I was so enraged by this case yesterday that my mind shut down. It literally would not countenance covering the subject and retreated instead into comforting thoughts of the innocent few days we had spent at Oléron .

I refer, of course, to the stupendously misjudged prosecution of two children for the technical attempted rape of another child. I say technical attempted rape for good reason, for any ‘attempted’ sexual activity with a child delights in the legal terms of rape and attempted rape when forced through the unforgiving funnel of the legal system, even when that activity is carried out by another child.

There can be few of us, if we are honest with ourselves, who did not undergo that rite of passage at a tender age – discovering how different our bodies were, and which bits were supposed to go where. Behind the bike sheds, in the back seat of the school bus, or, as in this case, the local park. It used to earn you a cuff round the ear and a lecture on the birds and the bees; latterly it became known as ‘inappropriate behaviour’. Now, even with the ghastly triumvirate of Eagles, Baird and Harman removed from their pole position of dehumanising, defeminising and victimising all women, the CPS carry on their evil creed and label two children ‘child sex offenders’.

They had no choice, of course, for the legacy of the Human Rights Act is that where there is a victim, there must be a villain.

Did we have a victim? Oh, but yes! Here we have an eight year old girl who claims to have had ‘sex’. Too young to give informed consent to sexual activity, she automatically legally became a ‘rape victim’. The legal brain must then turn to finding a villain.

Do we have a villain? Oh, but yes, two of them. No matter that they are but children themselves, the legal process must grind its ugly way forward.

The legal armies marshal behind their champions.

The victim is given a Teddy Bear to clutch whilst she gives evidence, a bottle of lemonade by her side to signify that her childish needs are being cared for. Sat in an oversized chair to emphasise her childlike proportions. Does she habitually clutch a Teddy Bear? We are not told, but it would seem a strangely childish accoutrement for a child that is allowed to roam the parks alone with her scooter.

The villains have their props too, a Mother sat beside each of them – not a Father, the defence do not want any reminders of the beastly forceful nature of the male race. No, a Mother it must be, to emphasise that they are but children given to childish pranks themselves.

Now with the stage set, the barristers can begin their set pieces, the cross examination – what’s this? The victim is not sure she was raped? No matter, we can fall back on the ‘attempted rape’ charge. This is what we are handsomely paid to do.

NSPCC lawyer Barbara Esam said:

“Research has shown that many young witnesses don’t understand the questions they are asked under cross-examination so we believe a pre-recorded interview – with the help of an intermediary in appropriate cases – to be a much better option.

The prosecution said:

‘The questions were loaded. It would be easy, and it was, to make a child of eight feel intimidated and not sure what to do and to agree with the person in a position of authority asking the questions.

The judge remarked that she looked exhausted at the end, when she began to answer ‘yeah’ to most of the questions. He failed to point out that the wise eight year old says ‘yeah’ to any question posed by an adult, since a refusal often leads to a clip round the ear. It’s called conditioning.

The CPS say that they ‘have a duty’ to prosecute in the public interest – where was the public interest in the lengthy questioning, statement gathering, medical evidence gathering, and court room ‘trauma’ to which this young girl was subjected? Can there be any young person in her immediate neighbourhood, male or female, who is not now aware that if you take her scooter away from her she will drop her knickers? Is she now enabled to stand up for herself in life, to parry any suggestion that she should have sex with any young man who demands it – or is she now thoroughly conditioned as a victim, who must submit and then go through the humiliation of yet another court case? Where is her dignity and self respect? Her privacy?

As for the two ‘villains’, they are now labelled as ‘sex offenders’, worse, ‘child sex offenders’, a label that will affect them throughout their life, will direct their future employment, or more probably non-employment; at ten years old? Remember, a sex offence is one of those that remain on your record long after any other criminal record is expunged.

When they are unlikely to fully comprehend the meaning of sex, never mind the legal technicality of rape. In the bravado world of teenage boyhood, is that not more likely to become a badge of office rather than a mark of shame? Give a dog a bad name, and he is hardly likely to care over much whether the next girl has signed a witnessed informed consent form before he presses his priapic body against hers.

This was the most outrageous, inappropriate use of the legal system. The direct result of the current fashion for dovetailing every situation into one of victim and villain.

The statement by the CPS outside the courtroom was the most depressing of all:

‘We hope that the jury’s verdict today can provide the young girl and her family with some comfort after these difficult events.’

The ‘difficult event’ was that occasioned by the CPS decision to prosecute; where will they stop now? The age of criminal responsibility has only recently been dropped from 14 to 10. Will they now press for it to be made 7, or 5, or 3? Can we expect the next four year old to be thrown out of nursery school for calling his friend a ‘nigger lover’ when he prefers to play marbles with young Winston instead of himself, to be charged? Will the full majesty of the law make an utter ass of itself prosecuting him for a ‘hate crime’?

Dear God, did I really spend the sixties without the padded bra which would have enabled the world to tell front from back, so that we could drive young girls back into the medieval world of feudal victimhood?

Tell me it isn’t so.

?

1
Brian
May 25, 2010 at 10:41

Anna,
Spot on again. In a Harman Utopia there would be no rape trials, simply a mandatory sentencing after accusation because males are automatically guilty of rape whatever their age. This case was a Harman show trial to boost the prosecution tractorstats. I agree that a private telling off followed by a lecture would have been more child-centred and sensible.

2
Bless em
May 25, 2010 at 10:57

I agree with the points you make Anna.

One point adults seem to forget (even though they were children themselves), when you’re a child, older children seem like adults in comparison.

