Married mum Rebeccca Robyn Daniel 'took 12-year-old boy as lover'
Married mum denies having affair with boy
Considered him "her best friend"
Local gossip linked them as a couple

A SOUTH Australian married mother of two took a 12-year-old boy as her lover, and had sex with him in her car and on a patch of dirt by a dump, a court has heard.

Opening the trial, prosecutor Michael Barnett said the offences occurred between June 2007 and February 2008.

At that time, the boy - who cannot be identified - was 12 and 13 years old, while Ms Daniel was 34.

www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25137930-1246,00.html
******************************
Oz & UK laws are virtually identical. Perhaps she wouldn't be in the dock if she had hired Max Clifford as her agent-or his Aussie clone Max Markson who has just taken on the rediculous semi-Nazi Pauline Hanson for a QLD election PLUS her opposing candidate..an equally nutty former footballer famed for his tight shorts and flowing blonde locks, Warwick Capper.

www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,2373...5297-5012980,00.html

Then again Max (Markson !) does have scruples.

I don't see what difference Max Clifford would have made, other than to maybe make her some money, and him even more money.

If this is a weak link to the Alfie and Chantelle case, there is a major difference in that both Alfie and Chantelle were under the age of consent and of the same generation. In this other case the age difference is rather bigger. The woman is old enough to be the boy's mother. I would think age difference is a major deciding factor in most cases.

Hopefully she'll be given a fair hearing and will not be convicted on the strength of local gossip.

yes but as I said in another thread..and as others have pointed out... Let's reverse the roles and say Alfie was 15 and his supposed girlfriend 12.

(I would actually venture that there is a great difference in the thinking and maturity of a 12 year old and a 15 year old)

Convince me that Alfie wouldn't be in the dock accused of sexualy assaulting the girl. 'Love' (or a baby) wouldn't come into it-in fact the condemnation would be even greater.

The fact that the 2 of them are underage doesn't wash -unless the law has dramaticaly changed without my knowledge and childen are now absolved from crime.

I say again-I have no wish to see any of these kids or even their parents in any trouble.

But clearly-the law hasn't been applied indiscriminately and If anyone cannot see it's the tabloids which have driven the 'morality' of how this affair has been handled then they just aren't listening !

Or perhaps we will now see the 'Alfie defence' say in a shoplifting case.

"We are both underage your Honour when we broke the law-both agreed to do it-had no knowledge it was even against the law...so obviously we are innocent"...

Just to point out the absurdity of this matter-there are currently over 12,000 juveniles incarcerated in various USA states with average ages of 16-18..all accused of being "sex offendors" for doing exactly what Alfie did..and all with their girlfriends/boyfriends a year or so younger.

That's "sex offendors" for life with rules about where they may live or whether they can go to a public park or swimming pool and such.

Witch-hunts come in various forms and now-the tabloids dictate when it is and when it isn't a witch-hunt. Politicians do as they are commandered.

Oddly-this has been driven by a newspaper owned by a man, the Dirty Digger/Sun King who of course is married to a woman old enough to be his
grand-daughter !

This is clearly a case of legal discretion. The Judicature Act of 1875 beasically stated that where common law and equity clash, equity must prevail. Equity in this case relates to fairness and common sense - putting justice before the letter of the law.

The shoplifting example doesn't really fit because having sex is not itself a crime, unlike shoplifting. The legality of sex depends on circumstances. Technically, both Alfie and Chantelle broke the law, but this is where the Judicature Act would be applied. There would be no benefit, for anyone, in prosecuting either of them.

I'm glad that there can still be some discretion and common sense within the legal system, even if we do not see it very often. It's a sign that there is still a glimmer of hope. Let's rejoice in it, rather than complain about it.

I understand what you are saying and I'm pleased none of these kids are in trouble with the law. It would help no-one...or would it ?

There is a larger issue of morality (not of the kids..they just do what people do) but of the tabloid driven sensationalism surrounding this case.

People attempted to profit from it. The parents (can't really blame them much-they aren't rich-they tried to make a buck out of it)

The odious Max Clifford who will plumb to any depth for a profit-he gives promoters and hucksters a bad name.

But the tabloids-they're utter immorality is a disgrace and dangerous. They now drive the law and politicians in directions that suits their agenda-profit, but at what cost to the community ?.

The Sun boasts it's Alfie Affair scored it's greatest ever internet hits.

The signal has still been sent that money can be made from sex.

Let's not forget that just a year ago the entire world was gripped with Haute le Guerre and murdered children.

I can see it in my head-a BBC reporter solemnly stating "today I stand above the spot where at least 3 children's abused bodies are buried blah blah blather etc"

Richard Webster on his blog gives a good run down of the manner in which journalists have basically absolved themselves of any responsibilty in the whole fraud.

And let's not forget that many learned people claim that George Bush Jnr & Tony Blair could not have proceeded with their illegal invasion of Iraq without the war-mongering of the entire News Corp media world-wide empire.

JK pondered that surely Rebeccah Wade should be sacked over the matter (let's not forget her NoTW campaign to publish "sex offendor's" addresses that led to the murder of an innocent man.

I disagreed-I knew she would be rewarded. The day will come when there will be a politician strong and crafty enough to stand up to these disgraceful media muggers.

I point to what is happening in the USA because the tabloids are now driving thinking in that direction. They have a 'Megan's Law'-created by a Fox Corp media personality-the UK has a 'Sarah's Law' created by the same method-by the same corporation.

These laws do nothing except sweep up so much small fry and often innocent peope in modern day witch hunts.

They do not help solve crime..and I could argue for hours of how they probably put children in greater danger. And that's why in some US states some sane judges are now ruling certain aspects of the law as being unconstitutional..ie: the idea an "offendor" (19 year old boy who slept with his 17 year old girlfriend) must live 1000 yards from a school. As one judge said -the idea that the same person can live 1001 yards from that school and the world changes is utter nonsense.