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

Zzippy · 30-11-2007 01:54PM

I'm pretty depressed at the number of posters on this thread somehow trying to justify the men's alleged actions, or excuse them, or make them seem lesser because the girl "consented". I wonder how they would feel if it was their daughter involved.

Ms McLaughlin said a soldier accused of six sex assaults was 28 at the time and knew the girl was only 13 because he asked her age after the first occasion.

For me, this is the worst part of the story - the guy allegedly knew she was 13, and allegedly still had sex with her again. That is rape, no two ways about it. **** whether she "consented" or not, any responsible adult who isn't a pervert would run a mile from that situation.

*As its an ongoing case, I'm using the word allegedly until the facts are proven. If they are, then I hope those guys have the book thrown at them

Radharc na Sleibhte · 30-11-2007 01:58PM

Terry wrote: »

In the eyes of the law, it is.
The legal age is 17, so an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old is illegal.

If you want to look at it in plain black and white......

Is a 70 year old male having sex with a 16 year old girl, the same as an 18 year old male having sex with her?
Not in my book.
I know both are "illegal" but the 18 year old case would have a bit more acceptability about it from my point of view.

Radharc na Sleibhte · 30-11-2007 01:59PM

SetantaL wrote: »

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.

Ah, my point exactly.

the_syco · 30-11-2007 11:55PM

Quoting the article...

She told the jury all offences, with one exception, were committed when the girl came out of care. The exception, before she was put into care, involved kissing and fondling at the back of a sports hall on a Confirmation night and was the only time there was not intercourse.

It sounds like she was removed from her parents, for reasons unknown. If the reasons were abuse, it does make one wonder if the offenders had any relationship with the parents?

Also, if they are found to be guilty, I wonder how frequent their visits were to the place were she was in "care"?

Jackz · 01-12-2007 12:58AM

Chill back in the day gals were married at 13.

Pj! · 01-12-2007 12:59AM

Back in the day gals were grannys at 13.

Dudess · 01-12-2007 01:44AM

PeakOutput wrote: »

my point is simply that sleeping with someone who is underage does not automatically make you an evil dirty rapist who should be castrated. now in this particular case they probably do deserve everything they get but the girl is far from blameless

An 18-year-old guy having sex with a 16-year-old girl isn't comparable to a guy in his mid-20s having sex with a 12/13-year-old. I think the girl is blameless. The men shouldn't have had sex with her.

Galwayguy99 wrote: »

I'm pretty depressed at the number of posters on this thread somehow trying to justify the men's alleged actions, or excuse them, or make them seem lesser because the girl "consented".

Same here. To use a tired analogy - reverse the genders. If a number of 20-something women had sex with a 12/13-year-old boy who gave his consent, would the blame be placed on his head?

For me, this is the worst part of the story - the guy allegedly knew she was 13, and allegedly still had sex with her again. That is rape, no two ways about it. **** whether she "consented" or not, any responsible adult who isn't a pervert would run a mile from that situation.

Yep, if she looked older and he thought she was 17 - i.e. the "honest mistake" defence - it would be a different story. What a lowlife.

the_syco wrote: »

Quoting the article...

It sounds like she was removed from her parents, for reasons unknown. If the reasons were abuse, it does make one wonder if the offenders had any relationship with the parents?

Also, if they are found to be guilty, I wonder how frequent their visits were to the place were she was in "care"?

It's sickening that a number of people have referred to her as a little "slapper" without considering that her background might be the above. The way, instead of her behaviour being questioned for the very abnormal behaviour it is, it's "ah, there are slappers out there and some of them start young" :rolleyes:
Again, a young boy being promiscuous would get nothing but sympathy.

goldenbrown · 01-12-2007 10:06AM

jail them...for a long time, Donegal, what the hell has gone wrong up there....for so long....

pbsuxok1znja4r · 01-12-2007 10:17AM

wrote:

The girl also claims she distinctly remembers the night one man drove her in his car to a wooded area because on the way he played a tape of himself singing Westlife songs

I hope they throw away the key...sick bastard.

nacho libre · 01-12-2007 01:23PM

Dudess wrote: »

An 18-year-old guy having sex with a 16-year-old girl isn't comparable to a guy in his mid-20s having sex with a 12/13-year-old. I think the girl is blameless. The men shouldn't have had sex with her.

Same here. To use a tired analogy - reverse the genders. If a number of 20-something women had sex with a 12/13-year-old boy who gave his consent, would the blame be placed on his head?

Yep, if she looked older and he thought she was 17 - i.e. the "honest mistake" defence - it would be a different story. What a lowlife.

It's sickening that a number of people have referred to her as a little "slapper" without considering that her background might be the above. The way, instead of her behaviour being questioned for the very abnormal behaviour it is, it's "ah, there are slappers out there and some of them start young" :rolleyes:
Again, a young boy being promiscuous would get nothing but sympathy.

exactly.
i doubt those seeking to excuse the adults in this situation by partly blaming the young girl for being a 'slapper' have the same view if thy discovered their own child had sex with an adult.

