6 men accused of 22 sexual assaults on a 12/13 year old girl...

LouOB wrote: »

How would a child of 12/13 know about sex or anything regarding ****ing unless she was abused or brought up in a very unhealthy environment?

In fairness, I'd say there are few enough 12 or 13 year olds these days who don't know about sex.

ah so some of you are defending pedophiles? Nice!

Look at 24/25/26 you can easily spot someone who is in or about 18. The onus is on you as a adult to keep your c0ck in your pants, even if she was as sexed up as a nymph in heat.

They deserve to be on the sex offender list, with the rest of their kind.

It's not so much defending pedophiles but complaining about the media's shock tactics of making it sound like the girl was viciously gang-raped instead of going off with these guys on her own free will.

As was said before, the girl sounds like she's got serious issues, so finding out what parts of her side of the story are true will be very difficult. One guy pleaded guilty and should be crucified for it. The others are innocent until proven guilty. As I said, time will tell.

she was taken advantage of yes

raped......no..........the act of rape and the charge of statutory rape are so far apart its ludicrous to suggest that people charged with statutory rape should be treated the same as actual rapists

whoever got her this ****ed up at thirteen is the one who should be given the biggest sentence

Doesnt matter either way because she was 13. When I have more time and energy I will open a thread supporting the reduction of the age of consent to 13.

That is sick. Children need to be protected. From themselves as much as anyone else.

I'm 24 and I think I can tell the difference between someone who is 13 and someone who is 20. If in doubt- don't go there.

LouOB wrote: »

How would a child of 12/13 know about sex or anything regarding ****ing unless she was abused or brought up in a very unhealthy environment?

I said it sad that it still happens in SOME parts of the country not ALL or every town.

I think it happens in every town to some degree and that there are girls like this one all over the world.

I have already indicated in an earlier post that one possible reason for behaviour such as this this girl exhibts is a history of sexual abuse. However there are very many reasons why a girl might have such low self esteem and behave accordingly. She may just have been an awful person and brought on her low self esteem by her own crappy behaviour. I really don't know what, but nor do you.

When I was just turned 15 I had sex with a 13 year old and I can assure you she had never been abused and I was not abusing her. Clearly we both thought we knew about sex. Who is anybody to say we didn't know our own minds or have the rights over our own bodies? All over the world and throughout human history 13 year old girls have been getting married so either we're all descended from a bunch of peadophiles or alternatively the age of 13 is about the age of sexual maturity for human females. (Note that in this day and age sexual maturity is not necessarily mental maturity. However in harsher climes than cosy modern Europe the human brain and body grow up together.) I remember one time the Sun newspaper, if it can be called such, did a countdown to when some young female singer was about to turn 16 and would be finally 'legal'. I was shocked to see this from a rag so rabid about peados but there was a reason for their eager anticipation I am sure and it's all about doing the nasty.

humanji wrote: »

Not too sure about this one. You have to realise that everything you've heard so far is from her. She could be a complete nutjob and just wants attention. I'll wait till I hear more before I draw any conclusions.

I've heard enough from you.

Dudess wrote: »

But you were only 15, not a grown man.

Good points in fairness.

Yep, it's grotesque. Samantha Fox was not yet 17 when the Sun featured her on page 3.

As for this current case: it's horrible to call the girl a "slapper" etc. Really horrible. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the scenario was as follows: she was experiencing incest/abuse outside the home - stuff that caused her to be unable to recognise that it wasn't normal to behave the way she did. And only as she got older did she realise the horror of it.

I wish people would stop saying it wasn't rape. It WAS rape - statutory rape. She was several years underage and the men were twice her age. Even if she had the Lolita thing nailed, they shouldn't have had sex with her.

As for rape IMHO there should be a lesser crime of seduction in these cases but I wonder who was really doing the seducing in ths case. What was said by whom to who and when. Some poor hormonal gimp made a tape of himself singing westlife songs <snigger>, this does not sound like the action of a rapist but of a sick sad man in thrall to his penis and a teenage girl. It's surely a story as old as history.

I am sorry that you are offended by the word 'slapper'. The history you invent for this girl may turn out to be totally innacurate as there are lots of slappers in the world and they all have to get started somewhere. A spade is spade the first day off the production line IMHO. Before anybody accuses me of being sexist I subscribe to this particular hilarity and the site in general... (which is ok, btw)

http://www.btinternet.com/~virtuous/planetgrrlbabe/babearticles/slapper.htm

I find some peoples views here very scary. Not commenting on this particular case but the general idea of statutary rape. The idea is that it's rape because a child cannot consent to sex. For anyone in any doubt read some of the literature on sexual predators. So many of them convince themselves that it is okay because the child in some way consented.

homah_7ft wrote: »

I find some peoples views here very scary. Not commenting on this particular case but the general idea of statutary rape. The idea is that it's rape because a child cannot consent to sex. For anyone in any doubt read some of the literature on sexual predators. So many of them convince themselves that it is okay because the child in some way consented.

I find some posts here scary. The idea that some people think that everything is completely black and white with nothing in between.

PeakOutput wrote: »

if an 18 year old guy had consensual sex with a 16 year old girl would you call him a rapist?

I see your point, but thats not really the same is it?

The stone age called - it wants it's opinion back.

Stone age my eye. I'd agree. It's a half decent deterrent at least.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web1/kamlin.html

Look, the law in this area was a knee-jerk reaction after the Honest belief appeal case to try to close the door. It basically re-enacted the sections of the 1935 Act.

Here's the link

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/2706/b27a06d.pdf

And the cover

No. 15 of 2006 - Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006
What does this law do?
On 23 May 2006, the Supreme Court struck down section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 (Defilement of girl under 15 years of age) on the basis that it did not provide a person charged with an offence under that provision with a defence of honest belief as to the age of the girl. The purpose of the above Act is to enact in modern, generally gender neutral terms, a replacement provision for the subsection struck down by the Supreme Court, with a defence for the defendant of honest belief that the child against whom the offence was alleged to have been committed had attained 15 years of age. Sections 1(2) (Attempt to defile girl under 15 years of age) and 2 (Defilement and attempted defilement of girl under 17 years of age) of the 1935 Act, while not the subject of the Supreme Court judgment, also did not provide a defence of honest belief as to age. Accordingly, they were repealed and similarly re-enacted in modern terms.
Contact Department: Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Michael McDowell back in the days before he was attorney general had criticised sections of the 1935 Act and suggested an overhaul of the law in this are. Then he got into a position to do something about it and dropped the rheoric and got too busy with State dinners, Then when the fiasco happened (7 years later) they slapped three hasty pages together to plug the holes. The law in this are, in my opinion, is completely ill conceived and rushed. I'm not drilling into the legal arguments but to anyone's eyes this legal area is a farce.

For the record McDowells half decent suggestions back in 1994 that he never bothered implementing:

Repeal of the 1935 Act.
A lesser offence if the perpertrator of the offense was ages within 24 calander months of the accused.