12-year old rape victim, attacker walks free due to consent
Discussion
Ok, this popped up on my Facebook feed along with lots of outraged comments but I suspect there is more to this case than is being reported, Daily Mirror article here
What is the PH opinion?
What is the PH opinion?
Mail only does drivel.
The key issue here is children don't want to be children anymore and young girls don't dress like girls, they dress like young ladies and thats why the taxi drover even thought she was 20 and she pretended to be 16 when she wasn't even 13.
Scary as I have a daughter who is 10!
The key issue here is children don't want to be children anymore and young girls don't dress like girls, they dress like young ladies and thats why the taxi drover even thought she was 20 and she pretended to be 16 when she wasn't even 13.
Scary as I have a daughter who is 10!
tex200 said:
Thanks for this, much more sense.It seems as though the version given/quoted by the Mirror and the version believed by the court are two different things.
Typical bit of shoddy, exploitive journalism. The statement explaining the sentence is crystal clear. In the judge's opinion the girl gave consent de facto, and many people that night thought she was between the age of 17 and 20, including several police officers who talked to her at some length while specifically trying to identify under-age children.
Does it help anyone to publicise the girl's view that this bloke ruined her life? It may be that the events of that night and those that followed have "ruined her life"; let us hope not, but it may be so. Tragic as that would be, it doesn't make it Ciesak's fault and I can't see how lending credibility to her distorted view helps her come to terms with what happened. And then what about the interests of Ciesak?
Does it help anyone to publicise the girl's view that this bloke ruined her life? It may be that the events of that night and those that followed have "ruined her life"; let us hope not, but it may be so. Tragic as that would be, it doesn't make it Ciesak's fault and I can't see how lending credibility to her distorted view helps her come to terms with what happened. And then what about the interests of Ciesak?
Sounds like it's ruined his life too
Judge said:
I am satisfied that you have been subject to considerable pressure and distress from the burden of this prosecution over the last 19 months and by publicity about it. So much so, you have had to cease your college course and suspend plans for a university course. It was the impression of the social worker at your interview that you may need professional assistance to deal with this distress.
ATG said:
Typical bit of shoddy, exploitive journalism. The statement explaining the sentence is crystal clear. In the judge's opinion the girl gave consent de facto, and many people that night thought she was between the age of 17 and 20, including several police officers who talked to her at some length while specifically trying to identify under-age children.
Does it help anyone to publicise the girl's view that this bloke ruined her life? It may be that the events of that night and those that followed have "ruined her life"; let us hope not, but it may be so. Tragic as that would be, it doesn't make it Ciesak's fault and I can't see how lending credibility to her distorted view helps her come to terms with what happened. And then what about the interests of Ciesak?
I would guess his life will be far more adversely affected than hers. I feel sorry for him, I feel sorry for her, and I feel VERY angry with her parents. Does it help anyone to publicise the girl's view that this bloke ruined her life? It may be that the events of that night and those that followed have "ruined her life"; let us hope not, but it may be so. Tragic as that would be, it doesn't make it Ciesak's fault and I can't see how lending credibility to her distorted view helps her come to terms with what happened. And then what about the interests of Ciesak?
Higgs boson said:
Thermobaric said:
I'm intrigued as to how a 12 year old can be mistaken for being 20. Admittedly I'm pretty bad at gauging ages but I would have thought even I could have clocked something was up.
+1Whilst at 40 years old, teenage girls aren't my thing, at 19 they were, and (near) 13 year old girls can look many years older than their age. The fact that she was out at 4am, drunk, going back to a late night party would also leave many to assume she wasn't 12!
The judge even said that seeing CCTV of her out that night persuaded her that he could not have guessed her young years.
I feel for her, but she put her self in the predicament IMO.
The judge even said that seeing CCTV of her out that night persuaded her that he could not have guessed her young years.
I feel for her, but she put her self in the predicament IMO.
He was named, his name has been widely publicised. Searching for it will yield results on the DM website and other like-minded rags that are uninterested in the nuances of the judgement, and cursory Google/social media searches are a matter of course for most employers nowadays, and others besides.
It's safe to say that this will follow him around for many, many years whilst the girl is and will forever remain anonymous. Something seems seriously wrong there.
It's safe to say that this will follow him around for many, many years whilst the girl is and will forever remain anonymous. Something seems seriously wrong there.
I've upset some people in my Facebook circle discussing this. I've been merely explaining the sentencing statements and what it means for how the case was interpreted and the comments in return mainly take the form of "....but but....RAPE!....PATRIARCHY!!!"
I've calmly explained that the court found the girl was an active participant and was met with "....she was unconscious how can she give consent!!!".
That's not what the court thinks and ultimately, they are the ones that count!
Trying to explain to people that it isn't a black and white situation and that there were several exceptional circumstances but it's met with reverting to moral outrage.
I've calmly explained that the court found the girl was an active participant and was met with "....she was unconscious how can she give consent!!!".
That's not what the court thinks and ultimately, they are the ones that count!
Trying to explain to people that it isn't a black and white situation and that there were several exceptional circumstances but it's met with reverting to moral outrage.
Durzel said:
He was named, his name has been widely publicised. Searching for it will yield results on the DM website and other like-minded rags that are uninterested in the nuances of the judgement, and cursory Google/social media searches are a matter of course for most employers nowadays, and others besides.
It's safe to say that this will follow him around for many, many years whilst the girl is and will forever remain anonymous. Something seems seriously wrong there.
He will change his name if he has a brain. It's safe to say that this will follow him around for many, many years whilst the girl is and will forever remain anonymous. Something seems seriously wrong there.
If there are jobs which he wishes to do that will require disclosure of his previous name then they will be digging deep enough to get more than the daily mail article.
Grunt Futtock said:
I've upset some people in my Facebook circle discussing this. I've been merely explaining the sentencing statements and what it means for how the case was interpreted and the comments in return mainly take the form of "....but but....RAPE!....PATRIARCHY!!!"
I've calmly explained that the court found the girl was an active participant and was met with "....she was unconscious how can she give consent!!!".
That's not what the court thinks and ultimately, they are the ones that count!
Trying to explain to people that it isn't a black and white situation and that there were several exceptional circumstances but it's met with reverting to moral outrage.
Facebook isn't really the forum for any kind of nuanced discussion to be honest. You're pretty much throwing yourself to the wolves trying to offer a superficially contrary point of view there, where pretty much everyone is commenting without the intent or even consideration of engaging ones brain.I've calmly explained that the court found the girl was an active participant and was met with "....she was unconscious how can she give consent!!!".
That's not what the court thinks and ultimately, they are the ones that count!
Trying to explain to people that it isn't a black and white situation and that there were several exceptional circumstances but it's met with reverting to moral outrage.
Having said that I don't think the times we live in are generally accepting of any kind of consideration of detail, everyone just wants to be offended and/or to virtue signal harder than the next person. If not that then it's just strawmen and perjorative "debate" everywhere. Conversation is dead.
Edited by Durzel on Monday 7th August 17:39
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff