Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Boy's dad says the kid sees it "a notch on his belt". Erm... lad?
“Having read everything before me, it was quite clear he was a mature 11-year-old and you were an immature 20-year-old so that narrows the arithmetic age gap between you.”
Grim case all round really.
"Knock off one year for her for being a bit daft, add on two for him because he's got grade 5 piano, think she liked that last Hunger Games film, probably best knock two off for that..."
Except possibly the kid.
that's an 11 year old victim of sexual abuse you're referring to
I imagine this case will be reviewed, and I would not be surprised if social services don't get involved pretty quickly too.
what kind of thick as pigshit father (apart from a thick as pigshit one, obviously) ignores his own child's distress, to say 'nah, he was up for it really'.
Some very odd judicial reasoning at play too. That poor poor child, I don't care how mature he was, he was 11, a child, barely in high school (if at all.)
Definitely sounds like that it's not the best home life for the kid.
so that's why the dad is quick to jump to her defence.
I'm now starting to worry about the welfare of the(if the judge is to be believed) perhaps learning challenged accused.
Oh, just realised this all happened in Swindon.
Poeplare knocking theitr pan inm (myself included0 to build a career that one day might lead to a seat at the bench, and you have barely literate fuckwits like this clown, who doesn't understand the basic rules of legal reasoning.
The judge is not allowed to do the job of the defence. By him saying 'well come on chaps, it's clear that the accused is not the full shilling', he is essentially introducing a special defence of incapacity or mental disorder. it's not his place to do so , firstly, Secondly, the CPS haven't been given a chance to rebut any of his musings. What a fucking ringpiece.
in advance of baying MRA's having heart attacks. Emphasis should be: the judge is an idiot, the dad is an idiot. End.
seem to allude to the babysitter having some sort of problem but I can't see his judgement addresses that. terrible judging + terrible parenting.
just realised he put her on the sexual offenders register + banned her from working with young boys she's not going to be babysitting anyone for a long time.
Fwiw, I don't know enough about the case to say for sure, but this does not scream paedophilia at me, as a matter of pathological behaviour. I think she has perhaps been impressed upon by her pervious relationship with eth father, and is perhaps impressionable/ eager to please/ enjoying the attention, more than she is a predatory paedo, looking for her next child to prey upon.
there is just so much sad about this case, with a child and a young adult being let down by older adults that they had implicitly trusted.
his judgement will be torn apart on appeal ifteh CPS do appeal it. the problem is- is it really in the public's best interest to have the sentence re-opened and have her sentenced according to the guidelines (which would mean jail, no suspended sentence.)
you kind of felt the judge sympathised with her a bit and thought- shit love, you're going down unless I can crowbar in some commentary about how dim and impressionable you are, forgetting that he is now a judge and not a defence barrister, ergo it is not his place to present such reasoning to the court.
in this sort of sentencing at all then? Because I think that was the case the defence made.
sorry, probably biggish essay incoming, as I twiddle my thumbs waiting for my 6,30 call to start.
The problem with these things is, you're almost saying that somebody is just a little bit mad, or a little bit learning disabled (which of course is the reality in most cases, but legally so tricky, esp if lefty in the hands of judges). Because if an accused were truly incapable as a result of their mental condition of forming the mens rea (intent) to constitute a crime under the rule of law, then one of two things- 1) the case would (or should) not be heard in the first place, or 2) a not guilty verdict should be returned. on a view, she either has the ability to form the intent or she doesn't, in most cases at least. there is a narrow discretion to say- ok, we feel she was smart enough to know it was wrong and therefore to form the requisite intent, but she was immature and unduly influenced, and because this feels unfairwe will take that into account- but it needs to be used really REALLY sparingly, and always introduced into pleadings early on and by the defence (or in some rare situations by an even handed CPS.) If her defence robustly led this from the beginning, then I feel loads better about the fairness in the reasoning- that was not clear from the reports I had read, so thanks for pointing that out. palpitations and fury receding. :)
that I cannot type 'left' without it coming out 'lefty'.
a couple of sentences here as implying she has learning difficulties of some description: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3260279/Babysitter-sex-11-year-old-escapes-jail.html
Not sure what type of case/court it would need to be to actually cover the cost of an actual psychological assessment?
Puts the reporting of this in a worse light too if so.
pay for and lead evidence of such a report. there is no suggestion that this has happened, and they have instead just focused on her being small and not perhaps as mature as other 20 year olds.
and I'm happy to be corrected - if she's found not guilty on that basis the judge can make her subject to a potentially indefinite hospital order can't he? She may have viewed prison as preferable to using that defence.
Quite the opposite because, obviously, she's not insane and you're right, long term, secure hospital incarceration would be the very definition of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
who reported this?
Then presumably felt guilty about the prospect of his ex-whatever going to jail.
He loved it."
... he said about his 11-year-old son.
Dude's got Dad of the Year absolutely sewn up.
just for the lols at this point even
Too poor to go to Thailand for your next sex tourist holiday?
*Boy walks down into the arena, high fiving everyone, before stepping up to the oche*
"However, the boy said he knew what had happened was wrong and he said he had not enjoyed it."
A sexual offence against a child is what you're talking about there. What the fuck is wrong with you?