Gransnet forums


14 year old 'gets away with it'

(63 Posts)
whenim64 Wed 04-Jul-12 10:56:11

The media are full of stories about a 14 year old boy who abused a 4 year old, claiming he 'got away with it.' The truth is that he has been made subject to a SOPO (Sexual Offences Prevention Order) which means the police can enter his home and check whether he has access to a computer, or has any inappropriate items in the home, or anywhere else he goes. He will be monitored by nominated specialist police officers who also supervise registered sex offenders. His case will be discussed at multi-agency public protection meetings, and all professionals who know him will contribute current assessments of his risk. If he flouts the SOPO they'll come down on him like a ton of bricks. He now has to undergo regular assessments and receive any treatment deemed necessary. If he doesn't comply, he will be back before the court. This way of managing young people who are assessed as having acted out of curiosity is an alternative to diversion from custody with no intervention at all. In effect, he is being treated in the same way as a convicted offender who has to undergo probation treatment and police supervision. I hope the child gets ten times that amount in support!

Hunt Wed 04-Jul-12 11:37:28

Thanks for that, When. Sounds pretty comprehensive to me.

j04 Wed 04-Jul-12 11:43:24

I was just reading about this one. Don't know if it's the one you are posting about whenim, but I was wondering what people think about it.

Can't remember how I came to be on the Mirror webpage! blush grin

whenim64 Wed 04-Jul-12 11:46:50

Yes, it's the same one, Jingle

j04 Wed 04-Jul-12 11:48:33

I think the judge got it right.

Bl** internet has got a lot to answer for.

glassortwo Wed 04-Jul-12 12:28:22

This again raises the point absent made in her thread... children having access to inappropriate information.

POGS Wed 04-Jul-12 12:46:13

What about the poor little 4 year old boy! He didn't do anything wrong. He will never 'Get away with it' !

He will probably have a lifetime of hell.

j04 Wed 04-Jul-12 13:00:31

Yes Glass. I was thinking that.

POGS do you think the parents of the four year old were right leaving her in the care of a fourteen year old adolescent boy? One with access to the internet. As, indeed, they all do these days.

j04 Wed 04-Jul-12 13:01:27

According to the Mirror it was a little girl.

Anagram Wed 04-Jul-12 13:28:45

So it's the parents' fault, is it J04? They knowingly placed their child in harm's way...?
I thin 14 is old enough to know rape is wrong, whatever they've been watching online.

j04 Wed 04-Jul-12 13:36:29

Anagram, No, I don't think a five year old girl should be left in the care of an fourteen year old boy. I would not have done that with my girls.

j04 Wed 04-Jul-12 13:39:50

Of course they are old enough to know at fourteen. But hormones at that age can exert an overwhelming pull. I'm not exactly excusing what he did. It was horrible. But it's not always black and white is it?

Anagram Wed 04-Jul-12 13:45:44

No, I realise that, but it seems that excuses are being made for this boy, and others like him, more and more these days.

POGS Wed 04-Jul-12 19:36:53


What a question, are you assuming all 14 year olds are potential sexual abusers?. If that's the case all hope is lost.

I do not know why he was left with a 14 year old but I do not think this is a major issue. I would not judge the parents I am actually sorry for them. They will never be free of the guilty feeling.

It does not take away from the fact it is the boy I feel desperately sorry for and to me his problems should be the priority and where compassion should lye, not the older boy.

j04 Wed 04-Jul-12 19:43:33

Well, the case makes it pretty obvious you can't trust all adolescent boys on their own in a house with a stranger's young child of the opposite sex. Hormones are very strong at that age. And when they've all got the internet on their phones, how do you know which is going to be the one that gets carried away.

I don't think a fourteen year old boy would be mature enough to look after a young child anyway.

j04 Wed 04-Jul-12 19:44:59

POGS the newspaper article I linked to said it was a little girl.

JessM Wed 04-Jul-12 19:53:31

Newspapers are full to the brim with lies and this case is confidential re both parties involved. So there are few "facts" that they can publish.
Inappropriate stuff for the media to be pontificating about in this way.

Greatnan Wed 04-Jul-12 20:01:43

It was discussed at length on The Wright Stuff this morning. Apparently, the judge took the view that the boy had been corrupted by watching hours and hours of porn on his parents' computer.
Before we all decide that our grandsons are not watching porn - it was stated that 8 out of 10 under-14s watch it regularly. They can get it on their mobile phones. It gives boys a completely false impression of what sexual relations should be.

Anagram Wed 04-Jul-12 20:07:36

I take on board what has been said about a 14 year old's raging hormones, and if the victim had been a 13 or 14 year old girl I could understand, if not condone, his actions. But a 44 or 5 year old! What was he watching that made him think that was OK?

Anagram Wed 04-Jul-12 20:08:30

Should of course have been 4 or 5 year old!

dorsetpennt Wed 04-Jul-12 20:16:31

It's a shame that several people on this thread wouldn't leave their child with a teenager. In the US most teenagers between 14 and 19 babysit for extra money. Of course rules are laid down : reasonable phone calls, no visitors,leave some food in the fridge. This has been done for years, we did it without any problems whatsoever. Of course we had guidelines - we would have had a recommendation from friends or know the teenager and his/her parents etc. Most of the babysitters were girls but the best one was a friend's 15 year old son. Not only did he help my son with his homework, he read them stories before bed and stuck to our rules re times of bed and so forth. He is now in his 40's and my son and his wife visited the family recently. Had he been abused I don't think he would have. This is an isolated case this boy who abused the girl, certainly not the norm for boys of this age, it's typical of the papers to frighten everyone like this.

whenim64 Wed 04-Jul-12 20:20:08

Generally, children who access abusive images on the internet will be resilient enough to deal with the shock of what they have seen and put it down to experience. I remember other pupils passing round such material in maazines when I was a teenager and most of us were shocked and amused at the same time, but it was not a priority for us and we could leave it in its place. It's the isolated children, or those who do not have guidance to compare what they are seeing with what is more appropriate, that I would be concerned about. Many satisfy their curiosity and move on - very few return to it again and again, and when they do so in the company of peers who react appropriately, they won't come to much harm. It's the remaining (very) few who develop an inappropriate interest, or even worse, get hooked by online predators.

It appears this 14 year old did not come into the 'concern/high risk' category when he was assessed, which enabled the judge to take the action he did - he wouldn't have done this independently, but would have considered several reports, including the actions from a public protection panel, whose members would have discussed the incident at length, and heard or read the views of the parents of the child who reported the abuse - well done that child - she knew at 4 that she should tell her parents so they could protect her. She's probably a bit wiser than them for leaving her with the boy. I'm not saying 14 year old boys are a risk - generally, when they have a close bond, as with siblings, this brings a degree of protection for the child.

Anagram Wed 04-Jul-12 20:24:41

I still don't understand why he thought such a young child was an appropriate target for his experimentation. It's that aspect which concerns me, although I appreciate we aren't given all the facts in the media.

whenim64 Wed 04-Jul-12 20:35:23

Anagram he would have taken the risk that a child so young would not understand or tell - thankfully, he was wrong, and he's likely to have been stopped in his tracks before he tries anything again.

There's a well-respected psychologist and researcher called Professor David Finkelhor who looked at the accessibility of potential victims of abuse, and in some studies he talks dispassionately (and he is a very nice, caring man in real life) about abusers wanting a 'receptacle of convenience.' This means that this particular child was accessible because she was separated from her parents, he had the opportunity, and he was motivated at that moment to do it. The method he used (and I won't mention it here) was his way of rationalising that he wasn't doing much harm. This level of distorted thinking will be deconstructed with him, and all the weaknesses in his potential to do harm will be strengthened so he has a bpmb-proof plan for avoiding ever getting in such a situation again.

Anagram Wed 04-Jul-12 20:43:23

Yes, I think I can see what you're saying, when, although whatever method he used it has been classed as 'rape' and most people will take that as the usual method and judge him accordingly. (I'm not saying details should be revealed in the media, but it's inevitable that people drawn their own conclusions).