SubjectSean · 01-12-2007 04:46PM

Dudess wrote: »

It's sickening that a number of people have referred to her as a little "slapper" without considering that her background might be the above. The way, instead of her behaviour being questioned for the very abnormal behaviour it is, it's "ah, there are slappers out there and some of them start young" :rolleyes:
Again, a young boy being promiscuous would get nothing but sympathy.

If the situation were reversed and it was a 13 year old boy we'd all be saying well done to him and calling him a slag. Because it's a girl "something must be wrong". A 13 year old is old enough to know what they are doing, if you think otherwise then you simply can't remember when you were 13. Around the planet there are soldiers, thieves, murderers and rapists who are 13 years old. There are also little slappers of this age and regardless of their background, and what you imagine it to be, the word applies to them.

SubjectSean · 01-12-2007 04:50PM

Jackz wrote: »

Chill back in the day gals were married at 13.

Durty little slappers

g5hn710m4xpdwy · 01-12-2007 05:14PM

Pics or it didn't happen!:rolleyes:

Dev 17 · 01-12-2007 05:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Look at the definitions of rape here

She was not raped, she knew exactly what was going on and she allowed it to happen.

Funnily enough, its also a turnip.

The Law doesn't recognise a child to give consent to any sexual behaviour. So in the stated definition, the sex was unconsensual and therefore forced. Making it rape.
Children aren't held legally responsible for there actions in these matters.

If the situation were reversed and it was a 13 year old boy we'd all be saying well done to him and calling him a slag. Because it's a girl "something must be wrong". A 13 year old is old enough to know what they are doing, if you think otherwise then you simply can't remember when you were 13. Around the planet there are soldiers, thieves, murderers and rapists who are 13 years old. There are also little slappers of this age and regardless of their background, and what you imagine it to be, the word applies to them.

I' agree that thirteen year olds know 99% of the time exactly what they are doing. However under the stated definitions this is still rape mate. I know a few seventeen year olds who actively read in politics and could make an informed vote however does this mean we should drop the voting age to seventeen? People vary in maturity but legally there needs to an age of consent that applies to everyone. There is a need for the law to treat people equally.

I think the parents should take a certain moral responsibility here for some of the incidents. Its their job to protect and prevent these incidents and they failed to do that. The thirteen year old deserves all the embarrassment that comes with this case.

SubjectSean · 01-12-2007 06:21PM

Dev 17 wrote: »

The Law doesn't recognise a child to give consent to any sexual behaviour. So in the stated definition, the sex was unconsensual and therefore forced. Making it rape.
Children aren't held legally responsible for there actions in these matters.

I' agree that thirteen year olds know 99% of the time exactly what they are doing. However under the stated definitions this is still rape mate. I know a few seventeen year olds who actively read in politics and could make an informed vote however does this mean we should drop the voting age to seventeen? People vary in maturity but legally there needs to an age of consent that applies to everyone. There is a need for the law to treat people equally.

I think the parents should take a certain moral responsibility here for some of the incidents. Its their job to protect and prevent these incidents and they failed to do that. The thirteen year old deserves all the embarrassment that comes with this case.

Agreed. However it is because of the difference in maturity that I think the charge of statutory rape should be taken off the books and a charge of seduction introduced. This would take account of the difference between immature victims and those who knew full well what they were doing. The voting age should be 16 IMO.

PeakOutput · 01-12-2007 06:23PM

Dev 17 wrote: »

The Law doesn't recognise a child to give consent to any sexual behaviour.

no1 is debating that that i can see

Making it rape.

under the law it is rape. the law however is jsut rules that are written down and that we try to follow. we can write anything down. that dosnt make it true. in reality this girl was not raped. she was taken advantage of by horrible men alright who need to be punished but she is not a rape victim imo

Dudess · 01-12-2007 06:53PM

SubjectSean wrote: »

If the situation were reversed and it was a 13 year old boy we'd all be saying well done to him and calling him a slag.

I doubt it. If a bunch of women in their 20s had sex with a 13-year-old boy, even if he consented, they'd be lynched. And it would be conceded that the boy thought he was giving his consent but he was actually manipulated into it. And rightly so.
I remember watching an interview with the author John Irving, who lost his virginity at the age of 11 to a 26-year-old woman. He said he actually enjoyed the experience - it was very pleasurable - but it ****ed him up so badly because he felt guilty for enjoying it, then he felt like his first sexual experience was robbed from him - that he should have been at least 16 and it should have been with someone of his own age and on both their terms.

Also, please don't use the word "slapper" about any female. There isn't an equivalent for males. What really irks me about males referring to females as "sluts", "slappers" etc is that they'd have no problem having sex with said "slappers"/"sluts".

SubjectSean · 01-12-2007 10:47PM

Dudess wrote: »

Also, please don't use the word "slapper" about any female. There isn't an equivalent for males. What really irks me about males referring to females as "sluts", "slappers" etc is that they'd have no problem having sex with said "slappers"/"sluts".

