So what's the full story here, i've heard the summary on the news.

And do you agree with the judges comments or think he's wrong, why do you feel like that?

A link for those who don't knowBBC News Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3638464.stm)

Personally I feel that all men caught having intercourse with children should be castrated, mainly to spare any other children the same fate. As a parent this sort of thing sickens me to the bone, and I am sure many other mothers will feel the same

I read that outside the court that Michael Barrett said "i've been very lucky" slight understatement there, even he knew that he'd got away with it.

Right...so a 12 year old, gets to a concert in London, and meets this guy. Then he goes to her place in Gunchester twice and her parents are nowhere to be seen?

Not saying what happened was right, but if your 12 yr old was inviting men from 200 miles away into the house I would want to know why. :loopy:

The judge has to make decision on the facts infront of him - sadly if he gave the guy a life sentence, the do-gooders would be out in force saying he was sentenced unfairly.

Now, saying that this guy is obliged to follow the rule of law, and as such was brought up into the dock. The problem for the CPS is if the girl in question is not willing to make a complaint, or indeed sides with the defence. Whats a judge to do?! :confused:

He still did pass sentence, and put him on the offenders register but quite simply the law needs to be more defined in these cases (as it is somewhat now) but as the report says it cannot be applied retrospectively.

My personal view ( of course untainted by the rants of the PC brigade ) are that they should have locked him up for 15 yrs dressed as a chicken and given the 12yr old a few years in a young offenders institute dressed as a black sheep.

It beggars belief but then on the other hand judges have shown that they are not exempt from the paedophile club.

I think that you'd be letting them off lightly there honey. I'd be more tempted to go for the quadruple amputation option...couldn't get up to much then could they?

Abysmal.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a 12yo girl could be considered old enough to make a mature, considered decision to have intercourse.

If the girl had been just under the legal age, and there was proof of her mature attitude to life, I could understand the decision more, as there is something ridiculous about the notion that a person's ability to make decisions changes over the night of their birthday - especially since people do not all mature psychologically at the same pace - but a cut-off age is necessary - the only other alternative would be a "sex license" granted after that person had undorgone tests and exams to prove their maturity and attitude towards sex. Which would of course be a beaurocratic nightmare.

But 12 - sorry no way. Totally unacceptable. As I understand there is no record of him being mentally under-developed and less capable of taking responsibility than a normal adult (in which case a custodial sentence could be replaced with psychiatric treatment).

I don't care how "willing" this girl was, who initiated what - that judge is the one needing psychiatric treatment

If it was my daughter I wouldn't like to think what lengths I would go to, to give this guy some justice of my own.

She might 'think' she's mature enough to make the sex decision, but he IS old enough to know what he's doing is wrong wrong wrong. No matter of the facts (i.e. where are her parents, did she consent blah) he is old enough to know he shouldn't be having sex with a 12 yr old girl.

End of!

My main thought when i heard this was that it was inconsistent with other sentencing where the firl involved has similarly refused to assist the prosecution and acted in the defence of the defendant...
It doesn't say how long ago the offence was commited, nor how old the girl is now, both of which could have a significant bearing. If it happened 5 years ago then he was only 15 at the time, the fact that he's 20 now is pretty irrelevant really.

It said in that report that under the laws in place sex with a child under 13 is classed as rape ?? Now this where Im confused.. If a child is under 16 but over 13 what is that classed as ?? I was under the impression that sex with a child under the age of consent (16 right?) is classed as rape ??

I'm in no way making any excuses, but no-one has mentioned that the male in question was only 18 at the time.

I believe that is classed as sex with a minor - though I could well be wrong!

Originally posted by Tony
I'm in no way making any excuses, but no-one has mentioned that the male in question was only 18 at the time.

Maybe so Tony but the fact remains that she was still 12 years old. At 18 your classed as being an 'adult' with a certain level of self responsibility, at 12 your still a child..

Originally posted by Tony
I'm in no way making any excuses, but no-one has mentioned that the male in question was only 18 at the time.
Doesn't excuse it even if he was 18 at the time.
The only thing that would make me think ok maybe he got the right decision was if he could prove without a shadow of a doubt that he thought the girl was at least 16.

If he knew on any level she was 12 then he should get a harsher punishment. 18 or 20 he's still a man, still an adult, still responsible and old enough to know it was wrong. Period.

Not saying the girl or her parents here are not at fault, but putting that asside he IS at fault.

As I said, I'm not making any excuses at all - just trying to give a little balance.

Good points being made on this subject.

A rationale has to be applied though - I assume the judge must have looked at these things -

Ages
Consents
Any misinformation given (such as she was 16 etc)
No evidence of entrapment
etc.

Now when you have a 12 yr old going to a concert in london meeting a guy, and then having him back at home in manchester some 200 miles away its a bit of a lack of responsibility on the parents behalf, as well as the guy in question.

Thing is what more could the prosecution have done if the girl was not willing to give any evidence to support them, and indeed if she insisted the defence was entirely correct in whatever it may have put forward as its own arguments.

Still what do you think of the chicken suit and black sheep - make them think wouldn't it?

unlawful sexual intercourse. It says that in the report as well.

Tony, you just repeated my point, and everyone listened when you said it :confused:

Originally posted by Deejay
It said in that report that under the laws in place sex with a child under 13 is classed as rape ?? Now this where Im confused.. If a child is under 16 but over 13 what is that classed as ?? I was under the impression that sex with a child under the age of consent (16 right?) is classed as rape ??

Originally posted by Cyclone
unlawful sexual intercourse. It says that in the report as well.

Tony, you just repeated my point, and everyone listened when you said it :confused:
:P
I think maybe because you said he 'might have been 15', where are Tony factualy found out he was 18.
The difference being:
(1) If he was 15 then I think the sentence is correct given his young age too.
(2) Tony decided to check the facts and post what the details were. So we can all then make an informed decision based on the new given facts.

I still stand by what I have said. The guy was old enough to know what he was doing was wrong - so given his age of 18, it's no excuse.

It's not that we ignore you Cyclone - we all value and respect your opinion mate :thumbsup:

well yeah. So Tony built on my point. I was suprised that it didn't give the ages at the time of offence in the bbc story, or at least say when the offence was committed.

She was 12 at the time and he was 18,the parents allowed him to stay over twice believing it to be an innocent relationship!!The judge has often let sex offenders off or given them lenient sentences.The law specifies that if a child is under 13 then the perpetrator can get life,however this law was only passed in May - after the trial.After the child is 13 the sentence depends on circumstances,age difference,how they knew each other etc.The offender may only get a few months and the law has led to grooming problems,ie people on the internet making friends with kids till their birthday.

Parents thought it was an innocent relationship? WTF!

Originally posted by honeyplanet
As a parent this sort of thing sickens me to the bone, and I am sure many other mothers will feel the same

Erm, and fathers!!

The new act which makes it rape to have sex with a girl under the age of 13 no matter what the circumstances did not become law until May this year, and not retrospect

He was dealt with under the old act as she did not object but cannot agree to sex at her age, he was dealt with for Unlawful Sexual Intercourse.

I agree the judge got it wrong, the man knew here age, and the difference between right and wrong he should not have gone anywhere near her.

I understand the Crown is appealing against the lenient sentence lets hope he gets a more fitting one.