Two men banned from "approaching girls"

[Scouse]

But the girl in the car with them was 17 - so I'm not sure why?

Is it an "innovative use of the law" - or an abuse?

 

[Mabs]

"vulnerable" usually means "mentally handicapped" or something so yea, if they are having funsies with someone who isnt 100% there, no sympathy

 

[Scouse]

"vulnerable" usually means "mentally handicapped" or something so yea, if they are having funsies with someone who isnt 100% there, no sympathy

I don't think it does mean that at all in this case.

 

[Jupitus]

Probably related to this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30114936

 

[Scouse]

Probably related to this

Yep. They haven't got enough evidence against them to secure a criminal conviction. Probably because she's above the legal age of consent.

Are we legislating for morality now? She'll be 18 soon and nobody anywhere will be able to do anything about her choices.

 

[Talivar]

Something has to be done and this is a start

 

[DaGaffer]

Yep. They haven't got enough evidence against them to secure a criminal conviction. Probably because she's above the legal age of consent.

Are we legislating for morality now? She'll be 18 soon and nobody anywhere will be able to do anything about her choices.

Grey area. I don't think its a morality issue so much as an exploitation issue. The court admit themselves its controversial because in strict letter-of-the-law terms there's no case to answer. Civil rights of the mentally impaired is a massive minefield, to the point where protecting a disabled person's civil rights can cause more distress to the person than riding roughshod over them "for their own good". I've seen this first hand and the whole situation is a head-fuck.

 

[Moriath]

Grey area. I don't think its a morality issue so much as an exploitation issue. The court admit themselves its controversial because in strict letter-of-the-law terms there's no case to answer. Civil rights of the mentally impaired is a massive minefield, to the point where protecting a disabled person's civil rights can cause more distress to the person than riding roughshod over them "for their own good". I've seen this first hand and the whole situation is a head-fuck.

It's not about mentally impaired it's about them grooming girls under the age of 18 for sex.

If they are predators then it's fine. If not it shouldn't make any difference cause most older men don't go round trying to talk to u der 18 girls unless they are relatives anyway.

 

[Talivar]

Also vulnerable might not mean disability but a young person from a home full of violence/drugs and sexual exploitation which has increased the persons chances of being a target for sexual exploitation

 

[Scouse]

Excluding the mentally disabled from this conversation:

It's not about mentally impaired it's about them grooming girls under the age of 18 for sex.

Which is called chatting them up, buying them a drink, coercing them non-violently into sexual acts.

As abhorrent as it can sound - we set the legal age of responsibility for sexual behaviour at 16 years old because we think that's the age girls can think for themselves.

There's going to be hundreds of thousands of girls who are "vulnerable" at that age - and at least an equal number of young men in exactly the same situation.

The only time we'll see young men "protected" in this fashion is if gay men do similar things. It'll never happen with straight 17 year old boys - no matter how fucked up they are.

I don't think its a morality issue so much as an exploitation issue.

I think it's a morality issue dressed up as an exploitation issue as a justification - but either of these "reasons" is as horribly dicey as the other.


What I'm most scared about is that the past fifteen years of dodgy legal loopholes and "interpretations of law", first by Labour and then the Cuntservatives, have set such a precedent that councils are now doing the same thing to secure convictions in areas that the laws, when passed, were never intended to be used for.

ASBO's for people who don't chop down plants in their gardens, surveillance laws used to spy on people's waste disposal habits, civil courts being used to stop people having dodgy, but totally legal, sex.

 

[DaGaffer]

It's not about mentally impaired it's about them grooming girls under the age of 18 for sex.

If they are predators then it's fine. If not it shouldn't make any difference cause most older men don't go round trying to talk to u der 18 girls unless they are relatives anyway.

If by "vulnerable" they don't mean mentally incompetent, then its crossing a legal line. The age of consent is 16. "Grooming" is neither or here nor there if they're over 16.

 

[Moriath]

Excluding the mentally disabled from this conversation:



Which is called chatting them up, buying them a drink, coercing them non-violently into sexual acts.

As abhorrent as it can sound - we set the legal age of responsibility for sexual behaviour at 16 years old because we think that's the age girls can think for themselves.

There's going to be hundreds of thousands of girls who are "vulnerable" at that age - and at least an equal number of young men in exactly the same situation.

