Sorry your browser is not supported!

I received this email from change.org today:

Here is the linked article http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?public_id=33935

The way people react to stories like this disturbs me. Stating that, "It’s never the child’s fault.", is absurd, and saying, "I could have been that 13 year old girl who the judge and prosecutor described as 'predatory'.", shows that she has already prejudged the situation without any knowledge of the events. Pretending that 13-year-olds have no sexual desires is only going to harm them. We are making pubescent children vulnerable by giving them inadequate sex education. I despise this attitude that children should be kept innocent and ignorant, ignorance is no kind protection, knowledge is the only protection. Laws do not protect anyone either, they don't stop rape or murder so why would they stop child abuse?

On the other hand, I also find some of the judge's comments disturbing: "Judge Nigel Peters told Neil Wilson, 41, he had also taken account the fact the child looked older.", what she looks like is insignificant, I'm shocked to hear a judge make such a basic error. Is it a crime to have consensual sex with a 24-year-old who looks 14? Of course not, looks are not the issue. The issue is that a child who has not had the experience or education to take responsibility for themselves is vulnerable to abuse, it makes no difference if she looks 3 or 23. This is why I say sex education is vital for healthy children, there are many children (especially girls) who look much older than they are and inevitably attract sexual interest (and are beginning to have sexual desires of their own), they need to be prepared to deal with those situations because the reality is that they are not babies any more, and continuing to treat them as such only endangers them.

In a lot of ways though, I do believe it can't be the child's fault. Children at this age are not fully matured mentally. Even if they are physically matured (or mostly physically matured), their minds haven't exactly caught up.

It is the responsibility of adults in our society to recognize this. Even if an individual underage is soliciting sex, even if they really do act like a "sexual predator" (and I doubt very much this represents the majority of [often unreported] cases), it is the adult's responsibility then to either ensure the individual receives some kind of help or to at the very least avoid the invitation. Anything less is disgusting, regardless of circumstance.




Yes, there are people who run free. But that is hardly an excuse to say that laws do not protect anyone. Although it is worth noting that most justice systems are reactive, rather than proactive, but there isn't really a sensible way of doing it the other way around (Minority Report anyone?). The rapes, murders, and child abuses that the justice system stops are the ones you never see, because the threat of punishment (theoretically) prevents them from happening.

Just be careful with what you get from change.org. As long as you know up front that they are not a news outlet, or impartial, or non-profit, then you can intelligently filter through what they provide and research it for yourself.

Brian.

Worth pointing out that I don't personally believe the 13 year old had the...faculties to overpower someone else. Drunk or sober, the guy knew.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23597920

This was national news mind you...

Judging by the thread title and where this is going, I can't imagine any good coming from this discussion.

OBese, everyone has a unique form of morality and a unique set of opinions, and people are going to agree and disagree with you in different ways. When they do, they tend to argue, thus resulting in a flame war.

I'm not sure what you mean by "faculties to overpower someone else". It certainly sounds as though she was promiscuous and willing, but then would she have acted the same way if she was more mature? At what point can you classify someone as mentally mature? There are plenty of teenagers who are "of age" yet I don't think they are mature enough, and on the other hand maybe this 13-year-old girl was mature enough to decide for herself, it is hard to tell, but I don't like the way we prejudge and impose arbitrary rules; It's very unscientific.


Even if it were the adult's fault 99.999% of the time, I still don't like the presumption that the child is never at fault. There have been child murderers as rapists younger than this girl, so it's not like children are innocent, but of course age should be taken into consideration like any other factor.

I think children are capable of comprehending a great deal more than we give them credit for. I remember when I was around 13 or 14 and me and my friends were first discovering alcohol. My parents were stonewalled against me drinking any alcohol, so what I would do is take a bit of every drink in the liquor cabinet and mix them together in a plastic bottle (hoping there would be less chance of them noticing) and go to the park with my friends. It was pretty potent stuff as you can imagine and if we weren't as responsible it could have ended very badly. We didn't know anything about alcohol, we didn't know how much is safe to drink or what you should do if you feel ill or your friend passes out. We were in far greater danger because our parents had prevented us from learning about alcohol or experiencing it in a safe environment. The same could be said about sex.


Isn't that worrying? I don't like the idea of relying on the moral principles of every adult, and in this particular situation I think it would have taken quite a mature man to realise that anything was wrong. We know he is 41, but that doesn't tell us how mature, intelligent or moral he is. Maybe he was very lonely and was thrilled to have someone pay attention to him. He must have questioned whether it was right many times, but something convinced him it was okay, and her behaviour was certainly a factor in that.

