news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8029499.stm

Seems two of the same participants in the Baby P fiasco have been involved in raping another young girl.Nasty of course,if true.
This is interesting
"Medical evidence was inconclusive but a test showed a finding which "could be supportive" of the allegation."
Now I'm no medical expert,but surely for rape to happen full insertion has to be made....and that surely should leave very obvious marks on a girl as young as that?
Not at all sure about this.

an horrific case and the idea of harming little children is very distressing.

It's a shame that all the billions of ££s used to invade and blast to death Iraqis and Afghanis (and now Pakistanis) wasn't put towards child services to aid children in need of all kinds.

There needs to be acessible and annonymous pyschiatric services for real peodophiles (not the tabloid inventions) who feel urges but do not want to act upon them. Shrinks have been calling for this for years.

May not have saved Baby P but could save many others. The kids who live in abusive and intolerable situations, who are damaged mentally and grow up and in turn take revenge on society. Many more than politician like to think about.

This is more aresponse to Veritas' post than about the mentioned case.

I think it was in the early 80s when I saw an American TV movie called Fallen Angel. It was about a man who ran a kids baseball team but also made soft porn movies. He fell in love with the main girl character who was about 12, but the movie wasn't about demonising the guy or his actions. It was more of a study of why an adult might feel this way and what helped can be offered. One critic said that that the movie came very close to crossing the line, due to certain scenes, but that it was one everbody should take time to watch. A featured psychologist suggested that many adult/child relationships were driven by the need to feel love and acceptance more than about sex. The judge in the finale asked whether it was better for society to help adults who, because of their natural make up, found themselves more able to form bonds with children than with other adults, or to condemn them. This was the question the viewer was left with.

It was not judgemental. It simply presented each side of the case. I understand that the movie is now banned from being broadcast.

A similar movie was Something About Amelia, starring Ted Danson. Both were shown on mainstream British TV before the tabloid paranoia took hold.

I think it's important that these issues be studied and discussed in a rational and balanced manner. It's unfortunate that we, as a society, now find ourselves unable to do that. If we refuse to even try to understand a problem then there is no way we can properly resolve it.

On the subject of the alleged child rape by the killer of Baby P .. I don't know if he confessed to this. I heard that the four year old gave evidence in court (by video link) about something that happened when she was two. I'm not sure if a two year old has the ability to mentally asses such a thing and store accurate memory for the next two years. Also, I'm sure there would be clear medical evidence of damage to the genital area. It's is a strange case to "come to light" only after the man was arrested for another crime. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but it does stike me as a bit odd.

The trouble is - sensible people who point out that a child can be persuaded into saying things that condemn an innocent person ("he kissed me") are painted as supporting perverts.

What we are trying to say is - the media driven search for a good story (and offensive though it may be, child rape is a great story) should not stop the opposite being possible.

When the media have police (convictions), the law (high profile wins) and the public (we all love a traumatic story; we hate the often boring realities) all determined to find out the worst and ignore the best.

Actually that in itself is a great story. But most editors (being useless) simply cannot be bothered.

In the print version of the mail today there's been the usual anger that the little girl had to go through the questioning ordeal.
No doubt they'll be calls to make it harder to question kids to get at the truth.Trouble is in many cases this is the only evidence.The lack of sexual abuse medical evidence worries me.As did the fact that under questioning she refused to answer the defence barrister's questions about being lead.
Human nature is such that juries will often feel sorry for a child,hence all the innocent ones in jail,and the cottage 'industry' driven on by meejah,compensation,fixed brain social workers and bent police.
THe bottom line is that full penetration should well have left physical markings,and it didn't.

There have been a series of well publicised cases throughout the UK & USA of witchhunts against groups of child minders -the Satanic abuse cases where lives have utterely destroyed before it was discovered how easily children could be led to fib or even imagine something that never happened was real.

I didn't even read the mewspape report you allude to-I guarantee is was sheer nonsense.

No judge would allow any child, 4 or 14 to be put through an "ordeal". One word in a sentence can make the whole strory turn into something else.

A child of 4 would probably have no more understanding or harm done to them by a barrister (and the word used in the reporting implies something terrifying ) than they would be by a cranky kindergarten teacher who was looking after them for the day.

Despite the huge evidential body of material pointing to the wrongful prosecutions, the media are never held to account for their sensationalism that in turn drives clueless politicians to make yet more rules to contol human behaviour.

Not only are we living in a dysfunctional society-we are being ruled by a set of dysfuctional politician who believe their role of lawmakers is to create new laws daily to control citizen's behaviour.

Personally I think it's a going to collapse one day in a massive heap.

Why are there so many sick perverts like this in the UK? Don't worry, I'm not jumping on the tabloid bandwagon. Just wondering why a country like Spain, where the age of consent is 13 and is only just beginning to be brainwashed into believing that it is perverted to find young people attractive, the rape and murder of small infants is very rare whereas in the UK it is almost a daily occurance (and the media reporting of it some kind of spring equinox pagan festival)?

Just speculating that mayby if a man is conditioned to believe that finding even 17 year old girls (even in white socks) is paedophillia then it isn't very surprising that a good percentage of the 30 million men in the UK who find sexy 17 year old girls sexy might lack a moral and psychological barrier to developing actual paedophillia (i.e. wanting to rape 2 year old infants).