13 year old sexual predator not her abuser, says Judge

It makes you wonder about the Judge and the Prosecuting Counsel - but seriously, I am appalled by this . Yet another example of a deep seated moral turpitude in our society - is anyone trying to establish why she is sexually experienced and a predator? If she is?

So a child who has been groomed and sexualised, and learned to behave in a provocative way, has been exploited yet again. First by her abuser, and then by the ignorant judge who does not think that helpful guidance and support is the way to respond to this child's behaviour. Why was ths judge trying the case, if he has no understanding about child sexual abuse?

I wonder if a thirteen year old could look sixteen or more

The judge was out of order in placing some of the blame on her though.

Where does it say she had been groomed? Just asking, not saying it is not so.

Independent - Bobby Friedman 07.08.13.
The Prosecuting Barrister told the court 'the girl is predatory in her actions and she is sexually experienced'.
Judge Nigel Peters called her a 'sexual predator' and accepted the suggestion that Wilson's victim was 'complicit in the abuse'

The perpetrator is the sexual predator here. It seems this 13 year old had previous experience of being sexually abused. Many children who are sexualised at an early age, by abusers, learn that sex is a way of getting attention and affection. It does not make a 13 year old a predator. It doesn't matter whether children look older/younger than their chronological age. Adult's must be held responsible for illegal sexual activity with children.

It's shocking that a CPS prosecutor, and a Judge, can respond to the sexual abuse of a vulnerable 13 year old in this way. Particularly shocking given recent media coverage of the various cases that involved vulnerable teenagers and Asian taxi drivers. These cases have highlighted the extent of vulnerability of many of our teenagers.

Independent - Bobby Friedman 07.08.13.
The Prosecuting Barrister told the court 'the girl is predatory in her actions and she is sexually experienced'.
Judge Nigel Peters called her a 'sexual predator' and accepted the suggestion that Wilson's victim was 'complicit in the abuse'

The perpetrator is the sexual predator here. It seems this 13 year old had previous experience of being sexually abused. Many children who are sexualised at an early age, by abusers, learn that sex is a way of getting attention and affection. It does not make a 13 year old a predator. It doesn't matter whether children look older/younger than their chronological age. Adult's must be held responsible for illegal sexual activity with children.

It's shocking that a CPS prosecutor, and a Judge, can respond to the sexual abuse of a vulnerable 13 year old in this way. Particularly shocking given recent media coverage of the various cases that involved vulnerable teenagers and Asian taxi drivers. These cases have highlighted the extent of vulnerability of many of our teenagers.

Oh - there is an on line petition
Stop Victim Blaming
By Jo,EverydayVictimBlaming

I read that she had been previously abused and learned to behave in a sexually provocative way, Jingle. It was said in court that she was 'promiscuous.' No mention of anyone trying to protect her.

These days young girls try to look and act older than they are, but they are not emotionally mature. To state that this child (and she is a child) is a predator is totally out of order. If she is sexually experienced, doesn't this raise questions of those who are meant to be protecting her (whether parents or social workers).

Does anyone have the link for this online petition please?

Ella

Hope this info. helps.

An online petition on Change.org calling for the CPS to investigate the language used by Mr Colover has been signed by 30,000 people.

Sunseeker, I agree with your comments about the child and the way teenage girls try to look and often act, older than they are. But you are right, they are emotionally 13 year olds. It's up to the adults around them to help them understand that some adults will exploit them. Just a comment about how difficult it is for social workers or parents to protect their children from sexual abuse. I' supported a group for mothers of sexually abused children when working. It was harrowing. Most of the children were abused by their father's, or step fathers, without mother having any knowledge of this until the child told someone. Some mother's were fortunate, their children had the confidence to tell them about dad - often a separated dad. The mother's then risk being accused of false allegations in disputed custody/contact cases. I'm aware of children who've been abused by trusted family friends, think Stuart Hall for example and were unable to say anything until they were adults. I am not disputing that some chaotic mother's don't do enough to protect their children, but the person responsible is the abuser, every time.
J08 - any child who has experienced sexual abuse has been groomed. Perpetrators often target children who have already been sexually abused. Perpetrators know these children are often "difficult", may take drugs/drink and act out sexually. This doesn't in any way justify any adult for re- abusing them.
When you have ann experienced CPS prosecuting Barrister describing a 13 year old victim as a predator, and a Judge following that lead, you get a flavour of just how difficult it is to protect children in this hideous area of child abuse.
The vast majority of criminal and civil lawyers and judges I've worked with have been child centred, and fully understood the complexities of the cases they have responsibility for. our adversarial approach to this area of work doesn't help anyone. the man in this case needs a risk assessment, that is absolutely clear from what little we know so far. I'm sure the police and social work teams, as well as family members are very distressed right now. Goodness only knows what further damage has been done to the 13 year old girl involved.
Thanks to everyone who is supporting the petition and expressing disgust

The judge's comments were outrageous.

It's depressing that people still think this way.

"Any child that has experienced sexual abuse has been groomed". That's just not true.

And don't lecture me.

God save us from worn-out social workers.

The judge's decision is already to be reviewed So what is the point of the hysterical petition?

A child who hasn't been groomed for abuse has been attacked. Grooming is inherent in child sexual abuse and encompasses everything from 'gentle' persuasion to exposure to abusive inages and films, to coercion and threats.

look. He's practically been struck off

Possibly because a decision has yet to made over whether it should go to the court of appeal, in view of the light sentence passed. The point is that a 13 year old cannot give consent and so cannot be a predator.

The girl was 13. end of!!

Plus ça change… Was it not Judge Pickles who referred to the child victim in a sexual abuse case decades ago as "She's no angel"? This caused public outrage, yet here we are with exactly the same thing. No doubt, some idiot will tell us that "lessons have been learned".

The Attorney General is going to look into it. What more can be done?

Sorry Kittylester, is someone arguing with you?

Note it was the prosecuting barrister that used this language. it was not the defending barrister. Defies belief really.

I thought it was the judge? Was it both of them?

Would the judge have known about the computer images? And couldn't he be prosecuted separately for that?

Both the prosecutor Mr. Colover and the Judge Nigel Peters both referred to the 13 yr. old girl as being predatory.

Quote Nigel Peters ""The girl was predatory and she was egging you on."