punter992005

Not Prostitution Related But This Has Got Me Flummoxed

52 posts in this topic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841225/Fury-police-bid-protect-grooming-gang-Officers-said-naming-breached-human-rights.html

I've read the same story in several other papers, so the Daily Mail aren't skipping any details that I can see...someone want to tell me when the age of consent changed to 18? Yes, the men are clearly nasty pieces of work etc. but there actually would be nothing illegal in them "passing her round" as a sexual plaything so long as she wasn't being paid, and wasn't off her face drunk. I really do get the feeling that this case is just waiting for some lawyer to offer his services for free, and it'll be overturned in no time. She's over 16, so for better or worse it's her decision as to who she fucks. She's not mentally deficient, in fact she's described as bright, there's a suggestion she was drunk but a 30 year old could be too drunk to consent....what am I missing in this case? Where's the legal framework to support this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The repeated use of the word 'vulnerable' is a clue, and the fact that they believe her sexual exploitation commenced before she was 16. She clearly isn't capable of looking after herself if she keeps ending up paralytic with a group of older men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched this on the news earlier & her Mother was on there disguised and said this girl had been groomed from the age of 14, so I'm suspecting that's why.

She went on to say that the girl became violent to her and stayed out to all kinds of hours in the morning.

So I think it is down to the fact that she had been groomed since 14 years old which would be illegal.

And I also think the fact she was given alcohol by these men and she is infact under the legal age of being able to drink is also a factor.

Edited by TightYoungEbony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The repeated use of the word 'vulnerable' is a clue, and the fact that they believe her sexual exploitation commenced before she was 16. She clearly isn't capable of looking after herself if she keeps ending up paralytic with a group of older men.

 

No - thought of that and it says that she's a "bright young woman" at the bottom of the article. Just search on the word using "find in page".

 

I'm guessing the police interest was possibly that because she was being seen in the company of different men each time and being taken to hotel rooms that they thought it was prostitution (so perhaps it is prostitution related after all). But none of that explains on what legal basis they've ordered them to not contact girls who are over the age of 16....civil cases have no entitlement to court appointed lawyers so that may explain the seeming lack of proper defence.

 

I watched this on the news earlier & her Mother was on there disguised and said this girl had been groomed from the age of 14, so I'm suspecting that's why.

She went on to say that the girl became violent to her and stayed out to all kinds of hours in the morning.

So I think it is down to the fact that she had been groomed since 14 years old which would be illegal.

And I also think the fact she was given alcohol by these men and she is infact under the legal age of being able to drink is also a factor.

 

Whatever her age at the start if she's over 16 now it's all (legally speaking) irrelevant. The alcohol issue is one that occurred to me, but it still seems insufficient to warrant an order like this. I really do think that if a fully qualified and motivated lawyer gets on their side (which may happen since they do work for free if there are precedents being set, as in this case) that this could very well be overturned - certainly in regard to other girls, if not the specific girl in this case.

 

 

 

Just to re-iterate, I'm not defending these guys. I do think it's a good idea they're kept away from this girl...but then there are probably quite a lot of men out there that should be legally barred from seeing women who are too naive/stupid to see the damage that these men are doing to them and how they're being exploited for sex....but obviously you have to give people their heads at some point; and 16 is the age of consent, not 18. So I'm struggling to see the difference between ordering these guys away from her, and ordering a wife abuser away from a 30 year old woman who's made no complaint about anything to anyone. Even though everyone else can see the problem.

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - thought of that and it says that she's a "bright young woman" at the bottom of the article. Just search on the word using "find in page".

I'm guessing the police interest was possibly that because she was being seen in the company of different men each time and being taken to hotel rooms that they thought it was prostitution (so perhaps it is prostitution related after all). But none of that explains on what legal basis they've ordered them to not contact girls who are over the age of 16....civil cases have no entitlement to court appointed lawyers so that may explain the seeming lack of proper defence.

Whatever her age at the start if she's over 16 now it's all (legally speaking) irrelevant. The alcohol issue is one that occurred to me, but it still seems insufficient to warrant an order like this. I really do think that if a fully qualified and motivated lawyer gets on their side (which may happen since they do work for free if there are precedents being set, as in this case) that this could very well be overturned - certainly in regard to other girls, if not the specific girl in this case.