FYI boys of 13 think alot about sex and how to get some. Personally I detest slappers and would not entertain one. If you lie down with a snake and get bitten you can cry to nobody. You will note that I am not calling all women slappers here but that you are saying any man who can recognise a slapper would have sex with her.

johnnyskeleton · 02-12-2007 12:11AM

Jon wrote: »

Its classed as statutory rape folks. No doubt these guys took clear advantage of a mentally incapable young girl. The age is 16, not 15 as already said

Trojan911 wrote:

A 13 year old cannot, by law, give consent irrespective of what she/he agreed to. It is statutory rape.

dudess wrote:

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.

chopperbyrne wrote:

Where are people getting this idea that the age of consent is sixteen?

It's seventeen, with other seventeen year olds, but if either party is eighteen or over, then both parties must be eighteen or over.

Where are you getting your information from?

Just to clarify a few things, the charges in the newspaper are of sexual assault. They are not charged with rape or "statutory rape".

Sexual Assault:
1) to use or threaten to use force against another person,
2) the force is of a sexual nature, and
3) the person intended the force to be of a sexual nature.
It is a defence to sexual assault to say that the person consented, or that the accused reasonably believed the person consented.

Rape:
There are two types of rape in Ireland. Simple rape is when:
1) a man has sexual intercourse (penis in vagina) with a woman
2) the woman does not consent
3) the man knows she does not consent.
S4 rape is when:
1) a man penetrates the mouth of a woman with his penis, or a person penetrates the anus or vagina of another person with their penis or another object.
2) the penetrated person does not consent to being penetrated
3) the accused knew they did not consent.
For either type of rape, it is a defence to sexual assault to say that the person consented, or that the accused reasonably believed the person consented.

"statutory rape"/ defilement:
The correct name for this offence is defilement, it is technically not rape (although often referred to as statutory rape). It means that:
1) a person engages in a sexual act with another person,
2) that person is under 15 for the more serious version of the offence, or under 17 for the less serious.
Consent is effectively irrelevant to the offence, but there is a defence that the accused reasonably belived the person was over 15/17.

The offence of defilement has only existed since the summer of 2006, so it only applies to sexual acts which took place after this time. The offences here date back to 2002-2003, so the offence did not exist at the time. There was another offence under older legislation, but that was found to be unconstitutional, so no one can be charged with that offence anymore (i.e. it wasn't a valid offence at the time).

There is no hard and fast rule of law as to whether she could or could not consent. It is a matter for the jury to decide whether she had the capacity to consent based on the evidence.

tech77 · 02-12-2007 06:14AM

Galwayguy99 wrote: »

I'm pretty depressed at the number of posters on this thread somehow trying to justify the men's alleged actions, or excuse them, or make them seem lesser because the girl "consented". I wonder how they would feel if it was their daughter involved.

For me, this is the worst part of the story - the guy allegedly knew she was 13, and allegedly still had sex with her again. That is rape, no two ways about it. **** whether she "consented" or not, any responsible adult who isn't a pervert would run a mile from that situation.

*As its an ongoing case, I'm using the word allegedly until the facts are proven. If they are, then I hope those guys have the book thrown at them

Haven't read the whole thread but wholeheartedly agree with this post.
It is depressing and worrying that some guys may be excusing these guys' actions.

If, as alleged, one of them knew she was 13 this is inexcusable, consent or no consent. Seems odd to even have to point that out TBH.

As the above poster said if the allegations are true i hope they get the book thrown at them.

Poor little fool didn't have a clue it seems which is depressing in itself.
The equivocation in some posts here is disturbing though.

tech77 · 02-12-2007 06:20AM

SubjectSean wrote: »

If the situation were reversed and it was a 13 year old boy we'd all be saying well done to him and calling him a slag. Because it's a girl "something must be wrong". A 13 year old is old enough to know what they are doing, if you think otherwise then you simply can't remember when you were 13. Around the planet there are soldiers, thieves, murderers and rapists who are 13 years old. There are also little slappers of this age and regardless of their background, and what you imagine it to be, the word applies to them.

Disturbing.
/shudder
(Shouldn't there be a shudder smilie..)

Terry · 02-12-2007 12:22PM

After seeing what I saw last night, I can see how easy it is to be caught out.

I was in my cousin's house and this chick walks into the kitchen.
Really good looking. Tits hanging out. Dressed to impress.

Turns out she was my cousin's son's girlfriend and is only 14. She could easily pass for 18 or 19.

As for the people who have sex with 13 year olds and know their age, well they really deserve a good kicking and more.

Dudess · 02-12-2007 05:55PM

SubjectSean wrote: »

FYI boys of 13 think alot about sex and how to get some. Personally I detest slappers and would not entertain one. If you lie down with a snake and get bitten you can cry to nobody. You will note that I am not calling all women slappers here but that you are saying any man who can recognise a slapper would have sex with her.

How would you define a slapper? A girl who has sex with a lot of guys? Aren't there guys who have sex with a lot of girls? Oh wait... that whole double standard thing...

Terry · 02-12-2007 10:32PM

Dudess wrote: »

How would you define a slapper? A girl who has sex with a lot of guys? Aren't there guys who have sex with a lot of girls? Oh wait... that whole double standard thing...

We call those men "Riddled".

Lockstep · 02-12-2007 10:35PM

Methinks a Clockwork Orange type scene will sort those men out.

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

Comments