Most adults see all children as sweet little kittens (aah bless), but some can be the truly terrifying to fellow children, the equivalent of us being confronted by a deranged psychopath (and they don’t have the maturity that we have to formulate a reasonable way out of said situation).

Ps. No I wasn’t bullied as a child, I’m just aware that homo sapiens range from good’uns good through to complete and utter b@stards whatever age they are.

3
SadButMadLad
May 25, 2010 at 11:08

There were three victims. The villians are the CPS and NSPCC and other left leaning politically correct busy bodies.

4
Joe Public
May 25, 2010 at 11:35

So, the ‘offenders’ are but young school kids – now on the Sex Offenders Register.

Doesn’t that Register prohibit them from going to a school, where they may be left unsupervised with (other) kids of their own age?

[Or, did the drafters & approvers of that Law not consider the consequences of an event comprising all pre-teens?]

5
Vimes
May 25, 2010 at 11:42

So, what should be an appropriate punishment for attempted rape? Sent to bed with no supper? A week’s ban from the X-Box? How about 100 lines – “I must not attempt to stick my willy into 8 year-olds, without permission”? That should prevent any chance of re-offending.

6
Anna Raccoon
May 25, 2010 at 12:17

Actually Vimes, I don’t think a week without an X-Box, or even 100 lines is sufficient punishment for a parent who lets an 8 year old girl out to play alone in the local park.
As for the parent of a 10 year old boy who hasn’t learnt that he does not ‘stick his willy’ into anyone without permission, words fail me.
Punishing the children for the ommissions of the parents is the height of obscenity.

7
Vimes
May 25, 2010 at 12:36

Parental punishment by proxy – works for me. You would, of course, have to work out where the bounds of responsible parenting were – I suspect that certain precedents may have already been set, in that respect.

8
JuliaM
May 25, 2010 at 11:47

Spot on. Going forward with this trial was a travesty even BEFORE the collapse of the main prosecution witnesses testimony…

9
Antisthenes
May 25, 2010 at 13:52

Thank you for putting it into perspective as I found the matter quite perplexing and confusing. Your analysis and conclusions are spot on, this should never have come before the courts in fact should never have been taken seriously at all. That it has is an indictment on the twisted and over righteous behave of the NSPCC and the CPS. One thing that I still do not understand is how it could be considered that anything of a sexual nature could be happening here. Surely the age of sexual awareness and the resultant sexual urges do not occur until at least 12 years of age or are children developing much more rapidly than in my day?

10
Woman on a Raft
May 25, 2010 at 17:02

Basically, yes. They are becoming sexually aware far earlier. This however, is not to be confused with mental maturity. Although there was an element of schools pushing sex education at the command of the old DFCS, in primary schools the showing of sex education films from year 5 (9-10 year olds) was widely supported by parents simply because it is observably the case that the 9 year old girls were moving in to puberty. You either tell children properly what is happening to them, or they will make up a load of rubbish for themselves. Literate seven and eight year olds will already have picked up Babbette Cole’s “Mother laid an egg”, the very best book on the subject ever written. Most boys will already have asked awkward questions about certain experiences…

The world where sex education could be left until maybe year eight or nine (twelve and thirteen year olds) , or even almost to almost GCSEs has been gone for many, many years. I am sorry for it, because it was a better world, but it is simply not as you hoped it still was.

11
World Weary Detective
May 25, 2010 at 17:37

This case happened because people in decision making positions are no longer willing to take negative decisions, ie rule that the case should be taken no further. It is a culture of blame, where everyone is afraid to make a decision in case in turns out to be the wrong one. This therefore leads to the police making arrests, rather than not, the police then presenting the case to the CPS rather than taking no further action, the CPS deciding to charge, the reviewing CPS lawyer deciding to continue with the case to trial, the judge allowing the case to continue to the jury, and the jury members coming forward with findings of guilt. No-one to blame then!

12
Damn the consequences
May 25, 2010 at 20:43

In the we-have-our-rights society, it is unnecessary for “parents” to exercise prudent control over their children, the state is quite able to bear the burden.
I eagerly await the TV sequel so that the “mother” of the young girl can secure a payment to offset her (the mother’s) pain and suffering.
Lessons will be learned, and we can expect in our decadent society’s future that the young boys will seek to silence the victim to avoid similar charges ?
But it was all for the children’s sake, no adult ego’s were at play here-right?

13
Reverie
May 25, 2010 at 23:00

There is a chilling absence of proportion in this sad tale.
The people responsible for abuse here are not the children.

Police, prosecutors, parents and as well as the NSPCC are each responsible for perpetuating cruelty by not communicating in a humane fashion with these minors.
Adults have a responsiblity for their actions these were excessive.

We all make mistakes, the challenge in life is to learn from them.

14
Eleanor
May 26, 2010 at 09:30

I am appalled by the whole business. All three children have been abused by The State. Are our Courts now to be full of children playing Doctors and Nurses? And yes, I do know what I am talking about. I was similarly assaulted at about the same age, and believe me, the attempt was pretty pathetic. And No, I didn’t tell anyone, thank God, although I doubt that I would have finished up in court. It did not ruin my life.

The CPS wants shooting.

And what on earth were the Jury thinking of? Or was it just a point of law.

15
Rog
May 26, 2010 at 11:14

How did Labour manage to miss the glaring culprit in all of this. They should have demolished or at least heavily taxed bike sheds years ago.

16
Greg_L-W.
May 27, 2010 at 04:21

I trust The Lady eleanor has found the experience improved subsequently!

In the case in hand, no pun intended, had it been 3 small boys experimenting no doubt the full might of the Pink Estate would have been brought to defend their rights and no doubt it would have entered the lexicon of education as role playing as they copied an alternative lifestyle!