Just to re-iterate, I'm not defending these guys. I do think it's a good idea they're kept away from this girl...but then there are probably quite a lot of men out there that should be legally barred from seeing women who are too naive/stupid to see the damage that these men are doing to them and how they're being exploited for sex....but obviously you have to give people their heads at some point; and 16 is the age of consent, not 18. So I'm struggling to see the difference between ordering these guys away from her, and ordering a wife abuser away from a 30 year old woman who's made no complaint about anything to anyone. Even though everyone else can see the problem.

If she was groomed at 14 and is now being taken to hotels and been given alcohol by 6 men at 17 it's a concern.

The difference is 1. She was given alcohol when she is underage.

2. She was groomed at 14

That's it. If I had a 17 year old daughter who was hanging around with men double her age and they were giving her alcohol and taking her to hotels I would have a real concern and go to the police too. She might be of legal age for sex but she was still groomed as a child, as Kay said "vulnerable" is the key word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she was groomed at 14 and is now being taken to hotels and been given alcohol by 6 men at 17 it's a concern.

The difference is 1. She was given alcohol when she is underage.

2. She was groomed at 14

That's it. If I had a 17 year old daughter who was hanging around with men double her age and they were giving her alcohol and taking her to hotels I would have a real concern and go to the police too. She might be of legal age for sex but she was still groomed as a child, as Kay said "vulnerable" is the key word.

 

Yes, I'm sure you would have a concern. That's not what I'm arguing about though. I'm talking about what's legally right and wrong. The laws are not made up on the spot by a judge. The men who were caught with her, were caught with a 17 year old - not a 14 year old. There's no evidence linking them to her at age 14. I haven't even heard any suggestion that these men were anywhere near her at that age, and the first complaints were from the care home when she started absconding - at which point she was over 16. The word "vulnerable" could be used about a 25 year old woman who's naive and stupid and going from one car crash relationship to another...but you cannot unilaterally order a group men to stay away from her. This girl doesn't have any mental impairment and is described as bright. So we'd only be talking about "sexual and emotional naiveté".  As far as the law is concerned there is legally no difference between these men taking advantage of this naive 17 year old and another naive 25 year old. There is no offence with which these men can be charged. A 17 year old can easily get alcohol herself, I doubt she'd really need these men to get beer, and she can fuck all of these men all night and every night, perfectly legally. Reading the judge's statements it really seems as if he was chastising these men for the fact that they intended to do sexual things to her....things which wouldn't have been illegal. I can't see ANY comment where he mentions supplying alcohol, it's all about sexual exploitation. Which can only (in legal terms if we're looking for an offence) refer to her being handed out for financial gain, but there doesn't seem to be any actual allegation of that within any of the reports, it all just seems to be about the fact that they were going to "use and abuse her" - and whilst I think it's a laudable goal to prevent this, there's no legal basis that I can see for preventing a man from having sex with a girl who's over 16 and hasn't made any complaint herself.

 

Once again, I'm talking about legal principles not what's morally right....otherwise we'd all be getting injunctions to protect out friends from that idiot boyfriend who we know is using her and abusing her just the same.

Edited by punter992005
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure you would have a concern. That's not what I'm arguing about though. I'm talking about what's legally right and wrong. The laws are not made up on the spot by a judge. The men who were caught with her, were caught with a 17 year old - not a 14 year old. There's no evidence linking them to her at age 14. I haven't even heard any suggestion that these men were anywhere near her at that age, and the first complaints were from the care home when she started absconding - at which point she was over 16. The word "vulnerable" could be used about a 25 year old woman who's naive and stupid and going from one car crash relationship to another...but you cannot unilaterally order a group men to stay away from her. This girl doesn't have any mental impairment and is described as bright. So we'd only be talking about "sexual and emotional naiveté". As far as the law is concerned there is legally no difference between these men taking advantage of this naive 17 year old and another naive 25 year old. There is no offence with which these men can be charged. A 17 year old can easily get alcohol herself, I doubt she'd really need these men to get beer, and she can fuck all of these men all night and every night, perfectly legally. Reading the judge's statements it really seems as if he was chastising these men for the fact that they intended to do sexual things to her....things which wouldn't have been illegal. I can't see ANY comment where he mentions supplying alcohol, it's all about sexual exploitation. Which can only (in legal terms if we're looking for an offence) refer to her being handed out for financial gain, but there doesn't seem to be any actual allegation of that within any of the reports, it all just seems to be about the fact that they were going to "use and abuse her" - and whilst I think it's a laudable goal to prevent this, there's no legal basis that I can see for preventing a man from having sex with a girl who's over 16 and hasn't made any complaint herself.