The only time we'll see young men "protected" in this fashion is if gay men do similar things. It'll never happen with straight 17 year old boys - no matter how fucked up they are.



I think it's a morality issue dressed up as an exploitation issue as a justification - but either of these "reasons" is as horribly dicey as the other.


What I'm most scared about is that the past fifteen years of dodgy legal loopholes and "interpretations of law", first by Labour and then the Cuntservatives, have set such a precedent that councils are now doing the same thing to secure convictions in areas that the laws, when passed, were never intended to be used for.

ASBO's for people who don't chop down plants in their gardens, surveillance laws used to spy on people's waste disposal habits, civil courts being used to stop people having dodgy, but totally legal, sex.

Grooming a 14 year old is not chatting up. Man. If you think that you need to be more street.

 

[Scouse]

Grooming a 14 year old is not chatting up. Man. If you think that you need to be more street.

Stay on topic Moriath ffs. The girl is 17 years old. Child sex is NOTHING to do with this.

Unless you count it being caused by paedo-rage where paedophilia isn't actually occuring.

 

[Turamber]

Stay on topic Moriath ffs. The girl is 17 years old. Child sex is NOTHING to do with this.

Unless you count it being caused by paedo-rage where paedophilia isn't actually occuring.

The council said the girl had been reported missing from care 102 times since July 2010 and it believed she had been "consistently sexually exploited".

She's been exploited before, repeatedly. The other news item indicated she is unable to understand what is happening to her. Given how twisted your knickers get when discussing Catholic Priests taking advantage of children I'm surprised to see you take such a different line about this case.

 

[Scouse]

She's been exploited before, repeatedly. The other news item indicated she is unable to understand what is happening to her. Given how twisted your knickers get when discussing Catholic Priests taking advantage of children I'm surprised to see you take such a different line about this case.

She's seventeen.

She's not a 12 year old child being abused by someone in a position of trust. She's a seventeen year old girl going out and making stupid fucking mistakes that she'll probably regret later in life.

"Exploited before, repeatedly". Or, "troubled girl, well past the age of consent, likes to go out and have risky but consentual and legal sex"...

 

[Turamber]

She's seventeen.

She's not a 12 year old child being abused by someone in a position of trust. She's a seventeen year old girl going out and making stupid fucking mistakes that she'll probably regret later in life.

"Exploited before, repeatedly". Or, "troubled girl, well past the age of consent, likes to go out and have risky but consentual and legal sex"...

17 - 4 = ?

 

[Scouse]

Also this:

He also barred them from approaching "any female under 18"

How can you bar people from having legal sex?


Edit:

17 - 4 = ?

Don't get what you're getting at m8? 13? So?

The girl in this case is above the legal age of consent - and "vulnerable" sounds like "stupid" to me. She's a dumb kid with a bad past. - I've already covered that point very clearly in my long post above.

Edit edit:

Ah, ok. I see. If they've been shagging her before the age of consent then lock them up under criminal law..

You can't simply bend laws to get a conviction against people you don't have evidence against. No evidence = no conviction. Dodgy use of the law like this sets precedent that is far too dangerous and open to abuse - as I'd already covered above again...

 

[Tom]

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/six-suspected-child-sex-groomers-8137724

I think it's safe to speculate that she's been abused for years and that finally, Birmingham have got up off their arses and done something they should have done years ago - protect a vulnerable child from serial child abusers.

You should note that they haven't been convicted of anything - this is a civil, not a criminal case.

 

[Scouse]

You should note that they haven't been convicted of anything

This is why I'm concerned.

Ahmed and Anjam were the driver and passenger of silver Nissan Micra in which she was a passenger at 3.15am on October 9.

Ahmed also owned a phone that was seized by police where her number was the last one called.

Mr Justice Keehan said the mens' names could be revealed - despite objections from police, who raised concerns about their safety

So. They had a 17 year old in their car and they'd used their phone to call her.

Put their names in the papers and effectively call them paedo's I say...

 

[Moriath]

So you wanna take back the comments about non unde age sex. After you didn't read the story? Vulnerable means they groomed her from 13 now she's 17. But more than likely still thinks they are top blokes

Really Scouse you want to get some comprehension before jumping on the conspiracy theories

Also there is a lesser degree of proof required in civil over criminal court. Just use all the ducks were not in a row for a criminal conviction doesn't mean it's bad law.