In a lot of these stories, where the child is usually 13-15, the child and adult say they are in love. I think there is a lot of naivety on both sides, and yes you can claim that an adult should know better but that doesn't help or change the situation. How many of these affairs never come to light because both parties are afraid of the repercussions?

[edit]
I just watched the BBC report and found most of it quite infuriating, but I totally agree with Mohammed Khan's defence of Colover:

It seems like a bunch of people with a load of preconceived ideas are chiming in and persecuting a lawyer for doing his job.

Alan Wardle from the NSPCC gives a perfect example of this prejudice:

No, ideas do not need to be "stamped on" they need to be discussed and evaluated. This is disgusting intellectual dishonesty. You can't predetermine that a thirteen-year-old girl could never be predatory just because that idea doesn't sit right with you.

I understand the dangers of victim-blaming but people are projecting their views onto a case they know nothing about.

You make some valid points. To clarify, when I say it is the responsibility of every adult, I do not trust every adult. I do, however, feel they must be held accountable for their actions. It is perfectly possible for one to fail in one of his or her responsibilities, however that does not make it any less of a responsibility.




The laws in their current form serve to protect the naive child. Thus, it is the adult who broke the law and the adult who aught to be punished.


It seems to me (forgive me if I am mistaken) that your main issue with the legal system is that it doesn't prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place. Legal consequences exist as an incentive not to break the law, and they only work if they are actually carried out. Furthermore, as evidenced by the fact that, well, crime still exists, it is hardly a foolproof system. But there isn't much in the way of alternatives.

Almost, but my issue is more that people seem to expect the law to protect children from abuse, and the fact the law exists means they can ignore the issue. However, in many cases I believe better education, starting at an earlier age, would prevent many cases of non-violent "abuse".

It is true that the adult is more accountable for their actions (while this still seems like a weak generalisation to me I will accept it is usually the case) but surely it is only healthy to teach children to be as responsible for themselves as can reasonably be expected.


I don't see what good it does to send this guy to prison (I think he is on a suspended sentence), there was another one about a month ago, a school teacher who ran off with his 15-year-old student, he also went to prison. I don't see how these men are a threat to society, they were not violent or malicious, they were just irresponsible. How can we claim that a 15-year-old is a child and too naive to consent, but a 16-year-old can give consent to anyone? What about "children" who are 16/17 and made bad decisions they regret because they were still too naive? What's the difference? Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand seems like a very poor way to make laws.

PS Age of consent is 16 here in the UK.

I see where you are coming from and again, good points. The "line in the sand" is an issue and it is a tricky one to get around (which is probably why an improved alternative hasn't really cropped up).

The problem is that an adult may abuse their position as an authority, or use physical violence, etc etc against a child in ways that the child may not be able to react to as well as another adult may. I agree that there isn't really a cut-off where this suddenly changes and there are plenty of adults who suffer from the same sort of attacks and they too can't or won't fight it, but in general a young kid is more vulnerable. That's why separate laws exist for child abuse, statutory rape and so forth.

But where you draw the line is somewhat arbitrary, and unfortunately I don't see a good way around that.

Wait, let me get this straight. The "victim" was a 13yr old girl who did sexual things with an adult. This adult then after pleading guilty walks free? Even if the kid lead him on, she's 13 and wearing a little girls school outfit. I doubt there is mistaken identity here, so how did he get out of this?

I don't know, it seems like the judge was saying, "Well, she does look older and she was promiscuous so I guess it's not so bad.", it makes you scratch your head a bit because how can the law be enforced? I think this is a very interesting case because it appears that she was the one in control. How promiscuous does a girl have to be before she is considered a "predator"? If the girl acted the same way but was even younger would the judge have said the same thing?

On subject:

Both parties are at fault.

She may well be promiscuous, she may well have instigated the whole thing, but there's this little problem with that, it's called THE LAW! - If it's not bloody obvious that what he did, or let her do was illegal, immoral, wrong... then he should be locked up, he clearly shouldn't be around young girls, he's obviously an idiot.

Just because a puppy tries to follow me out of the pet shop, doesn't mean I can do what I want with it.

the puppy pet shop thing is a tad bit one sided isnt it - considering the puppy isnt exactly doing anything wrong what so ever.