Man jailed for sexual activity with fake 19 year old
Discussion
The judge did not say he thought the girl looked 19. He accepted that the man in question ‘thought she was over 16’.
Another report
www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/braggi...
http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/Nhoodv3.nsf/WebsiteP...
Another report
www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/braggi...
http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/Nhoodv3.nsf/WebsiteP...
Edited by rover 623gsi on Tuesday 9th April 12:33
Edited by rover 623gsi on Tuesday 9th April 12:35
Integroo said:
Kermit power said:
But still plenty of people on here deciding they know better than the people actually involved in the case.
There is, of course, a possibility that the judge himself is a raving paedo who looks at 12yr old girls and decides they're starting to get a bit past it, but in the far more probable event that he's a normal human being who has looked at the evidence presented to him and decided the guy in the dock is more stupid and gullible than anything more sinister, who are we to question it?
Facts: 28 year old looking for young girls online to meet for sex. Whether he thought she was 12 or 16, it is still perverse. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I have no sympathy, and serious doubts about whether he genuinely believed she was 19.There is, of course, a possibility that the judge himself is a raving paedo who looks at 12yr old girls and decides they're starting to get a bit past it, but in the far more probable event that he's a normal human being who has looked at the evidence presented to him and decided the guy in the dock is more stupid and gullible than anything more sinister, who are we to question it?
Following the hearing, Detective Constable Tina Jackson, of GMP’s Project Phoenix Bury team, said: “Carl Hodgson would have known the schoolgirl was under 16 and showed complete disregard for the law for his own sexual gratification.
Kermit Power challenged me above for saying a 12 year old doesn't pass for 19 on the basis of what the judge said. Nowhere does the judge offer his opinion that she looked 19.
He seems to think he would have a good defence if she had been 13. Another assumption on his behalf whilst attacking other people for having their opinion.
Quite clearly this girl was not only just out of primary school, she is clearly the usual mixed up little vulnerable girl that ends up in the hands of paedophiles.
I wonder why this guy was the only one to end up engaged with the youngster? Why did nobody else on the popular app end up chasing after her looking for a quickie? By all accounts women need to beat desperate men off all the time, but he was just the unlucky one?
My family did foster care for years and it would frighten you what happens with the girls. They all have needy desires and were completely open to exploitation. The worst fact was everyone knew fine well how young they were and there was an endless queue of guys looking to take advantage.
It is f
king scary what some men would do to kids and make every excuse under the sun to justify it. Edited by Driver101 on Tuesday 9th April 12:42
Kermit power said:
Have you read the article?????
Why is it that everyone on here is so completely convinced that they know better than the judge in the case whether or not it was reasonable for the offender to have thought the girl was over 16?
As I read it, that's basically the judge saying that if she'd been 13 instead of 12, then there would have been a perfectly viable defence of having believed the girl to be over the age of 16, but as she's under 13, it's an absolute offence, and such a defence cannot be mounted.
We know that the girl claimed to be 19. Now of course my daughter could've made the same claim when she was two, but not even a High Court Judge would've believed her, because she would've been so completely obviously two. In this case, however, one has to assume the judge has seen photos of the girl and read whatever she wrote on Whatsapp at the very least, even if he hasn't actually met her (which we don't know), so why is everyone doubting him?
what are you talking about? I'm agreeing with the judges decisionWhy is it that everyone on here is so completely convinced that they know better than the judge in the case whether or not it was reasonable for the offender to have thought the girl was over 16?
As I read it, that's basically the judge saying that if she'd been 13 instead of 12, then there would have been a perfectly viable defence of having believed the girl to be over the age of 16, but as she's under 13, it's an absolute offence, and such a defence cannot be mounted.
We know that the girl claimed to be 19. Now of course my daughter could've made the same claim when she was two, but not even a High Court Judge would've believed her, because she would've been so completely obviously two. In this case, however, one has to assume the judge has seen photos of the girl and read whatever she wrote on Whatsapp at the very least, even if he hasn't actually met her (which we don't know), so why is everyone doubting him?
rover 623gsi said:
The judge did not say he thought the girl looked 19. He accepted that the man in question ‘thought she was over 16’.
Another report
www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/braggi...
http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/Nhoodv3.nsf/WebsiteP...
"Detective Constable Tina Jackson, of GMP’s Project Phoenix Bury team, said: “Carl Hodgson would have known the schoolgirl was under 16 and showed complete disregard for the law for his own sexual gratification.Another report
www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/braggi...
http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/Nhoodv3.nsf/WebsiteP...
Edited by rover 623gsi on Tuesday 9th April 12:33
Edited by rover 623gsi on Tuesday 9th April 12:35
“In reality he did not care and saw an opportunity to satisfy his own sexual urges which he then bragged about to his friends."
A shame that the BBC hadn't reported that part
limpsfield said:
I would. There is a big difference in maturity. Not so much if it was e.g. 39 to 30.
that's not always the case, 29 and 19 can be very similar in maturity, when my girlfriend was 19 she had been abandoned in a different country from 14 years old by her parents and had to fend for her self and was super mature by then. Driver101 said:
Just reading about the sexual offence register. It says sentences of below 30 months mean you're on the register for 10 years.
I wonder why the judge ruled he's on it for life?
he has a life sentence anyway and will have to move away from wherever he lives and disassociate himself with all of his friends and family. his best chance is to move country (although that's difficult because most countries won't accept someone with a record of this nature)I wonder why the judge ruled he's on it for life?
WCZ said:
Driver101 said:
Just reading about the sexual offence register. It says sentences of below 30 months mean you're on the register for 10 years.
I wonder why the judge ruled he's on it for life?
he has a life sentence anyway and will have to move away from wherever he lives and disassociate himself with all of his friends and family. his best chance is to move country (although that's difficult because most countries won't accept someone with a record of this nature)I wonder why the judge ruled he's on it for life?
Kermit power said:
But still plenty of people on here deciding they know better than the people actually involved in the case.
There is, of course, a possibility that the judge himself is a raving paedo who looks at 12yr old girls and decides they're starting to get a bit past it, but in the far more probable event that he's a normal human being who has looked at the evidence presented to him and decided the guy in the dock is more stupid and gullible than anything more sinister, who are we to question it?
Where are you getting this information about the Judge's views on the case from - the BBC article doesn't back up what you've been saying?There is, of course, a possibility that the judge himself is a raving paedo who looks at 12yr old girls and decides they're starting to get a bit past it, but in the far more probable event that he's a normal human being who has looked at the evidence presented to him and decided the guy in the dock is more stupid and gullible than anything more sinister, who are we to question it?
Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:
Cathy Newman?
Your average 12 year old will look like a child. However many will look younger, or in this case as the judge agrees (if you'd bothered to read the article), look older. Don't forget that 12 is 2nd year of secondary school, many feel pressure to grow up quickly in an environment with students up to the age of 16/18 and so dress and apply makeup to look older. I certainly knew kids at the age of 11 in my class (back in the mid 90s) starting to reveal they'd had more than a kiss on the cheek or were determined to date a lad in the higher year groups. Also remember that some develop much quicker than others.
I doubt the chap would have even started talking to her if he knew she was only 12.
If you fail to understand that, I can only conclude that you're trying to provoke a reaction.
The article doesn't say that the Judge thought she looked older... You seem to be very defensive of the guy that has been imprisoned.Your average 12 year old will look like a child. However many will look younger, or in this case as the judge agrees (if you'd bothered to read the article), look older. Don't forget that 12 is 2nd year of secondary school, many feel pressure to grow up quickly in an environment with students up to the age of 16/18 and so dress and apply makeup to look older. I certainly knew kids at the age of 11 in my class (back in the mid 90s) starting to reveal they'd had more than a kiss on the cheek or were determined to date a lad in the higher year groups. Also remember that some develop much quicker than others.
I doubt the chap would have even started talking to her if he knew she was only 12.
If you fail to understand that, I can only conclude that you're trying to provoke a reaction.
Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:
She said she was 19 and wrote as such on the dating site, used a fake name to prevent any checks, and the judge thought she looked older than she was too.
Apart from a written contract complete with original birth certificates and passports/ID, I'm not sure how he could have found out more information? (to be fair the chap in the article probably wishes he had done that). Even fake ID cards are easy to come by and are often very convincing.
Faced with someone who looks 19, claims she is 19, has passed the checks for the dating app to confirm she is over 18, what more can you expect the chap to do?
Legally, yes he has had activity with a 12 year old. However if he wasn't aware and has been mislead, it seems harsh to have a lifelong punishment.
Interesting that you are now inventing new 'facts' to defend the guy.Apart from a written contract complete with original birth certificates and passports/ID, I'm not sure how he could have found out more information? (to be fair the chap in the article probably wishes he had done that). Even fake ID cards are easy to come by and are often very convincing.
Faced with someone who looks 19, claims she is 19, has passed the checks for the dating app to confirm she is over 18, what more can you expect the chap to do?
Legally, yes he has had activity with a 12 year old. However if he wasn't aware and has been mislead, it seems harsh to have a lifelong punishment.
I don't have much sympathy for this guy- even if she had been 16, she was too young for a 28 year old, and his attitude seems horrible.
But I do find the absolute nature of the law troubling. If he had been 18 and reasonably believed her to be 16, he would still be guilty. That doesn't seem right.
Equally if he were older but had a mental age of, say, 12, it seems unreasonable to expect him to see through the girl's deceit- but it looks as if he would still have been found guilty.
But I do find the absolute nature of the law troubling. If he had been 18 and reasonably believed her to be 16, he would still be guilty. That doesn't seem right.
Equally if he were older but had a mental age of, say, 12, it seems unreasonable to expect him to see through the girl's deceit- but it looks as if he would still have been found guilty.
Roman Rhodes said:
Driver101 said:
Just reading about the sexual offence register. It says sentences of below 30 months mean you're on the register for 10 years.
I wonder why the judge ruled he's on it for life?
I wonder why the judge ruled he's on it for life?
Two and a half years = 30 months.
mac96 said:
I don't have much sympathy for this guy- even if she had been 16, she was too young for a 28 year old, and his attitude seems horrible.
But I do find the absolute nature of the law troubling. If he had been 18 and reasonably believed her to be 16, he would still be guilty. That doesn't seem right.
Equally if he were older but had a mental age of, say, 12, it seems unreasonable to expect him to see through the girl's deceit- but it looks as if he would still have been found guilty.
Afaik, the strict liability of the offence is only where the child is 13 or under i.e. if she were 15 it would be a defence that he reasonably believed her to be 16. But I do find the absolute nature of the law troubling. If he had been 18 and reasonably believed her to be 16, he would still be guilty. That doesn't seem right.
Equally if he were older but had a mental age of, say, 12, it seems unreasonable to expect him to see through the girl's deceit- but it looks as if he would still have been found guilty.
Also re if he had a mental age of 12 he would have a defence of diminished responsibility.
Nickgnome said:
There is something very wrong with any person who goes on line to get some form of self gratification with a stranger.
really? If we're talking about kids then obviously that's an issue but consenting adults? WRT this case I do have to admit that I find it hard to believe a 12y/o can look 19 - a couple of years beyond that and all bets are off in that regard.There is another interesting question though - what about the reverse?14/15 who look and act 19 is worrying - what about 19 who look 13/14? legally speaking it's fine but.... <shudder>
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff