I've just been reading an article on Ceefax where a 20 year old bloke appears to have walked free from court, after having sex with an 11-year old girl, as the judge, basically, was saying that she was asking for it! I can't find it online, but it was in Manchester and they've given the guy's name as Jon Dixon, aged 20.

If it's true, this is unreal. I thought that the whole statutory rape thing existed because it was deemed that minors can't consent to sex. These judges want shooting, they really do!

Choose from over 6,000 digital instant download products at www.MyClickBank.co.uk.

Guests - this sponsored link will vanish when you log-in. Click here to register for free.

If accurate, that does seem like a horrible ruling.

In the States, if the parties are within a couple years of the same age and assuming both are above a certain age, it is not statutory rape even if one or both are below the age of consent but there is a minimum age even for that and it is certainly older than 11.

Here you go..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1938653/Pa...d-sex'.html

This 'man' should know better and wants kicking to pieces. Horrible , absolutely horrible. I'm glad that i'm not the girls father thats for sure.

With a sentence as light as that , does it make you question the judges sexual orientation? It sure as hell does to me. Does it indicate to the high and almighty judge that this kind of behaviour is acceptable??

It just goes to show how different the laws vary from country to country, at 15 i would have been so lucky.



By Michelle Draper
May 08, 2008 11:11am
A 35-YEAR-old woman who had sex with a 15-year-old boy has been sentenced to a minimum of a year in prison.

Bianca Aleida Smulders, of Melbourne, wept in the dock as she was sentenced in the Victorian County Court today.

Smulders had pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16, and was also charged with breaching an intervention order.

The court was told the parents of the victim, who cannot be named, became suspicious after Smulders bought gifts including cigarettes, CDs, a mobile phone and an iPod for their son.

The pair had sex in the back of Smulders' car and a caravan at her home about 18 times between July and October last year.

An intervention order was taken out against Smulders in October last year but she breached it by sending letters to the victim.

Judge Geoffrey Chettle said authorities wanted Smulders treated no differently to any other sex offender because she was a woman.

He sentenced Smulders to 36 months in prison, with a non-parole period of one year.

He said he set a longer than usual parole period in order for Smulders to seek treatment for her offending while on parole.

He said he did this because courses for female sexual offenders were not available in prison.

Smulders has already served 187 days of her sentence.

When I heard that "ruling", I thought that everyone in that court was as guilty as rthe judge. That judge did NOT uphold the law, he flouted it!!
The judge should have been arrested on the spot and charged with flouting the laws of justice! I only hope that the law lords will haul him over the coals for his "lenient" sentence.
IMHO he should be disbarred!

Of course what he did was wrong but the 'man' was only 20....Then you have to ask yourself was the judge so wrong in his ruling that the girl 'welcomed' sex. it would seem the girl was infatuated by the intentions of an older male and consented. But what we have here is comments that the man should be kicked to death and although what he did was wrong he did not have forced sex with the girl. Certainly it was his young age that kept him out of prison, but the real issue is the welfare of the young girl. If she did have consenting sex at such a young age then her parents would have to share a large amount of responsibility. The harsh truth is that if this happened in some other countries then it would not be such an issue,
For what's it's worth I would have given the lad a prison sentence...but then I am not in receipt of all the facts as we are all not on here but just newspaper reports designed to 'spoon feed' our sensitive caring British nature. I wish.

Rabbit - I have two normal, well adjusted daughters. I would not have dreamed of having a sex talk with them as they were children and I was not going to take that away from them.

As far as sex is concerned MY OPINION is that children are turned into adults far too young today! I was picking up a wheelchair bound friend from a night club the ther day when two young girls came out, obviously having overindulged. I put their age at 19-20, but the lad i picked up knew them, one was 14 the other 15!!!

An 11 year old "welcoming" sex?

Why should the parent HAVE to share the blame? This "uncle" had groomed the girl and obviously told her to keep quiet about it to the parents. What did he promise her? What blame do you give the man?
When I was in school I heard all the tales, but wouldn't dream of having an intimate relationship with a girl - well not until I was 16!

That's why the statutory rape laws are supposed to exist; minors are not deemed mature enough to consent to sex, and quite rightly so. Their minds and bodies are nowhere near developed enough at that age. A 19-year old has no excuse, however, and should be locked away, where he can't try the same trick again.