Once again, I'm talking about legal principles not what's morally right....otherwise we'd all be getting injunctions to protect out friends from that idiot boyfriend who we know is using her and abusing her just the same.

I highly doubt they would be named and warned not to go near this girl again if they had done nothing wrong.

I find it crazy you're questioning it because she's 17, personally I don't understand what a 40 year old man would want with a 17 year old CHILD, age of consent being 16 or not she is still a child in the laws eyes.

You can't see any comment about alcohol? It says in the article you posted about it, right here "Three of them were caught red-handed ‘sexually exploiting’ the vulnerable teenager in a hotel room. Two more were caught as they apparently plied her with vodka in their car late at night." did you read the article? LOL.

It also mentioned they were caught "sexually exploiting" her which could be sexual abuse of children, could mean they took sexual pictures of her or pornography etc which would be illegal as she is a child at 17.

I don't know why you would defend them, they have clearly something wrong for them to have been named and shamed and gone to court for it.

It also says this

"

Every time she goes missing a police investigation is launched. She has been found in hotel rooms with men in states of undress and in a state of intoxication, despite lack of funds."

So I think they have every right to investigate what a 17 year old child is doing intoxicated with men in their 30s in a hotel room with no money.

It also says that a few of them have criminal records one being a sexual offence.

In my opinion I think they had every right to investigate regardless of her age.

Edited by TightYoungEbony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841225/Fury-police-bid-protect-grooming-gang-Officers-said-naming-breached-human-rights.html

I've read the same story in several other papers, so the Daily Mail aren't skipping any details that I can see...someone want to tell me when the age of consent changed to 18? Yes, the men are clearly nasty pieces of work etc. but there actually would be nothing illegal in them "passing her round" as a sexual plaything so long as she wasn't being paid, and wasn't off her face drunk. I really do get the feeling that this case is just waiting for some lawyer to offer his services for free, and it'll be overturned in no time. She's over 16, so for better or worse it's her decision as to who she fucks. She's not mentally deficient, in fact she's described as bright, there's a suggestion she was drunk but a 30 year old could be too drunk to consent....what am I missing in this case? Where's the legal framework to support this?

Yes you are missing something. You are missing the entire point of someone has been 'groomed". Plus the mere term "passing her around" implies that the men are giving each other access to her and not her giving access to herself. Despite being an intelligent girl these men have instilled terror into her so the fact that she walks out of her door willingly to get into their car is not the same as someone who wants to go, she was probably going because she felt she had to go

 

This is a fantastic step forward in the way that these disgusting individuals can be dealt with who deliberately prey on younger females who dont have the confidence to stand up for themselves or to speak up or who are simply being let down by the law. Every local council knows which guys are continually slipping off the  hook in their area..they all need to adopt this approach.

 

Here is another link 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30115459

 

You need to remember that just because nothing illegal can be proven it doesnt mean nothing illegal is occuring and guys who pretty on vulnerable young people, boys and girls both, are experts at being teflon man, they know how hard certain things are to prove so they know what they can get away with. 

Edited by Chloe Kisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - thought of that and it says that she's a "bright young woman" at the bottom of the article. Just search on the word using "find in page".

 

I'm guessing the police interest was possibly that because she was being seen in the company of different men each time and being taken to hotel rooms that they thought it was prostitution (so perhaps it is prostitution related after all). But none of that explains on what legal basis they've ordered them to not contact girls who are over the age of 16....civil cases have no entitlement to court appointed lawyers so that may explain the seeming lack of proper defence.

 

 

Whatever her age at the start if she's over 16 now it's all (legally speaking) irrelevant. The alcohol issue is one that occurred to me, but it still seems insufficient to warrant an order like this. I really do think that if a fully qualified and motivated lawyer gets on their side (which may happen since they do work for free if there are precedents being set, as in this case) that this could very well be overturned - certainly in regard to other girls, if not the specific girl in this case.

 

 

 

Just to re-iterate, I'm not defending these guys. I do think it's a good idea they're kept away from this girl...but then there are probably quite a lot of men out there that should be legally barred from seeing women who are too naive/stupid to see the damage that these men are doing to them and how they're being exploited for sex....but obviously you have to give people their heads at some point; and 16 is the age of consent, not 18. So I'm struggling to see the difference between ordering these guys away from her, and ordering a wife abuser away from a 30 year old woman who's made no complaint about anything to anyone. Even though everyone else can see the problem.

The fact is though that these guys were probably charging other guys anyway to use this girl, its come up so many times in these cases and even if they were not there was clear coercion going on which is a type of force. Mental coercion is very hard to prove hence the failure in the courts for this sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure you would have a concern. That's not what I'm arguing about though. I'm talking about what's legally right and wrong. The laws are not made up on the spot by a judge. The men who were caught with her, were caught with a 17 year old - not a 14 year old. There's no evidence linking them to her at age 14. I haven't even heard any suggestion that these men were anywhere near her at that age, and the first complaints were from the care home when she started absconding - at which point she was over 16. The word "vulnerable" could be used about a 25 year old woman who's naive and stupid and going from one car crash relationship to another...but you cannot unilaterally order a group men to stay away from her. This girl doesn't have any mental impairment and is described as bright. So we'd only be talking about "sexual and emotional naiveté".  As far as the law is concerned there is legally no difference between these men taking advantage of this naive 17 year old and another naive 25 year old. There is no offence with which these men can be charged. A 17 year old can easily get alcohol herself, I doubt she'd really need these men to get beer, and she can fuck all of these men all night and every night, perfectly legally. Reading the judge's statements it really seems as if he was chastising these men for the fact that they intended to do sexual things to her....things which wouldn't have been illegal. I can't see ANY comment where he mentions supplying alcohol, it's all about sexual exploitation. Which can only (in legal terms if we're looking for an offence) refer to her being handed out for financial gain, but there doesn't seem to be any actual allegation of that within any of the reports, it all just seems to be about the fact that they were going to "use and abuse her" - and whilst I think it's a laudable goal to prevent this, there's no legal basis that I can see for preventing a man from having sex with a girl who's over 16 and hasn't made any complaint herself.

 

Once again, I'm talking about legal principles not what's morally right....otherwise we'd all be getting injunctions to protect out friends from that idiot boyfriend who we know is using her and abusing her just the same.

There is no offence that can be proven. Clearly though there was enough evidence against them for the local council to believe that the girl was being coerced into sex with these men. If money had changed hands then the coercion would be then classed as a crime as it is a crime to coerce or forcibly persuade someone to have sex for money. Why should girls not involved in prostitution not have that protection over them too if they are simply too scared to say no! 

Edited by Chloe Kisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - thought of that and it says that she's a "bright young woman" at the bottom of the article. Just search on the word using "find in page".

 

I'm guessing the police interest was possibly that because she was being seen in the company of different men each time and being taken to hotel rooms that they thought it was prostitution (so perhaps it is prostitution related after all). But none of that explains on what legal basis they've ordered them to not contact girls who are over the age of 16....civil cases have no entitlement to court appointed lawyers so that may explain the seeming lack of proper defence.

 

 

Whatever her age at the start if she's over 16 now it's all (legally speaking) irrelevant. The alcohol issue is one that occurred to me, but it still seems insufficient to warrant an order like this. I really do think that if a fully qualified and motivated lawyer gets on their side (which may happen since they do work for free if there are precedents being set, as in this case) that this could very well be overturned - certainly in regard to other girls, if not the specific girl in this case.

