Pages

♫ Porn! What is it good for? ♫

Evading rape charges apparently

Babysitting teen, 14, who raped girl, 5, spared custody as judge says he was corrupted by internet porn

Yep, we're head first back into the online porn debate. The Daily Mail's ill fated 'Block Online Porn' campaign has been given an unexpected lease of life by an idiot judge.
A schoolboy raped a five-year-old girl while babysitting her after he was ‘corrupted’ by internet pornography.
The teenager, who is now 15 and is the son of a businessman, later admitted he regularly looked at hardcore pornography on a laptop at home.
He wore his school uniform in the dock at Cambridge Crown Court on Monday as Judge Gareth Hawkesworth told him he would have received a six-and-a-half year jail term if he had been an adult.
Instead, the judge imposed a three-year community order after blaming ‘the world and society’ for his exposure to porn.
This 'child' is fourteen years old and he sexually assaulted a five year old. There has to be accountability and punishment here. Blaming the internet and handing down a community order is not that.
Judge Hawkesworth said: ‘You have not shown any particular sexual interest in children. I’m satisfied it was impulsive and I believe you have become sexualised by your exposure to and the corruption of pornography.
‘Your exposure at such a young age has ended in tragedy. It was the fault of the world and society.’
The fault of the world and society. No it wasn't. He must have known that what he was doing was wrong. It's his own fault and his parents hold a degree of guilt for it was they who raised him.

The world and society have not conspired against this person, he is not a victim, the young child he assaulted is the victim.
The case has fuelled demands for stricter controls to be put in place to stop children accessing online porn.
This case should fuel demands for better sentencing, not an attack on the intenet. Of course the only real 'demands' have come from the Daily Mail itself who desperately want to resurrect their failed campaign against online porn.
The Daily Mail is calling for an automatic block under which adult content would be filtered out by default. Users would have to opt in to see it.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport angered campaigners earlier this year by suggesting it was ruling out the idea of an automatic block on porn, on civil liberties grounds.
Yes. Campaigners do have a habit of spitting their dummies out when they don't get their own way.

There's no need to get angry though. Britain is no longer about civil liberties. If you want something banned then you will eventually get your own way, you just need to play the game right and follow the tobacco control template.
But following the Mail’s campaign, ministers have now included questions about the opt-in system in a public consultation document, launched last week on the department’s website.
See. Fake consultation. It's the first step towards a jack booted state intervention.
The schoolboy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, attacked his victim in December after being paid £10 to take care of the girl, who lived in a neighbouring house near Cambridge.
He was interviewed by police and revealed he had regularly accessed porn on the internet at his parents’ home without their knowledge. In court he admitted raping a girl under 13.
His parents should have been more pro-active in regulating what he was allowed to do online. It is their fault (and his) that he had access to porn. It's not a good reason to regulate porn for everyone.

As for blaming the internet for his actions, he knew what he was doing was wrong.
Julia Flanagan, defending, said it was a one-off incident and no threat or force was used. She added: ‘We have a very frightened and remorseful boy who is very ashamed of what he has done.
'He knows it will follow him for the rest of his life.
And the girl he assaulted? What of she? Who is the victim here?
A sexual offences prevention order was also made for five years, meaning he must not access pornography of any kind and cannot use mobile phones or computers without suitable filters to prevent viewing pornography.
So they do exist then?

7 Comments:

JuliaM said...

Anonymous said...

Post Hoc Ergo Ban It said...

Bucko said...

Robert the Biker said...

Henry Crun said...

Bucko said...