbelievable that a school is allowed to teach such bigotry in this country but I'm not suprised some people are so desperate to be loved and so scared of being called a racist they won't call a spade a spade.
if the young man was indeed taught such vile things in any school state or private it should be closed down immediately. I would need a bit more than evidence from a defendant; anxious to give himself an excuse; however.
if the young man was indeed taught such vile things in any school state or private it should be closed down immediately. I would need a bit more than evidence from a defendant; anxious to give himself an excuse; however.
I totally understand but how would you (I'm assuming your a white non Muslim) ever gather evidence to the contrary apart from sending round the ofsted inspectors who would be shown whatever is the bare minimum to pass the criteria. I know plenty of people (as a British subject of Indian origin) go to these 'schools' or go to 'visit' family in Pakistan or even just come back from Friday prayers and spout the same shit that usually would get them ripped to pieces on threads here but they now know better and keep it to themselves or once they are in similar company discuss it then.
Multiculturism means two cultures intertwine not one culture taking what they can from another and segregating themselves to whisper and gossip about the other .
I totally understand but how would you (I'm assuming your a white non Muslim) ever gather evidence to the contrary apart from sending round the ofsted inspectors who would be shown whatever is the bare minimum to pass the criteria. I know plenty of people (as a British subject of Indian origin) go to these 'schools' or go to 'visit' family in Pakistan or even just come back from Friday prayers and spout the same shit that usually would get them ripped to pieces on threads here but they now know better and keep it to themselves or once they are in similar company discuss it then.
Multiculturism means two cultures intertwine not one culture taking what they can from another and segregating themselves to whisper and gossip about the other .
That is worrying. Personally I would legislate the complete separation of education and religion but that is not going to happen.
According to the law she is not old enough to consent , what she may or may not have agreed to is immaterial as is how old she looks
It's not black and white at all.
For a start, the law is split into three areas: 16 or over = fine, under 13 = always rape, 13-15 = grey area.
In that grey area, while the 'victim' cannot legally give consent, they can have the capacity to give consent (as opposed to under 13s). While it's still a crime, it's a rather different one.
Furthermore, it's a statuoary defence if you can show you believed the teenager was over 16, so looks very much do matter (although not in this particlar case)
Further to my post above, a look at the local newspaper (ThisIsNottingham) shows that the guy was charged with sexual activity with a child and not rape, so I'm rather curiosu with the language used by the Daily Mail article ("Rapist", "Raped", etc)
Comments
Seeing that it's what pretty much saved his ass (which obviously shouldn't stand up in court) I'd say it is rather pertinent information to report.
They must have jizzed with the force of a thousand suns when they discovered this story.
That's a criminal offense on it's own isn't it?
And the reason it's taken seriously is because experience tells us that it has become a way that older men can almost brainwash underage girls into thinking they do want sex. Or offering support and friendship and the price is sex.
So where does the consent come into it?
Just have to add the attitudes on here about "men can't help themselves, it's biology innit" are pretty disgusting in this day and age.
I'm very aware of the Fraser Guidelines as I work within them every day. And as I made clear in my post, at the age of 14 she was above the age where she can be deemed to give consent, if she is deemed competent. This covers being able to consent to medical procedures, and medication. 16 is the legal age in which sexual consent can be deemed to be given, but in actual fact it's highly unusual for any legal action to be taken in 2 consenting teenagers having sex when 1 is below the age of 16 years, if both are deemed to have capacity.
Under the age of 13 it's a different ballgame entirely.
What has any of that got to do with this thread. The girl was 13 and the man was 18 and no evidence has been given about her capacity to consent
You don't need to go any further than the UK to find muslims teaching that.
The religious angle/ weird school is pulled out of the bag - even though it taught him sex before marriage is wrong - to complete a ridiculous defence story.
Perhaps his next load of bullshit will be tried on with someone of legal age.
Yes they probably would have.
I agree with all that. It's not as if these were two fifteen-year-olds who developed a friendship or mutual fancy and ultimately boy-girl relationship involving sex. Despicable excuse making on behalf of a cunning adult 18 year-old male who, it appears from the report, made a flimsy pretence of sexual naivety and ignorance of right and wrong.
I'll wait until more details become known before commenting, there is more to come I am sure. But he must be smirking all over his "immature" adult face at the moment... :rolleyes:
I don't necessarily believe the defense, but I think it's possible for an 18 year old to be more sexually naive than a 13 year old, and to be as ignorant of right or wrong, as a 13 year old. But it may require a mental condition.
He's obviously a right mug though.
When I was 18, I generally thought all the girls my age were full of shit.
I still get the odd underage twerp trying to flirt despite me being the ripe old age of 30-something.
There must be some undisclosed reason as to why it ended up in court. It comes across as very premeditated - it'd be a bit more understandable if they were in a relationship or knew each other prior, but seemingly they spoke over facebook and then met up at a hotel for sex.
As others have mentioned, the fact he was using social networking, knew about contraception and had sex outside of marriage, is far removed from the innocent, naive man he pretends to be.
It astounding how people still do not understand the difference between certain groups thinking, many moderate Muslims have a 'them and us attitude' never mind the ones that are brought up in a Muslim school. In a Muslims eyes any non Muslim is a infidel and is worthless unless they can be converted. That is why you never hear about Muslim men preying on Muslim women.. Because it is rarer than hens teeth in this country especially because their are all these young white girls to attack. It is unbelievable that a school is allowed to teach such bigotry in this country but I'm not suprised some people are so desperate to be loved and so scared of being called a racist they won't call a spade a spade.
if the young man was indeed taught such vile things in any school state or private it should be closed down immediately. I would need a bit more than evidence from a defendant; anxious to give himself an excuse; however.
I totally understand but how would you (I'm assuming your a white non Muslim) ever gather evidence to the contrary apart from sending round the ofsted inspectors who would be shown whatever is the bare minimum to pass the criteria. I know plenty of people (as a British subject of Indian origin) go to these 'schools' or go to 'visit' family in Pakistan or even just come back from Friday prayers and spout the same shit that usually would get them ripped to pieces on threads here but they now know better and keep it to themselves or once they are in similar company discuss it then.
Multiculturism means two cultures intertwine not one culture taking what they can from another and segregating themselves to whisper and gossip about the other .
Anyway a lot of 13 year olds look 16/17 these days.
According to the law she is not old enough to consent , what she may or may not have agreed to is immaterial as is how old she looks
That is worrying. Personally I would legislate the complete separation of education and religion but that is not going to happen.
Unfortunately it wouldn't stop parents sending their children to out of school brainwashing sorry religious classes
It's not black and white at all.
For a start, the law is split into three areas: 16 or over = fine, under 13 = always rape, 13-15 = grey area.
In that grey area, while the 'victim' cannot legally give consent, they can have the capacity to give consent (as opposed to under 13s). While it's still a crime, it's a rather different one.
Furthermore, it's a statuoary defence if you can show you believed the teenager was over 16, so looks very much do matter (although not in this particlar case)
Indeed that was one of the reasons I had in mind when I said it would not happen.