 

 

 

Just to re-iterate, I'm not defending these guys. I do think it's a good idea they're kept away from this girl...but then there are probably quite a lot of men out there that should be legally barred from seeing women who are too naive/stupid to see the damage that these men are doing to them and how they're being exploited for sex....but obviously you have to give people their heads at some point; and 16 is the age of consent, not 18. So I'm struggling to see the difference between ordering these guys away from her, and ordering a wife abuser away from a 30 year old woman who's made no complaint about anything to anyone. Even though everyone else can see the problem.

How do you know that no complaint was made from her. How do we know that she didnt confide in a friend that she didnt want to go with these guys but was scared not too who then reported it. The council has a duty of care for this girl and just because nothing can be provem doesnt mean that there was no evidence. The way our system works there needs to be a mountain of evidence. Even if its blatently obvious to the police even whats going gone they do not control what goes to court, the CPS does and they do this based on the evidence thats provided. Even if they had a lot of evidence they may still have felt there wasnt enough to guarantee a conviction so chose not to go ahead. My god, it could even have been decided on racial grounds as they didnt want to stir that racial pot again. Who knows why  or how the cps make their decisions on what to and what not to prosecute but dont assume that there was no evidence just because it wasnt deemed worthy of a court conviction. 

 

I doubt these guys didnt have a solicitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt they would be named and warned not to go near this girl again if they had done nothing wrong.

I find it crazy you're questioning it because she's 17, personally I don't understand what a 40 year old man would want with a 17 year old CHILD, age of consent being 16 or not she is still a child in the laws eyes.

You can't see any comment about alcohol? It says in the article you posted about it, right here "Three of them were caught red-handed ‘sexually exploiting’ the vulnerable teenager in a hotel room. Two more were caught as they apparently plied her with vodka in their car late at night." did you read the article? LOL.

It also mentioned they were caught "sexually exploiting" her which could be sexual abuse of children, could mean they took sexual pictures of her or pornography etc which would be illegal as she is a child at 17.

I don't know why you would defend them, they have clearly something wrong for them to have been named and shamed and gone to court for it.

It also says this

"

Every time she goes missing a police investigation is launched. She has been found in hotel rooms with men in states of undress and in a state of intoxication, despite lack of funds."

So I think they have every right to investigate what a 17 year old child is doing intoxicated with men in their 30s in a hotel room with no money.

It also says that a few of them have criminal records one being a sexual offence.

In my opinion I think they had every right to investigate regardless of her age.

I know exactly what a 40 year old man would want with a 16/17 year old, thats a 40 year old peodophile trying to be clever and keep within the law knowing it will be a 1000 times harder to get a conviction on him when he is caught.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841225/Fury-police-bid-protect-grooming-gang-Officers-said-naming-breached-human-rights.html

I've read the same story in several other papers, so the Daily Mail aren't skipping any details that I can see...someone want to tell me when the age of consent changed to 18? Yes, the men are clearly nasty pieces of work etc. but there actually would be nothing illegal in them "passing her round" as a sexual plaything so long as she wasn't being paid, and wasn't off her face drunk. I really do get the feeling that this case is just waiting for some lawyer to offer his services for free, and it'll be overturned in no time. She's over 16, so for better or worse it's her decision as to who she fucks. She's not mentally deficient, in fact she's described as bright, there's a suggestion she was drunk but a 30 year old could be too drunk to consent....what am I missing in this case? Where's the legal framework to support this?

Do you have children? If you do and if you have teenagers or children that used to be teenagers then you wouldnt be questioning this. You would know just how young they can be in their heads, how irresponsible, how rash and prone to silly decisions, how childlike they really still are despite them thinking they are all grown up. Sometimes the teenage years are when you need to protect them the most as they are emotionally vulnerable and in no way adults. In some respects they revert to more childlike behaviour through tantrums and rebellion. ALL councils need to adopt this approach. They know who needs their help the most already. 

Edited by Chloe Kisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number one: I'm not defending them. As I've said in every one of my posts.

