-
Posts
-
A JUDGE spared a man who raped a girl of ten in a park — because she wore a “provocative” frilly bra and thong.
Window cleaner Keith Fenn, 25 — who could have got life in jail — will be free in just FOUR MONTHS after admitting twice having sex with the child.
Judge Julian Hall decided to be lenient because the girl “didn’t look 10”.
He caused fury earlier this year by freeing another paedophile, telling him to buy his six-year-old victim a new bicycle.
The judge referred to the 10-year-old as a “young woman”, and called her “very disturbed, very needy and sexually precocious”.
He told Oxford Crown Court: “She liked to dress provocatively. She was 10.
“Did she look 10? Certainly not. She looked 16.”
Fenn, of Oxford, got two years’ jail but will soon be free because of time spent awaiting sentence. Accomplice Darren Wright, 34, of Henley-on-Thames walked free after getting just nine months.
Last night, campaigner Dr Michele Elliott of children’s charity Kidscape called the sentences “beyond pathetic”.
The NSPCC added: “There’s no excuse.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007290126,00.html
HOW IS A TEN YEAR OLD GIRL A YOUNG WOMAN????
IN FOUR MONTHS TIME THIS MANIAC WILL BE LET OUT INTO SOCIETY WHEREBY ANOTHER TEN YEAR OLD WEARING A FRILLY BRA IS FAIR GAME.
THIS JUDGE SHOULD BE HUNG. THIS KIND OF THING IS HAPPENING ALL TOO OFTEN. “SHE LIKED TO DRESS PROVOCATIVELY”, SHE’S A KID YOU IDIOT, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT SHE WORE, HOW SHE WORE OR WHEN, THE PEADOPHILLE SHOULD BE IN PRISON UNTILL HE DIES.
WHY ARE YOU PUTTING UP WITH THIS?
Because the parents of a 10 year old shouldn’t let her dress like a wh0re and hang around with 25 year old men.
The government isn’t at fault here, the child’s parents are. They’re the ones who should be hanged along with the 25 year old.
Her parents are the government, she’s been in care since she was 4.
Before everybody goes off on a rant about this … we need to consider the surrounding facts.
The child was 10 years old. This means that she was legally unable to give consent to sexual intercourse (whether she actually gave her consent or not) and this makes ANY sexual act involving intercourse with her ”statutory” rape.
So although the Sun (from where the story was quoted) loves to bang the drum about paedophiles and child rapists, it doesn’t follow that the TWO men with whom this child apparently willingly had intercourse in a park actually raped her … at least not in the sense of violent and forcible sexual intercourse – as we would all reasonablyassume rape to be.
The child has been in care since the age of 4 – which invalidates Tommy’s point about her parents being responsible.
The problem is that we are only ever in posession of a part of the story – not all of it – and are therefore in danger of overreacting. We do not know whether this child really did look like a 16 year old (we are told that che clearly did) or whether she actively went out of her way to solicit sex from these men….. or indeed many other men before them.
The Judge described her as “very disturbed, very needy and sexually precocious”. This would seem to imply that this wasn’t the first occasion that she was in this situation.
I guess that the horrifying point is that she was only 10 years old and yet still felt that it was OK to dress as an ”adult” and have sex in a park with two ”strangers”AND on more than one occasion. Had she really been 16 years old it is highly probable that an offence would not have been committed by the two men.
A 25 year old man should be aware that this girl could be underage. She didn’t “look” 15, and she didn’t “look” 17. Its all too convenient to say she “looked” 16.
I think, if you’re 25 and you’re not sure if another person is underage or not, DONT have sex with them untill you KNOW for sure.
That is the point the “judge” should be explaining when sentencing this peadophille, because if its going to be the case that, oh she “looked” 16, then every person under 16 can “look” 16.
The judge is an employee of our Labour run government, who have full prisons, and Labour believe in sexual freedom.
Will the zombie nation EVER wake up???