 

[Scouse]

So you wanna take back the comments about non unde age sex

No. If you read my posts I don't.

They've not been found guilty of anything because there's no evidence - yet they're being treated like paedos. That isn't a good thing.

 

[Moriath]

No. If you read my posts I don't.

They've not been found guilty of anything because there's no evidence - yet they're being treated like paedos. That isn't a good thing.

They have been proven a threat to underage girls in civil law. Or the restraining order would not have bee grants. Just because criminal and civil law require different levels of proof doesn't mean they haven't been found guilty of anything

 

[Scouse]

They have been proven a threat to underage girls in civil law. Or the restraining order would not have bee grants. Just because criminal and civil law require different levels of proof doesn't mean they haven't been found guilty of anything

And you think civil law is a high enough bar to consign someone to the stigma (and, as the police said, possible violent repercussions) of a child abuser?

51% gets you across the line with civil law. That's not "beyond reasonable doubt" - that's a flip of a coin.


Civil law should not be used in cases such as this.

 

[Moriath]

And you think civil law is a high enough bar to consign someone to the stigma (and, as the police said, possible violent repercussions) of a child abuser?

51% gets you across the line with civil law. That's not "beyond reasonable doubt" - that's a flip of a coin.


Civil law should not be used in cases such as this.

That's been said many a time when offenders have been released from custody without charge only to offend again. Sometimes murder and then get convicted.

The people in power can't win. Either you use what's at your disposal to try and protect those who you can. Or you stop when the cps says no and face possible media recriminations in five years when people have been bad again and caught.

However I do agree that it should not have bee plastered in the press. I don't know if their names have been disclosed. But it's like those charged for rape being named before they are guilty.

This world we live in is having its freedoms slowly eroded. You can argue if that's good or bad. I think mostly bad. But the litigious environment we are in forces agencies to use every power at their disposal or face recriminations down the road

 

[Scouse]

That's been said many a time when offenders have been released from custody without charge only to offend again. Sometimes murder and then get convicted.

This is an argument that was settled a long time ago.

Better a criminal gets released than innocent people go to jail. This is a fundamental principle of our legal system.


These men have been publically branded paedos on no more than suspicion.

Edit:
If anyone would care to discuss my point about vulnerable young men - or the gay men point...?

 

[Moriath]

This is an argument that was settled a long time ago.

Better a criminal gets released than innocent people go to jail. This is a fundamental principle of our legal system.


These men have been publically branded paedos on no more than suspicion.

Edit:
If anyone would care to discuss my point about vulnerable young men - or the gay men point...?

Men should be treated the same way. The vulnerable ones that is.

But males and females are not really equal in the eyes of the law or society. Males find it a lot hard to prove rape against them than female for example.

 

[fettoken]

There's a common denominator here - guys perfoming these sorts of atrocities are as in this case, arabs, also in Sweden. In their culture, its OK apparently.

 

[Hawkwind]

Excluding the mentally disabled from this conversation:

Which is called chatting them up, buying them a drink, coercing them non-violently into sexual acts.

As abhorrent as it can sound - we set the legal age of responsibility for sexual behaviour at 16 years old because we think that's the age girls can think for themselves.

There's going to be hundreds of thousands of girls who are "vulnerable" at that age - and at least an equal number of young men in exactly the same situation..

Whilst I see how this can be misused these are mainly Muslim men grooming young girls for sex. Under there own rules, which most want recognised in UK (Sharia), they would be in huge trouble. In case I really do not see it as wrong. These men are basically pedo's trying to stay within the law and get away with what their own religion would imprison them for, or worse.

Sick fucks who need to be monitored and outed.

 

[Ormorof]

Because there are no pedos or groomigng rings run by white europeans *cough*jimmy saville *cough*

If shes 17 now it makes it more difficult to take action as shes no longer a minor, if they had suspicions of abuse since she was 13 why wait until now to take action?

 

[Tom]

if they had suspicions of abuse since she was 13 why wait until now to take action?

Because Birmingham Council.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nal-disgrace-says-Ofsted-chief-inspector.html