09-10-2004, 08:58 AM #1Former Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- In heels
UK - Girl, 12, Blamed by judge for sex attackA JUDGE yesterday freed a man who had sex with a girl of 12 - and said it was her fault they ended up in bed.
Child protection groups were furious after Michael Barrett, 20, was handed a two-year conditional discharge for the attack.
MP Dan Norris accused the judge of "playing into the hands of paedophiles". Barrett met the girl in an internet chatroom and later twice had sex with her at her parents' home when he was 18.
But judge Michael Roach said she was a "willing participant" who instigated sex at the house in Greater Manchester last year when she went to his bedroom.
He said trainee croupier Barrett was not "predatory to children" and told him: "There was no sexual coercion. Her family allowed you to stay in their home. I trust you to behave yourself now."
Former child protection officer Mr Norris said: "This is inexcusable and sends out the wrong message.
"There is no way anybody under 16 is able to make a genuine and informed decision about sex."
London child-abuse expert Professor Liz Kelly added: "The sentence is saying the age of consent does not matter."
Kidscape branded the decision "appalling". And the NSPCC said: "It is a very lenient sentence."
Barrett first met the girl at a 2002 concert in London after contacting her via the internet and phone. He was invited to stay with her family, who did not believe the relationship "inappropriate", the court heard.Full Story
09-10-2004, 10:30 AM #2
The family allowed him to sleep over!!!!!
Was it an 'inappropriate' relationship'? YES but what could the Judge do??
He was 18 ,she was 12-6 years difference and her parents had full knowledge !
It's a fuzzy grey area isn't it??? If anything the parents should be held accountable as they were ,more or less,present when this occured but I'm not sure I'd deem this man a pedophile.He's guilty of poor judgement but I'm not sure he's guilty of criminal acts per se.
EDITED TO SAY: He SHOULD know better and should be charged with stauatory rape but I think the parents should be charged too (Im NOT saying he's innocent so I wanted to clarify that!!)
Last edited by VespaElf; 09-10-2004 at 05:22 PM.The saints are the sinners who keep trying...
10-08-2004, 02:38 AM #3Registered User
Originally Posted by messiecakeI'd rather be hated for who I am than loved for pretending to be someone I'm not.
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
By Snick1946 in forum Up to the MinuteReplies: 10Last Post: 10-27-2016, 11:13 PM
By Filly in forum Crimes-Spotlight on ChildrenReplies: 2Last Post: 07-23-2012, 09:53 PM
By Trident in forum Crimes-Spotlight on ChildrenReplies: 65Last Post: 01-10-2012, 10:59 AM
By Casshew in forum Crimes-Spotlight on ChildrenReplies: 16Last Post: 05-18-2010, 01:13 PM
By Dark Knight in forum Up to the MinuteReplies: 11Last Post: 04-19-2006, 12:32 AM