Rape of girl, 11. Man charged

[WillowTheWhisp]

I also have concerns but mine are also for the lads who are led on by girls of whatever age who actually want sex at the time but then have second thoughts the morning after and cry rape.

It's not only unfair on the lads but also unfair on real rape victims who have suffered a violent assault. When the former get thrown out of court it makes it more and more difficult for the latter to come forward and report the attacks they have suffered.

[WillowTheWhisp]

This is the report where the judge said she looked 16. It also says in here that she approached the men.

Judge Hall said: "It is an absolute crime because she was only 10.
"In my experience this has been the most difficult sentencing exercise I have ever had to decide on. The circumstances in this case are exceptional.
"It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively.
"Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16, that was a matter that was accepted."

I just think that there was far more to this whole story than we can ever know from reading the newspapers. The only people who can perhaps understand are those who were on the jury who presumably did get to see the child.

Both of the men involved are on the sex offenders register so it isn't as if they have not received punishment.

'Kidscape' would do well to look at the 'care' this child has been receiving and ask how she came to be so streetwise at such a young age. She has been in care since the age of 4.

[Mercury]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

This [color=DarkOrchid]is the report where the judge said she looked 16. It also says in here that she approached the men.



I just think that there was far more to this whole story than we can ever know from reading the newspapers. The only people who can perhaps understand are those who were on the jury who presumably did get to see the child.

Both of the men involved are on the sex offenders register so it isn't as if they have not received punishment.

'Kidscape' would do well to look at the 'care' this child has been receiving and ask how she came to be so streetwise at such a young age. She has been in care since the age of 4.

I do feel so sorry for the girl, what 10 year old becomes so sexually active and precocious (Sorry, can't spell!) and it seems as if she has had no guidance what so ever. God knows what she's going to be like when she gets older.

[Magpi 47]

It is still a ludicrously short sentence, and some of the comments that were attributed to the judge seemed to make light of the whole case.

And because someone dresses provocatively does not mean that they should have no protection against sexual predators......which is, in essence, what these men appear to be.
They didn't exercise any common sense.....because someone looks 16 doesn't mean she is 16.......and while I am sure that there are some mature 10year olds, I cannot believe that these men were truly in the dark about her age. I think this was just something that was used in their defence to get them lighter sentencing.....and it worked.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Was she dressed provocatively? I missed that bit. I thought she just looked 16. Oh yes, it says she liked to dress provocatively. What were her carers thinking then allowing a 10 year old to dress provocatively?

[Magpi 47]

Well, Willow in the newspaper that I read it stated that she wore a frilly bra and a thong...it didn't mention any outer garments.
So i suppose almost the entire population of teenage girls could be considered to be dressed provocatively if this their measure of the criteria for 'provocative'....and I suppose if her outerwear was 'sensible' then the social care team could have that as part of their defence.

I suppose like many issues in this case these criteria are very subjective.
What one person might see as provocative could be seen as conservative by somone else.

If the girl was sexually active then her carers should have been aware of this and taken appropriate steps to ensure she was safe, both from the pregnancy point of view and STI's...although they really should have been exercising some control over her sexual activity.

It is really a very worrying case.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Well if the only thing that was classified as provocative was her underwear that doesn't make sense as an excuse for somebody to be enticed by because under normal circumstances it wouldn't be seen.

There has to be much more to this case than has been reported. Even the reports aren't consistent.

The one obvious glaring thing though is, as you say, what were her carers doing about her level of sexual activity at such a young age and how the heck did she get to be sexually active at her age?