apparently ignorance is an excuse for breaking the law

[BlaqueKatt]

but only if your ignorance comes from religion

Story here-complete with judicial victim blaming

A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless.

The girl told police they stayed at the hotel for two hours and had sex after Rashid went to the bathroom and emerged wearing a condom.

He told police he knew the girl was 13 but said he was initially reluctant to have sex before relenting after being seduced.

and the victim blaming

the judge said: ‘I accept this was a case where the girl was quite willing to have sexual activity with you. But the law is there to protect young girls, even though they are perfectly happy to engage in sexual activity."

yup because she was "asking for it"-seriously because he "appeared passive", prison would do more harm than good? I'm sure any pedophile can appear passive once caught, I know a girl who was groomed for a couple years by a 40 year old until she "willingly" had sex with him, at age 7, I guess by this judges standards, that would be perfectly fine.

[s_stabeler]

Only thing I can think of is that someone who appears passive may well be vulnerable in prison.

apart from that, the rest of it is absolute BS, and worse, irrevocable BS. ( a not-guilty verdict cannot be overturned)

[Panacea]

Disgusting, and no excuse for rape. That judge should be taken off the bench.

[Canarr]

It's not rape, though, if she was willing, is it? It's statutory rape. Need to keep the legal terms correct, here.

I'm a bit on the fence here, to be truthful. Yes, young kids (of both sexes) need to be protected from predators; that's what the law is for. However, teenagers will experiment - with each other, with themselves, with whatever. It's what kids do at that age. If he'd been 17, and she 13, it wouldn't even have been a crime (not in Germany, at least; don't know UK laws), so I don't believe that he deserves to be locked up for years just because he's technically old enough to drink. Yes, it's the law; he broke it, he needs to be punished. But that's what judges are for: apply their own knowledge and understanding of the law and the circumstances to the individual case to ensure that a ruling is not only lawful, but just.

Sure, if he's done this regularly - chat up young girls, lure them to hotels and have sex with them - then yes, throw the book at him. But if he's just an immature 18-year-old having his own first time, then I don't think he deserves a prison sentence for that.

[Rapscallion]

UK laws regard anyone under 16 as statutory rape, though I don't know what they do about two underage children getting friendly. There is no mitigation when it involves anyone over 16 in law from what I understand.

However, in the UK culture we're assailed with news stories about paedophiles on a daily basis. I can't believe that he's claiming that he didn't know.

Rapscallion

[Canarr]

Well... fucking a teenager isn't paedophilia, no matter how old you are. Personally, I can understand that a teenager who is horny for another teenager (which, in the end is a normal thing and the way it actually should be) wouldn't see a connection between himself and a child molester.

Still, I agree that the "I didn't know!" defense is a weak one, even IF he truly didn't know. But I still believe that a teenager having sex with another teenager isn't something for which he should be locked up for years. It's normal.

[Rapscallion]

Well... fucking a teenager isn't paedophilia, no matter how old you are.

There are grades of underage sex in psychology, that much I know. Hebephilia, ephebphilia? Something like that. However, that's not really relevant. It's a matter of the law of the land. Under 16 means 'no touchy' and articles in the various papers saying 'almost ready' on the page after the latest Jimmy Saville expose. Over 16 for the law means someone can consent over here. We don't really hide those laws away. They're sort of spread all over the newspapers and other media every time someone gets caught.

Still, I agree that the "I didn't know!" defense is a weak one, even IF he truly didn't know. But I still believe that a teenager having sex with another teenager isn't something for which he should be locked up for years. It's normal.

Hmm, thirteen to nineteen years old is quite a difference in mental and phsyical attritbutes. 16 with 15 isn't such a concern for me, or two fourteen year olds.

It's a matter of degrees.

Rapscallion

[Nekojin]

Hmm, thirteen to nineteen years old is quite a difference in mental and phsyical attritbutes. 16 with 15 isn't such a concern for me, or two fourteen year olds.

It's a matter of degrees.

True, but there are outliers in all directions. I've known 13-year-olds who were as stable and grounded as any adult (and a female 15-year-old who was a sexual manipulator), and 30-somethings who needed a keeper. While we all make the same assumption when given the ages of the participants in the title story, we also need to explicitly acknowledge that these assumptions may be wrong.

[Canarr]

Exactly. A mature 13-year-old and an immature 18-year-old... that *might* be more acceptable. Hence my comment about a judge being needed to decide the correct application of the law, since he would - or should - understand the nature of the kid on charges before him.

[BlaqueKatt]

It's not rape, though, if she was willing, is it? It's statutory rape. Need to keep the legal terms correct, here.

Apparently you missed my statement, and the fact that he "groomed" her for several months.

