Man seduces 15 year old? 20 years. Makes sense to anyone?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7419913...ng-boy-pupil-15.html

In France (and Italy) they would be congratulating the lad for scoring.(probably most of Scandinavia as well)

Utter madness.

## first thought you meant a 2 year old child. Adults who hurt children (usually their own kids) are absolutely abhorrent to me but it's so very common both physically and mentally.

It annoys me that the media and general (gormless ) public have seized upon this word "pedophile" as anyone who is sexually involved with an often consenting teen.

The whole meaning of the word peedeofile is an adult attracted to non-sexual or prepubescent children and the attraction is for that very reason..

Pedophilia is a really odd and disturbing ailment but I believe the manner in which the word has become so commonly used is highly damaging to true and genuine child victims..where around 95% of abuse happens within the family or through a friend of the family.

She wasn't convicted of rape. The charge was meeting a child following sexual grooming. 2 years is the guideline sentence for a Category 2 offence (in this case, raised culpability because she was in a position of trust).
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/cr...ing-sexual-grooming/

However, from what is reported it's not at all clear that the crime is made out by the facts. The messages exchanged were ambiguous and not specifically sexual. And even if she did book a hotel room to share with the lad, the offence requires that one party travels to the meeting, or that the defendant arranges a meeting. There's no report that that actually happened, nor any indication that she did indeed book a hotel room, nor that it was for a sexual meeting with the boy, nor even that she told him about the room. So it appears that an element of the crime is missing.

Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 15 (Meeting a child following sexual grooming)
A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A has met or communicated with another person (B ) and subsequently—
(i) A intentionally meets B,
(ii) A travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world or arranges to meet B in any part of the world, or
(iii) B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world,

(b) A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (iii) and in any part of the world, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence,]

(c) B is under 16, and

(d) A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.


On a personal note, I can't in good conscience acknowledge the validity of a law criminalising going from one place to another while thinking the wrong thoughts.

Interestingly, at no point in the Mail article is this 43-year-old woman who slept with a 15-year-old boy described as a paedophile. If the sexes had been reversed the Mail would be falling over itself to get the word 'paedophile' into every paragraph.

I would agree that she isn't a paedophile, but a man would be labelled thus.

Very good points Randall - agreed. The case still illustrates that the system is broken and requires urgent improvement.

Randall wrote:
She wasn't convicted of rape. The charge was meeting a child following sexual grooming. 2 years is the guideline sentence for a Category 2 offence (in this case, raised culpability because she was in a position of trust).
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/cr...ing-sexual-grooming/

However, from what is reported it's not at all clear that the crime is made out by the facts. The messages exchanged were ambiguous and not specifically sexual. And even if she did book a hotel room to share with the lad, the offence requires that one party travels to the meeting, or that the defendant arranges a meeting. There's no report that that actually happened, nor any indication that she did indeed book a hotel room, nor that it was for a sexual meeting with the boy, nor even that she told him about the room. So it appears that an element of the crime is missing.

Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 15 (Meeting a child following sexual grooming)
A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A has met or communicated with another person (B ) and subsequently—
(i) A intentionally meets B,
(ii) A travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world or arranges to meet B in any part of the world, or
(iii) B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world,

(b) A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (iii) and in any part of the world, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence,]

(c) B is under 16, and

(d) A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.


On a personal note, I can't in good conscience acknowledge the validity of a law criminalising going from one place to another while thinking the wrong thoughts.

It says that she booked a room, told him about it, and suggested they drink alcohol and stay the night.

Thank goodness they were intercepted.

I think it is more likely that the papers have got the charge wrong and that she was convicted of grooming, rather than actually meeting the boy?

I have a feeling the treatment would be more severe for a man, sadly.

Randall's apparently 'fundamentalist' position on these issues seems to be:
a) generally consistent
b) fair and sensible

hedda raises a very interesting point:The whole meaning of the word peedeofile is an adult attracted to non-sexual or prepubescent children and the attraction is for that very reason..
This does seem disurbing but, if what you've said is accurate, does that suggest that such an interest can be 'non-sexual'?

