Woman has sex with underage boy, yet husband gets harsher sentence for encouraging it

BrokenHero

You couldn't make it up:

Mum of two and partner jailed for abusing boy (15)

A 'totally perverted' couple who got a 15-year-old boy high on party drug meow meow before pressuring him into having sex have been jailed.

Nicola Mason, of Holyhead, North Wales, had sex with the boy while her partner John Ford watched getting 'some sort of perverted pleasure', a court heard.

Now the 25-year-old mother-of-two, a former chip shop worker, has been jailed for three years while Ford, 47,will spend four-and-a-half years behind bars.

The boy was offered drugs to loosen his inhibitions and Mason performed a sex act, then full sex on a second occasion a few weeks later, Caernarfon Crown Court heard.

Judge Rhys Rowlands said the victim had been 15 in the summer of last year.

'You both took advantage of him for your own quite depraved sexual desires,' he said.

He said Ford encouraged what happened and they no doubt thought it was funny as they were 'using' the victim.

Ford watched as they had sex, getting 'some sort of perverted pleasure,' the court heard.

Judge Rowlands added: 'The two of you took advantage of the victim on two occasions.'

Ford had pleaded not guilty to inciting sexual activity and she denied sexual activity with a child.

But the judge, who described their behaviour as 'totally perverted', told them : 'A jury saw through your lies.'

Source: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2803590/Totally-perverted-couple-got-15-year-old-babysitter-high-meow-meow-forced-having-sex-jailed.html

How can this be justified?

I think even if they had got the same sentence it would have been disgraceful, but the fact that he got a longer one, makes it absurd.

Can't for a second imagine a man getting three years for raping an underage girl and his wife four and half for encouraging it.

It of course would be laughable, as so should this be.

JohnBee

Sexism. He is discriminated against because he has a dongle.

policarp

The young lad went back for seconds.
Lots of young lads wishing they could've been in his position. . . IMO.

The Backwards Man

Dunno, in my opinion In think it's fair enough.

I always say the person that makes the balls is a lot worse that the one that fires them.

BrokenHero

policarp wrote: »

The young lad went back for seconds.
Lots of young lads wishing they could've been in his position. . . IMO.

While a leering husband watched on? I highly doubt it.

At 15, I would have ran a mile myself.

mackg

Wife is currently pregnant which may have impacted the sentencing. It says in the article that her council did make a plea in this regard and that she was in no trouble before, doesn't mention the guys history.

My name is URL

It doesn't mention whether the woman had pleaded guilty or not, but it says the guy pleaded not guilty. Maybe that has something to do with it?

If you plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty bu a jury, the judge will typically add some time to the sentence.

RobYourBuilder

My name is URL wrote: »

It doesn't mention whether the woman had pleaded guilty or not, but it says the guy pleaded not guilty. Maybe that has something to do with it?

If you plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty bu a jury, the judge will typically add some time to the sentence.

She denied the charge;

Also, in both of the instances described above, the status check applies to EVERYONE stopped, not just people with brown skin or foreign names.

Ford had pleaded not guilty to inciting sexual activity and Mason denied sexual activity with a child. Judge Rowlands told them: ”A jury saw through your lies.”

This, along with Mason expecting another child, could explain Fords longer sentence;

Ford had taunted the boy that he “must be gay” if he wasn’t interested in Mason. Ford watched as they had sex, getting “some sort of perverted pleasure”.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/north-wales-couple-jailed-after-7981507

Peregrinus

Ford is 46; Mason 24. Mason alternated between denying that anything at all had happened, and saying that she had been pressured into it by Ford. In his summing up, the judge said that he was satisfied on the evidence that there was no doubt that Mason acted under the influence of Ford. It was also Ford who supplied the boy with drugs, and who taunted the boy for his reluctance to participate. Fairly clearly, the judge felt that Ford had a greater share of responsibility for what happened than Mason; hence the disparity in sentences.

BrokenHero

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ford is 46; Mason 24. Mason alternated between denying that anything at all had happened, and saying that she had been pressured into it by Ford. In his summing up, the judge said that he was satisfied on the evidence that there was no doubt that Mason acted under the influence of Ford. It was also Ford who supplied the boy with drugs, and who taunted the boy for his reluctance to participate. Fairly clearly, the judge felt that Ford had a greater share of responsibility for what happened than Mason; hence the disparity in sentences.

None of the above should be reason enough for the guy to get a longer sentence. The reason is purely because she is a woman. She has not claimed any of the things which the judge has decided must be the case. Here is a quote from the Mirror (which you appear to be quoting):

Judge Rhys Rowlands remanded Ford in custody and bailed Mason ahead of sentencing in October but warned them that they faced inevitable prison sentences.

He said that he took the view that Mason had acted under Ford's influence - but knew precisely what she was doing. Mason broke down in the dock and threw her arms around Ford's neck after the verdicts were announced.

The judge said it was a very serious matter - penetrative sexual acts involving a 15-year-old boy who had been given drugs. Judge Rowlands refused to bail Ford and said in view of the depravity he had displayed there was a likelihood of further offending.

He told the couple: "The law is there to protect the young and the court is there to uphold the law." While he did not know the exact nature of their relationship, he said: "I have no doubt at all that you Nicola Mason would have been, and still are, under the influence of you John Ford.

"Albeit that you Ford is a controlling individual getting some sort of perverted pleasure from offering your partner to others and belittling her in front of others, the sad fact is that you Mason were quite prepared to go along with his depravity."

This is just misandric crap. He's just assuming that this woman is being controlled. There is no evidence whatsoever that she is. She is clearly in a sexual relationship that has sub/dom themes but that doesn't mean that she is being made to do things beyond her will. On the contrary, women that are highly submissive will seek out men that are dominant and if they are not fulfilling their desires with regards to the level of domination, will find other men who will. She is also clearly still in a relationship with him.

Again, if this was an underage girl that Ford was having sex with and Mason was the one doing the encouraging, do you think this judge would be giving her the longer sentence? Not a chance. First of all, the word rape would be no doubt be being used by the media at the very least and his sentence would be very lengthy. He didn't hypnotise this woman or hold a gun to her head. There is no evidence of violence or even a threat of it. She was also sober the second time she had sex with him. This is far from a women left with no options but to do what the bad man says.

All though not in the same league, it all kinda reminds me of Karla Homolka case back in the early 90s where her and her husband kidnapped young girls, raped and murdered them and everyone felt she was just controlled by her husband. She only served ten years or so and now has kids of her own, while the husband will never see the light of day (thank God). This was a woman that was not only involved in the death of young girls she didn't know, but also her own little sister.

It amazes me how society will instantly see women as being controlled without there being much if any evidence for it and then suggest diminished responsibility on the back of it. If there is evidence, I would have no problem with it, but more often than not in these type of cases, there isn't. Even all the talk of sexual enjoyment here is spoken of in an polarized way as if Mason couldn't possibly have had sexual motives of her own. Surely the man here is just perverse and has manipulated this women to do these things that she has done. No way could she be equally culpable and responsible for her own behavior. Not when there's a man bastard around.

Peregrinus

Um, BrokenHero, the judge heard all the evidence in a three-day trial. You're basing your view on a few paragraphs from the Daily Mirror. I don't think you're well-positioned to say that he is "just assuming that the woman is being controlled". If anybody's making an assumption here, it's you, when you say that there is "no evidence whatsoever" that she is being controlled. How do you know there is no such evidence?

JonEBGud

To me Ford was acting like a pimp in that situation, deserved what he got and maybe should have a little more added on.