Yes an interesting point Emma …. why particularly 16???
I suspect it is because 16 is the legal age of consent in this country. In other words if the girl really was 16 or over, then neither man would have committed an offence. (I make the assumption that the acts of sexual intercourse were solicited by the girl concerned, were consented to, and that she wasn’t forced or coerced in any way by the men).
However, as stated above, the fact that she was only 10 means that in law she is incapable of giving her consent to sexual intercourse and therefore ANY act of sexual intercourse with her must be by definition rape.
It is also interesting to note that there is no defence to this offence of ”rape”. It is unimportant whether or not the man honestly and genuinely believed that the girl was old enough or whether she absolutely stated when specifically asked that she WAS 16 or over.
If it subsequently turns out that she was under age then he commits an offence and has to be punished according to law.
It may well be that the Judge realised that this particular case was one where, although an offence was actually committed by the men concerned, it was not of such gravity that it merited a long prison sentence.
I have to say one thing PB
How could anyone, and I mean anyone, mistake a 10 year old for a 16 year old- 12 year possibly, 14 year old, definitely but 10 year old??
I dont give a monkey’s chuff if she lay there and begged the 2 men to give it to her….adults have a direct responsibility to protect children, not exploit and take advantage of them just because the opportunity is there….and then blame the child for their actions is simply the defence lawyers way of ensuring they are not held to account for their actions.
1 gun, 2 bullets n 2 less to worry about…n yes, I would more than happily pull the trigger-no remorse, no regrets
@slayer wrote:
I have to say one thing PB
How could anyone, and I mean anyone, mistake a 10 year old for a 16 year old- 12 year possibly, 14 year old, definitely but 10 year old??
I dont give a monkey’s chuff if she lay there and begged the 2 men to give it to her….adults have a direct responsibility to protect children, not exploit and take advantage of them just because the opportunity is there….and then blame the child for their actions is simply the defence lawyers way of ensuring they are not held to account for their actions.
1 gun, 2 bullets n 2 less to worry about…n yes, I would more than happily pull the trigger-no remorse, no regrets
Well the point that seems to have been missed – especially by the Sun and its readers – is this.
The girl was 10 … yes – BUT horrifyingly, she had been sexually active for some time. This ”rape” was NOT the first time that she had ever had intercourse with a man or men. It would seem that she had been sexually active or promiscuous for quite some time.
Now THAT I find shocking !!!
As for your point about mistaking her age Slayer. To tell you the truth I really can’t provide an answer to that. We all would have thought that telling a 10 year old from a 16 year old would be both easy and obvious – we can only take the Judge’s word for this as he was actually there in Court and presumably saw this girl give evidence – we didn’t.
However, I can understand that a sexually active, promiscuous young female dressing up in ‘adult’ clothes and making herself up, can make herself look a heck of a lot older than she really is.
@smiley wrote:
Because the parents of a 10 year old shouldn’t let her dress like a wh0re and hang around with 25 year old men.
The government isn’t at fault here, the child’s parents are. They’re the ones who should be hanged along with the 25 year old.
WRONG,,,This is filth that should NOT be allowed in Open forum…
Tom i know yer on a wind up..! DONT make a joke of rape!
thank you
@rubyred wrote:
@smiley wrote:
Because the parents of a 10 year old shouldn’t let her dress like a wh0re and hang around with 25 year old men.
The government isn’t at fault here, the child’s parents are. They’re the ones who should be hanged along with the 25 year old.
WRONG,,,This is filth that should NOT be allowed in Open forum…
Tom i know yer on a wind up..! DONT make a joke of rape!
thank you
Ruby .. it has already been pointed out that she has been in care from the age of 4 – so her parents can have had no part at all to play in this dreadful matter.
Secondly …. there is NO joke being made of rape here either.
In this particular case (but NOT necessarily other cases) the act was a ”technical rape” based on the fact that at the age of 10 the girl could NOT give legal consent to sexual intercourse.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!