Do we have any idea just how many cases there are in the UK each year of genuine sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child?

But, wise hedda, are you not being incautious when you repeat the line that:around 95% of abuse happens within the family or through a friend of the family. Abuse does not equal sexual abuse, does it? And how on earth could we know that this 95% figure is accurate?

Sexual abuse is treated as the most abhorrent. The media are partly to blame.
Various forms of abuse exist which are silent and violent but strangely ignored.

There are general beliefs and then there is truth.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

It says that she booked a room, told him about it, and suggested they drink alcohol and stay the night.

Not so fast, Honey. There is a gap in meaning between what you've written there and what was reported. Read carefully.

"...she told the boy they 'were good together' and booked a hotel room to meet in and sent messages about drinking alcohol together and him not to go home that night."

It's not apparent how we can know that the room was booked for the two to meet in. Nothing indicating that is reported. Neither is anything reported about her telling the boy about the room. Suggesting drinking isn't an element of the offence she was prosecuted for. Telling him not to go home does not necessarily mean that she suggested the alternative of staying the night at the hotel room. Of course, the reporting could be inaccurate, but on the available information, I'll stick by what I posted above.



I think it is more likely that the papers have got the charge wrong and that she was convicted of grooming, rather than actually meeting the boy?

The grooming offence is only committed when one party travels to meet the other, or the defendant makes arrangements to meet. You can't be convicted of s.15 without one of these, as I wrote above.

Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

It says that she booked a room, told him about it, and suggested they drink alcohol and stay the night.

Not so fast, Honey. There is a gap in meaning between what you've written there and what was reported. Read carefully.

"...she told the boy they 'were good together' and booked a hotel room to meet in and sent messages about drinking alcohol together and him not to go home that night."

It's not apparent how we can know that the room was booked for the two to meet in. Nothing indicating that is reported. Neither is anything reported about her telling the boy about the room. Suggesting drinking isn't an element of the offence she was prosecuted for. Telling him not to go home does not necessarily mean that she suggested the alternative of staying the night at the hotel room. Of course, the reporting could be inaccurate, but on the available information, I'll stick by what I posted above.



I think it is more likely that the papers have got the charge wrong and that she was convicted of grooming, rather than actually meeting the boy?

The grooming offence is only committed when one party travels to meet the other, or the defendant makes arrangements to meet. You can't be convicted of s.15 without one of these, as I wrote above.
I see.
I wish we could look at the details of the actual court procedure, because if someone is being convicted of an offence that did not happen, (no matter how unpleasant their behaviour) it should be challenged.

But I hope its just a load of nonsense from the papers.

A lot of inconsistent sentencing in this crime, I have seen suspended jail terms and up to 5 year jail terms on this subject all brought about by the Intrepid investigator when he was a child protection expert. Go look at his To catch a Paedo files on YouTube many of the men Williams-Thomas had made communication with under his made up girls on the Internet before passing to his mate in the Met to film the arrests.
This crime has now been taken on by The Peedo hunters who film it live for all to see creating 'the victim' for the trap. Most of the Paedo hunters have something to hide either being offenders themselves or fire starter drug heads. Nice

Hypothetically, assuming Randall is correct, If the police become aware of a child targeted on the internet by a nutter, it is in their interest to do nothing, until after the child has already been harmed.

If they cant get a conviction without this "travelling to meet them" malarky, and if their jobs depend on them getting lots of convictions, (so an officer tells me) they have no incentive to prevent the crime.

Well, I pasted the wording of the statute above. Note that s15(a) doesn't specify sexual communication.

So sending a non-sexual message to someone under 16 and then going to meet him or her is illegal if the jury thinks you were thinking about sex.

The maximum sentence for this is 10 years in prison, although as MWTW points out, there's a big range.

Even if the pre-meeting communication is very sexual, the meeting doesn't involve any actual sexual contact (or else it would be prosecuted as such), still less any violence or injury (or else it would be prosecuted as such).

Can anyone persuade me that this should be punished by a period of imprisonment measured in years?

The crime of attempting to meet a child has mainly been a created one with the likes of mwt and the Met Police posing as early teens then arresting the guys that turn up.
Yes they can kick a door in if the think a child is at risk watch the Williams-Thomas videos mentioned two up they do go and arrest a guy who never went to meet did him for grooming and child a 6 foot 2 met police officer posing as a girl, couldn't make it up.

Oh yes, I forgot to post my second question... Does anyone know what proportion of these meeting after grooming prosecutions involve an actual under 16 year old, and what proportion are for attempting to meet someone who doesn't exist?

My guess is that the former are extremely rare.

Misa wrote:
Randall's apparently 'fundamentalist' position on these issues seems to be:
a) generally consistent
b) fair and sensible

hedda raises a very interesting point:The whole meaning of the word peedeofile is an adult attracted to non-sexual or prepubescent children and the attraction is for that very reason..
This does seem disurbing but, if what you've said is accurate, does that suggest that such an interest can be 'non-sexual'?

Do we have any idea just how many cases there are in the UK each year of genuine sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child?

But, wise hedda, are you not being incautious when you repeat the line that:around 95% of abuse happens within the family or through a friend of the family. Abuse does not equal sexual abuse, does it? And how on earth could we know that this 95% figure is accurate?

I actually mean the children were "non-sexually active" ..all shrinks who talk to true peedeofiles know that it's the sheer innocence of children that attracts them...as opposed to an adult who has it off with a teenager who is sexually active.

Yes the 95% statistic is questionable because we don;t really know what the figures are but that is the recorded child abuse figures and even those dodgy "charities" will tell you the real problem is most child abuse happens within a family or via a family friend. Doesn't make it less awful but makes it bloody complicated because of family dynamics.

## a good point that needs discussion but is ignored: is mental or physical abuse far more damaging than perhaps the one-off sexual abuse?. I say it probably has far more reaching damaging effects upon the victims.
It's why I abhor those "charities" that claim rape of child abuse "ruins your life"..a claim that can become self -fulfilling.

### And as my favourite feminist Germaine Greer says..why should rape or abuse victims remain anonymous as though something terribly shameful has happened to them?. they should be able to shout it from the rooftops !
I mean if you were injured in a car accident through no fault of your own you aren't told you should keep it a secret?

Randall wrote:
Oh yes, I forgot to post my second question... Does anyone know what proportion of these meeting after grooming prosecutions involve an actual under 16 year old, and what proportion are for attempting to meet someone who doesn't exist?

My guess is that the former are extremely rare.

In 2007 2008 around 270 men jailed for attempts to me an under 16 year old all of those were police officers not real people. I hope that helps.

In my view MWT is likely complicit in covering up crime if he is using diversion tactics and claiming he has evidence when he does not. He does for covering up crime what the idiot brigade do for covering up phone hacking.
Pure fantasist and all of the officials who allow him and them to continue should be taken to task.

They are all skewing the true course of justice and benefit from it in some way.


It is there for all to see.

MWTW wrote:
Randall wrote:
Oh yes, I forgot to post my second question... Does anyone know what proportion of these meeting after grooming prosecutions involve an actual under 16 year old, and what proportion are for attempting to meet someone who doesn't exist?

My guess is that the former are extremely rare.

In 2007 2008 around 270 men jailed for attempts to me an under 16 year old all of those were police officers not real people. I hope that helps.

No, sorry it doesn't help

Convictions for the attempted version of s.15 will almost all be entrapments. That's why it's the attempted version.

I suppose there might be occasions where a real child is involved but the "criminal" is intercepted on the way to the rendezvous, but I doubt there are many such cases. I'd like to know how many of these there were, AND how many substantive s.15 convictions there are where there is an actual child being met.

Also, are you sure that all the entrappers were police? No vigilantes? Seems unlikely.

And lastly, what's your source?