AndreaCollins

BrokenHero wrote: »

None of the above should be reason enough for the guy to get a longer sentence. The reason is purely because she is a woman. She has not claimed any of the things which the judge has decided must be the case. Here is a quote from the Mirror (which you appear to be quoting):



This is just misandric crap. He's just assuming that this woman is being controlled. There is no evidence whatsoever that she is. She is clearly in a sexual relationship that has sub/dom themes but that doesn't mean that she is being made to do things beyond her will. On the contrary, women that are highly submissive will seek out men that are dominant and if they are not fulfilling their desires with regards to the level of domination, will find other men who will. She is also clearly still in a relationship with him.

Again, if this was an underage girl that Ford was having sex with and Mason was the one doing the encouraging, do you think this judge would be giving her the longer sentence? Not a chance. First of all, the word rape would be no doubt be being used by the media at the very least and his sentence would be very lengthy. He didn't hypnotise this woman or hold a gun to her head. There is no evidence of violence or even a threat of it. She was also sober the second time she had sex with him. This is far from a women left with no options but to do what the bad man says.

All though not in the same league, it all kinda reminds me of Karla Homolka case back in the early 90s where her and her husband kidnapped young girls, raped and murdered them and everyone felt she was just controlled by her husband. She only served ten years or so and now has kids of her own, while the husband will never see the light of day (thank God). This was a woman that was not only involved in the death of young girls she didn't know, but also her own little sister.

It amazes me how society will instantly see women as being controlled without there being much if any evidence for it and then suggest diminished responsibility on the back of it. If there is evidence, I would have no problem with it, but more often than not in these type of cases, there isn't. Even all the talk of sexual enjoyment here is spoken of in an polarized way as if Mason couldn't possibly have had sexual motives of her own. Surely the man here is just perverse and has manipulated this women to do these things that she has done. No way could she be equally culpable and responsible for her own behavior. Not when there's a man bastard around.

Good post. There have been a lot of cases where the man has got a much harsher sentence than the woman, for the same crime or even for less of a crime.

DrGreenthumb

While he was out of his litter box on meow meow I bet he felt like the cat that got the cream

Sofiztikated

BrokenHero wrote: »

You couldn't make it up

It's the Daily Mail. Don't put too much stead in it. Yes, they could make it up.

Daily Mail Nonsense wrote:

Blah blah blah

How can this be justified?

I think even if they had got the same sentence it would have been disgraceful, but the fact that he got a longer one, makes it absurd.

Can't for a second imagine a man getting three years for raping an underage girl and his wife four and half for encouraging it.

It of course would be laughable, as so should this be.

Whatever about the nonsense the Daily Mail prints as fact, I can guarentee you that noone, and I mean NOONE, has ever used the term meow meow seriously, in reference to mephedrone.

Fucks sake.

dodderangler

Niiiiice?

Omackeral

The lesson here is take Meow Meow, get pussy.

johnnyskeleton

JohnBee wrote: »

Sexism. He is discriminated against because he has a dongle.

Or it was clear on the facts that he was the primary offender and/or he had previous. Without hearing all the evidence its impossible to know

Peregrinus

Actually, there have been studies on the effect on adolescent boys of sexual relationships with adult women. Not many studies, but some.

In cases where the relationship was voluntary, and the parties were unrelated, a majority of the men concerned, interviewed in adulthood, viewed these relationships as positive or neutral; only a small minority viewed them as negative. Nevertheless, despite their own perceptions, the population of men concerned had exhibited higher levels of psychological distress that those who had not had such relationships, and more psychological, alcohol, and deliberate self-harming behavior problems. But they were not as distressed as men who, as boys, had experienced forced sexual encounters. It's possible, then, that the some of the relationships were more damaging to the boys than they later acknowledged, or than they recognised themselves. And this may be because societal models of masculinity shame men who have been sexually exploited, which makes it difficult to acknowledge sexual exploitation, either to oneself or to others.

In this case, of course, the relationship wasn't voluntary - the boy had to be pressured into it - and there was the additional factor that the pressure was applied by, and the encounters took place in the presence (and for the gratification) of, a much older male third party. Being compelled to engage in sexual display or activity for the gratification of an audience is of course humiliating. All in all, I wouldn't have any difficult in saying that this was likely to be not a positive experience for the boy, notwithstanding the fact that he - presumably - got his rocks off.

Buona Fortuna

Totally perverted - seems to imply some sort of perfection.

Plus in the first pic of her walking she looks a bit hot

Playboy

It depends on if it can be evidenced that the man was the ringleader or instigator and whether either party has a prior history. It might not be sexist although at first glance it does seem like that.

Shakespeare's Sister

What's with the diminishing of her responsibility because of the man? She still did it.

policarp wrote: »

The young lad went back for seconds.
Lots of young lads wishing they could've been in his position. . . IMO.

I suspect this outlook is part of why a man would get a longer sentence/more criticism for having sex with an underage girl (or boy).

DamagedTrax

meow meow?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkjsxdjlAkI

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um, BrokenHero, the judge heard all the evidence in a three-day trial. You're basing your view on a few paragraphs from the Daily Mirror. I don't think you're well-positioned to say that he is "just assuming that the woman is being controlled". If anybody's making an assumption here, it's you, when you say that there is "no evidence whatsoever" that she is being controlled. How do you know there is no such evidence?

I think the problem is that the biases in law and social attitudes with regard to cases such as this have become so ridiculously biased that BrokenHero has less faith in the impartiality of the legal system than the Daily Mail. I can hardly blame him.

BrokenHero

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or it was clear on the facts that he was the primary offender and/or he had previous. Without hearing all the evidence its impossible to know

Why do you assume there is more evidence? If there was, they would have printed it. Also, why are you suggesting the guy has "previous"? There is no evidence or suggestion of that. Is it because you think the sentence is unfair and so are looking for something to excuse it?

The boy had previous and it was printed and so I think had Ford also, it too would have been mentioned:

Defence barristers Andrew Green and Simon Rogers said that the boy had lied at a previous hearing in the crown court when he had denied perverting the course of justice but had been convicted.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um, BrokenHero, the judge heard all the evidence in a three-day trial. You're basing your view on a few paragraphs from the Daily Mirror.

No I'm not. I'm basing my view on all the media reports of the evidence given in court and judge's comments throughout the trial and in summing up and the exact same evidence has been reported by many media sources. Here's ITN's report if you feel the Mirror (which I also despise) have for some reason omitted evidence which was reported in the court:

itv.com/news/wales/2014-09-11/a-couple-who-gave-a-young-lad-of-15-drugs-and-involved-him-in-their-sex-lives-face-jail/

I don't think you're well-positioned to say that he is "just assuming that the woman is being controlled". If anybody's making an assumption here, it's you, when you say that there is "no evidence whatsoever" that she is being controlled. How do you know there is no such evidence?

How do I know that there is no evidence that she is being controlled? Eh, because none was reported? Have to say I find it kind of ironic to be accused of "assuming" there is no evidence that the women was being controlled by someone who is assuming that there is evidence that she was that for some strange reason the media is refusing to report. Surely if she was being made to do things against her will, which have resulted in her ending up being charged with such crimes, then one would have thought that this would have been the time perhaps to leave this guy. The fact that she is still with and pregnant by him, goes a long way to showing us that she was far from being controlled by him and is in fact, quite happy to be in a relationship with him.

The facts here are that Mason knowingly had sex with an underage boy, which is statutory rape lets not forget. She undressed the boy herself. No evidence whatsoever was presented which would lead us to believe that she did these things under duress or for fear of consequence if she did not. How the encouragement from someone to do these things, is somehow a bigger crime than actually doing them, is perplexing. If he had told her to rob a bank would it be also fine for him to get a longer sentence for encouraging her to do that too? I highly doubt that were a woman to encourage a man to do have sex with an underage girl, that society would be so easily to see the guy as a victim and understand were the woman to receive a harsher sentence for the encouraging him.

DoYouEvenLift

Both sentences are too short, what the fuk

Egginacup

BrokenHero wrote: »

You couldn't make it up:



How can this be justified?

I think even if they had got the same sentence it would have been disgraceful, but the fact that he got a longer one, makes it absurd.

Can't for a second imagine a man getting three years for raping an underage girl and his wife four and half for encouraging it.

It of course would be laughable, as so should this be.

Why couldn't you "make it up"?

The act or the sentencing?

Girl fcuks guy in front of husband? Hardly that beyond the realm of credibility.

Shakespeare's Sister

Egginacup wrote: »

Why couldn't you "make it up"?

The act or the sentencing?

Girl fcuks guy in front of husband? Hardly that beyond the realm of credibility.

Surely you can tell that they mean both? And it's pretty dishonest to say "guy". He was underage.

Scummy scummy couple.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think the problem is that the biases in law and social attitudes with regard to cases such as this have become so ridiculously biased that BrokenHero has less faith in the impartiality of the legal system than the Daily Mail. I can hardly blame him.

Except, of course, that perceptions of "bias in law and social attitudes with regard to cases such as this" are themselves the result of media reporting of such issues. So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that BrokenHero has more faith in the Daily Mirror than in the legal system on this issue because he generally places his faith in the likes of the Daily Mirror.

Peregrinus

BrokenHero wrote: »

Why do you assume there is more evidence?

Because we're not idiots. The trial ran for three days. The newspaper report gives it a few paragraphs, mainly focussing on the judge's summing up, but even then quoting only a few extracts from it. Not a single witness who gave evidence is named, and there is no account at all of what any witness said. Conclusion: they have left it out.

BrokenHero wrote: »

If there was, they would have printed it.

Why? They don't normally.

BrokenHero wrote: »

. . . the exact same evidence has been reported by many media sources.

Actually the various media reports report practically no evidence at all - just the summing up. But, yes, the reports are strikingly similar. But that's because the all the media sources are relying on the same local court reporter or, at most, couple of local court reporters.

The trial took place in Caernarfon (pop: 9,600). Amazingly enough, neither the Daily Mirror nor ITN has a Caernarfon bureau. The usual form is that the only reporters attending a trial in a country town will be from local media - the Caernarfon Herald perhaps, or the Daily Post. And even they probably didn't attend for much of the trial (which is why only the summing-up is reported) - the paper probably only has one court reporter, and even if he is full time on court reporting (which is unlikely) he has to spread himself around; there is more than one court case running on any day.

Recognising that, because the story is salacious, it may attract more than purely local interest the local papers (as well as running it themselves) will have offered it to the national media, who pay the locals if they pick up these stories and run them. Hence, they all run basically the same story, written by the same reporter. But the fact that they don't report on the evidence presented doesn't mean that no evidence was presented. It means either that the reporter wasn't there when the evidence was presented, or that he was, but the editors have cut the story down to what they think is their readers' attention span, and have focussed on the summing up because all the salacious details are neatly encapsulated there.

Peregrinus

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

What's with the diminishing of her responsibility because of the man? She still did it.

Yes, but it's common for people who co-operate in the same crime to get different sentences, reflecting different levels of responsiblity, control, direction, etc.

The thing is, people here are assuming that the difference in sentencing here is entirely down to the fact that one defendant is male and the other female. In fact the newspaper reports specify several other points of distinction which might be relevant - he is 46 and she is 24; he took the initiative in proposiing the encounters and she acceded; he supplied the drugs to the boy; he taunted the boy. The critics here are assuming that the judge ignored all these factors in sentencing, and gave him the heavier sentence purely on account of his gender, even though the judge is reported as explicitly stating an entirely different reason for the disparity in sentencing.