Two: you cannot groom somebody that is over the age of consent.

Three: Now you want to say that a paedophile is going to be attracted to a 17 year old if they're "clever“. A paedophile would have absolutely zero interest in a 17 year old as she's fully developed physically. How can you call that paedophilia? You might as well say that a man who has sex with a drunk 25 year old is an even more clever paedophile as she's not even a teenager. Do you even know what the word means?

Four: if they'd been taking pictures of her the case wouldn't have collapsed through lack of evidence. It also says they couldn't get any alleged victims to say anything...so this girl hasn't made any statements against them.

Five: yes, I know that the younger you are the more likely you are to make "bad decisions". But there's a legal cut-off which is 16. She's above that age, and once again I'm talking about what they're doing from a LEGAL STANDPOINT ONLY.

Six: My point is that the articles are extremely light on real details as to what crime these guys were actually accused of. They all seem to suggest that taking a 17 year old to a hotel room for sex is a crime...which it isn't.

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number one: I'm not defending them. As I've said in every one of my posts.

 

You say that but any decent minded adult wouldnt be questioning the legalities and just thanking the heavens that a girl is now safe

Two: you cannot groom somebody that is over the age of consent.

 

She is 17. To get someone to the point that they are willing to be collected and forced to be drunk then be fucked in many ways by several guys at the same time several times a week does not occur overnight. The girl is not a drug addict, she is not doing it because of a compulsion for drugs she cannot control. There is no proof that these guys did  not start before she turned 16. The mention of being plied with drink leads one to believe that she is being coerced. Coercion can occur at an age. You can be groomed over the age of 16 if you are emotionally damaged or via fear of reprisal if you do not comply. 

Three: Now you want to say that a paedophile is going to be attracted to a 17 year old if they're "clever“. A paedophile would have absolutely zero interest in a 17 year old as she's fully developed physically. How can you call that paedophilia? You might as well say that a man who has sex with a drunk 25 year old is an even more clever paedophile as she's not even a teenager. Do you even know what the word means?

 

Please refer to my previous post. These guys are just went after a girl as young as possible over the legal age. There is a vast difference between going for a 16 year old and going for a 25 year old. They are totally different, a 25 year old looks older for a start and is fully matured physically and emotionally. A 16/17 year old often still has a very young body as they are as close to 14 as they are to 19 which is when a girl is really coming into her body more often than not. Plus there is the character, a girl of 16/17 will be far younger and more immature in her character than a 25 year old. The only way you can correlate 16/17 to a 25 year old is legally when it comes to the age of consent, in all other ways they are nowhere near similar to a 25 year old.

Four: if they'd been taking pictures of her the case wouldn't have collapsed through lack of evidence. It also says they couldn't get any alleged victims to say anything...so this girl hasn't made any statements against them.

 

Pictures not being found do not mean pictures were not taken. Plus, if they have naked pictures of her without them in the actual picture with them then they would not be able to use them as evidence against the guys as they could plead that someone else sent them to them and they were not there when taken. 

Five: yes, I know that the younger you are the more likely you are to make "bad decisions". But there's a legal cut-off which is 16. She's above that age, and once again I'm talking about what they're doing from a LEGAL STANDPOINT ONLY.

 

​From a legal stand point women over the age of 16 need protection from sexual predators even if money is not changing hands. All the facts of the case will  not have been nor ever will be published for our consumption and discussion. The judge wouldnt have been able to put this order on the guys illegally. There must be things that we do  not know about. There must be enough evidence for him and his eyes even if the cps dont think its enough to guarantee high enough a chance of prosecution to make it financaly viable for them to pursue the case. The fact that the judge has also lifted the ban on their identities being hidden must mean that he has seen enough proof to convince him that these men are a danger to under 18's so  now their identities have been declared publicly. He must have a reason for the order to be placed and the ban to be lifted. 

Six: My point is that the articles

 

The lifting of the ban...the judge must feel the evidence presented to him proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that people need to be aware of who these men are.