I know a girl who was groomed for a couple years by a 40 year old until she "willingly" had sex with him, at age 7, I guess by this judges standards, that would be perfectly fine.

And in case you don't know what "grooming" is, here's a nice link that explains it, and why "willing" can still be rape, and not "statutory rape"(the judge never spoke to the victim)

Child grooming involves psychological manipulation* in the form of positive reinforcement and foot-in-the-door tactics, using activities that are typically legal but later lead to illegal activities.

Sexual grooming of children over the internet is most prevalent (99% of cases) amongst the 13-17 age group, particularly the 13-14 years old children (48%). The majority of them are girls. The majority of the victimization occurs over the mobile phone support.

Psychological Manipulation= coercion, coerced sexual activity is defined as rape, not "statutory rape", RAPE.

[Canarr]

I did not miss your statement. However, I fail to see the correlatation between an unrelated case of paedophilia and this case of sex between two teenagers. Yes, horrible things happen; that you know of one instance where a child was groomed has absolutely no relevance to the question whether or not that happened here.

Even if the judge never spoke to the girl, it would've been the Prosecution's job to look into the communication between the two in order to determine whether or not any kind of coercion took place, would it not? Apparently, whatever they found did not convince the judge, but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad judge -it could also mean that there just wasn't anything to be found.

Psychological Manipulation= coercion, coerced sexual activity is defined as rape, not "statutory rape", RAPE.

And if that happened, I would agree with your conclusion. Can you provide any evidence that it did?

[Ginger Tea]

It might be that the word peodophile is being banded around for any age group under the countries legal age (in the UK 16) and some one (normally way) older.
it might have a defined cut of date and someone wishing to fuck a 13 year old isnt technically a peodophile in the dictionarry sence, but still fucking a 13 year old is legaly wrong.

Basically it's engaging in underage sex, even at 15 years and 364 days it's still under age sex.
There are leeways in age gaps the older you get as a first former (iir 11yo) will unlikely have encountered a 6th former before joining the school, but by the time they hit 2nd form someone now in the 5th might have known them for a whole year and it's less skeezy when the gap is a year or two (in academic term years mind as you could both be born in the same year but one is in a year above).

But a first former and an 18 year old, well unless they know the family in some way, warrants a red flag even if they are not doing anything sexual, there is nothing wrong with having a 7 year age gap, but it's kinda creepy to hear someone say theve known their GF since she was 11 and been going out since she was 15 ...

[BlaqueKatt]

And if that happened, I would agree with your conclusion. Can you provide any evidence that it did?

from the article, and quoted in my first post maybe?

A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook

[Canarr]

That article also calls him a paedophile - which, at least according to any legal definition I've ever seen, he's not. So, the Daily Mail slinging around accusations hardly counts as evidence, I'd say.

Do you even know the actual charge brought against him in court? Was it rape, or underage sex? Did you do any kind of research into this before posting your claims of rape and grooming, or did you just take the first yellow press article you found at face value?

[Ginger Tea]

That article also calls him a paedophile - which, at least according to any legal definition I've ever seen, he's not. So, the Daily Mail slinging around accusations hardly counts as evidence, I'd say.

Well UK newspapers think calling him a peodophile (in the underage sex sense) is valid, even if the cut off date of actual peodophilia is say 9 and the ages between 10-13 are called something else ditto for 14-15, basically anyone under the UK legal age of consent falls under this bracket as far as the press is concerned.

what sells more papers or garneshes more reader anger
man arrested for under age sex (remember she could be 15 years and 364 days and still be classed as under age) or
Man arrested for peodophilia?

this is kinda like the assault mode in the gun threads, although assault mode is new to me too, it's using terms people are more familair with, someone 13 and under is still classed as a child even though 13 makes one a teenager, so someone fucking a child or someone fucking a teenager?
Teenager is from 13-19 so he fucked a teenager, big deal, alot of 18year olds fuck other 18 year olds so fucking a teenager in this case isn't (legally) bad, so confronted with the headline

Man arrested for fucking a teenager

is barely glance worthy, change it to 13 year old, more interest, change it to child (which some say 13 still is) and you have newspapers selling like the proverbial.

edit:
and remember the UK press (in this case the news of the world) gave you a double page "most dangerous" of peodophiles (even if their age preference was higher than the dictionary cut off) which resulted in a Manchester area man being mobbed cos he kinda looked like one from London, he was on the news and you could hear the mob outside, no one there knew of the interview or the outcome that he was the wrong man cos they were all out enmass outside his house.
And some of the readers of the news of the world were attacking peodiatric doctors cos they just saw the word peod in the title, yeah like the NHS activly has THAT kinda job requirement ...