Edited by Chloe Kisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judges do make orders that are illegal or incorrect all the time. That's what appeals are for. This is a civil case which only works on balance of probability - so "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not required. That also means that they're not entitled to be provided with a defence by the state. This puts them at a severe disadvantage in complex cases. Also ironically they've been ordered to pay £2,000 towards the council's costs in prosecuting them...there are a lot of things to worry about from a legal standpoint. The article says they are "anti-grooming" orders. But you cannot be banned from grooming somebody when they're over 16...because it is not grooming in law, and the basis seems to be that they were caught in a hotel room with her.

So my point is that based on something that is not a criminal offence, they have been ordered to stay away from girls who are over the age of consent. Yes there may be things we're not being told, but unlike you I don't have a complete faith that this is all correct and kosher.

I really do think that if they get good lawyers that this could all be overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judges do make orders that are illegal or incorrect all the time. That's what appeals are for. This is a civil case which only works on balance of probability - so "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not required. That also means that they're not entitled to be provided with a defence by the state. This puts them at a severe disadvantage in complex cases. Also ironically they've been ordered to pay £2,000 towards the council's costs in prosecuting them...there are a lot of things to worry about from a legal standpoint. The article says they are "anti-grooming" orders. But you cannot be banned from grooming somebody when they're over 16...because it is not grooming in law, and the basis seems to be that they were caught in a hotel room with her.

So my point is that based on something that is not a criminal offence, they have been ordered to stay away from girls who are over the age of consent. Yes there may be things we're not being told, but unlike you I don't have a complete faith that this is all correct and kosher.

I really do think that if they get good lawyers that this could all be overturned.

My view is that with all the grooming cases that have come into the public eye of late and the fact that the guys started with the girls when they were well under the legal age of consent but then continued to abuse them when they were over the legal age that this is an excellent verdict and sends a message to people like this that despite the appearance that the law can do nothing to stop their savage ways there are still ways to stop them. Thats all I care about. When I was a teenager in another town we all heard the rumours about a girl here and there who had hooked up with a guy, gone to his house only to find that several of his mates were there waiting. All nicely set up. These girls were not allowed to leave the house until they had serviced all of the guys that were there. Its a fact, this happens. Those girls were all over 16 and they had to chose between giving 8 guys a blowjob or getting the shit kicked out of them and then being constantly beaten or harassed everytime they were out and spotted by one of those guys. Rumour was that most just gave the blowjobs to get out of there unhurt.

 

Please dont natter to me about "ooo this can't be legal" ...fuck legal. Men with these attitudes need to be stopped somehow because they are bloody teflon and feel they are untouchable. The judge did a good thing. There comes a point where this sort of persons rights fall into oblivion when compared to the girls that they are forcible coercing. I wish money had been proven to have exchanged hands in a way as then they would have been prosecutable in a court. The judge also has to work within the laws. He cannot pass an unlawful verdict or order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im leaving this thread. Its actually getting me upset now. You keep saying that you dont disagree with whats been passed and are just questioning the legalities but  you very clearly are more worried about the guys legal standing than the girl affected. I think you feel for the guys involved as you are coming across as if  you are defending their legal rights and you dont seem to have any actual empathy for the girl involved. You are coming over as if to say "it doesnt matter what occurred, she's legal, they shouldnt be in any trouble" when situations are often far deeper that you and me see. 

Edited by Chloe Kisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im leaving this thread. Its actually getting me upset now. You keep saying that you dont disagree with whats been passed and are just questioning the legalities but you very clearly are more worried about the guys legal standing than the girl affected. I think you feel for the guys involved as you are coming across as if you are defending their legal rights and you dont seem to have any actual empathy for the girl involved. You are coming over as if to say "it doesnt matter what occurred, she's legal, they shouldnt be in any trouble" when situations are often far deeper that you and me see.

I agree Chloe pointless debating with someone who clearly wants to defend men who sexually exploited a child age or consent or not.

I don't know why anyone in the right kind would defend these people unless they think its okay what they are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure you would have a concern. That's not what I'm arguing about though. I'm talking about what's legally right and wrong. The laws are not made up on the spot by a judge. The men who were caught with her, were caught with a 17 year old - not a 14 year old. There's no evidence linking them to her at age 14. I haven't even heard any suggestion that these men were anywhere near her at that age, and the first complaints were from the care home when she started absconding - at which point she was over 16. The word "vulnerable" could be used about a 25 year old woman who's naive and stupid and going from one car crash relationship to another...but you cannot unilaterally order a group men to stay away from her. This girl doesn't have any mental impairment and is described as bright. So we'd only be talking about "sexual and emotional naiveté".  As far as the law is concerned there is legally no difference between these men taking advantage of this naive 17 year old and another naive 25 year old. There is no offence with which these men can be charged. A 17 year old can easily get alcohol herself, I doubt she'd really need these men to get beer, and she can fuck all of these men all night and every night, perfectly legally. Reading the judge's statements it really seems as if he was chastising these men for the fact that they intended to do sexual things to her....things which wouldn't have been illegal. I can't see ANY comment where he mentions supplying alcohol, it's all about sexual exploitation. Which can only (in legal terms if we're looking for an offence) refer to her being handed out for financial gain, but there doesn't seem to be any actual allegation of that within any of the reports, it all just seems to be about the fact that they were going to "use and abuse her" - and whilst I think it's a laudable goal to prevent this, there's no legal basis that I can see for preventing a man from having sex with a girl who's over 16 and hasn't made any complaint herself.

 

Once again, I'm talking about legal principles not what's morally right....otherwise we'd all be getting injunctions to protect out friends from that idiot boyfriend who we know is using her and abusing her just the same.

 

Isn't there a clue in your phrase "these men"? Why would a group of adult men be hanging around with a teenaged girl if it wasn't for nefarious purposes. There's a difference between one man, operating solo, having an inappropriate relationship with a teen, and a group who have obviously either groomed or exploited her. If they've done it to her, they'll do it to others.

 

That to me is the point of the legal case, and I'm glad of it because these men and men like them are candidates for castration IMHO...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it rather hypocritical that, whilst the newspaper almost revels in revealing their names and glories in its position of guardian of the people, it hides their faces in the photographs to avoid any comeback. If they were truly exposing them, why do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it rather hypocritical that, whilst the newspaper almost revels in revealing their names and glories in its position of guardian of the people, it hides their faces in the photographs to avoid any comeback. If they were truly exposing them, why do that?

I agree their faces shouldn't have been obscured if they are going to reveal their names! Makes no sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slimy little creeps should be hung out to dry publicly so everyone knows who they are.

 

Any man who chooses to take the innocence of a young kid away (boy or girl) and destroy their lives is the ultimate low life. Clearly not man enough for a real woman they have to pick on the vulnerable. Put them in nick among the tough guys and show them what vulnerability feels like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it rather hypocritical that, whilst the newspaper almost revels in revealing their names and glories in its position of guardian of the people, it hides their faces in the photographs to avoid any comeback. If they were truly exposing them, why do that?

in the link I posted there is a video and the face of one of them is clearly seen leaving the building

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a clue in your phrase "these men"? Why would a group of adult men be hanging around with a teenaged girl if it wasn't for nefarious purposes. There's a difference between one man, operating solo, having an inappropriate relationship with a teen, and a group who have obviously either groomed or exploited her. If they've done it to her, they'll do it to others.

That to me is the point of the legal case, and I'm glad of it because these men and men like them are candidates for castration IMHO...

No - it's still not illegal. A 16 year old can take part in an orgy and there's no laws broken and for the umpteenth time there's no way you can groom a person over 16. Yes, I understand that the police would suspect that she's being used and abused and that it may fit in with the laws against prostitution etc. But (for chloe) since we're on the legalities and legislation board I don't think it's remiss of me to question the legality of an order that effectively changes the age of consent for these men. The girl, from all the stories I've read, has NOT made any complaint, or substantiated the police's beliefs, and since she's over 16 the men have not committed any offence...all their evidence is purely circumstantial and in their own heads, there's nothing substantive to it at all. I also find it rather scary how you keep repeating that I'm defending these guys, when I've repeatedly said that I'm simply talking about how it can be legally justifiable...it's in the title of this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now