Our thanks to Nick for this piece from Brighton. Extracts:
A mother told how her daughter “was not the same girl” after she was raped at a sleepover by a 13-year-old boy.
She made the comments at a sentencing hearing for the boy, now 14, who raped her 14-year-old daughter at his home.
The boy, who can not be named for legal reasons, was sentenced to a two-year youth rehabilitation order at Brighton Youth Court today…
At the trial in November District Judge Tessa Szagun found the boy guilty of rape and described the girl’s evidence as “compelling, heartfelt and true”…
The judge dismissed the defence’s case, which claimed the girl fabricated the incident in revenge for the boy rejecting an attempt by her to kiss.
In mitigation, defending [J4MB: This should presumably read “defence counsel”] Sarah Tate, said the case was sad for both the victim and defendant.
She said: “I am not making excuses for him, it never should have happened. But it was not something planned and emotions took over a boy in crisis at the time. [J4MB: So the boy’s defence counsel is asserting he was guilty of rape? Am I missing something here?]
“It is a sad case where there are no winners. Two damaged children continue to be damaged.”
She added the boy had since faced “draconian measures” at his school.
The court heard the boy still denies the rape took place and his family plan to appeal the conviction.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Guilty on accusation. The boy’s parents should be looking at his counsel’s motivation and conduct. If she started out in the opinion that he was guilty and saw her role merely as obtaining the lightest sentence possible she has effectively abrogated the presumption of innocence and failed to represent her client properly.
I strongly suspect the boy’s version of events is the correct one, having experienced at first hand the extremes with which females react to rejection. They don’t like it and can be violent in several ways.
LikeLike
Agreed. Even at 14 males are guilty until proven innocent, on nothing more than the word of a female, even when it’s impossible to prove their innocence.
LikeLike
If she is a feminist, which is not unlikely, she will be incapable of presuming him to be innocent. Almost all rape cases which revolve around consent – i.e. where intercourse is admitted – lack corroborative evidence; if the presumption of innocence were to be applied correctly, all would result in acquittal. That is unacceptable to the feminist mind, so the presumption, together with the rule of law generally, has to be jettisoned.
LikeLike
Females have been given a wonderul revenge weapon by the politically correct fools with influence and power; together with anonymity and even cash if they can manage to pull it off. Little wonder that so many of them use it.
LikeLike
But who gave them this weapon ? Who allowed women to get this far out of hand ? The men did. Why ? Because they mistakenly believe gentlemen should never challenge women, no matter how irrational and illogical they may be.. Now welcome to Britain 2018.
LikeLike
If the boy’s defence counsel said that on his behalf, thank fuck they weren’t acting against him!
I have heard it said that only a fool employees himself as a defence counsel. In this case, the boy would have been better off employing himself than the fool and the traitor that he was given to represent him.
G.
LikeLike
Something very relevant that you might not know about (I don’t think it’s general knowledge) which I found out about a few years ago:
https://holocaust21.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/feminists-deliberately-changed-the-law-to-jail-children-for-rape/
Basically, my understanding is that before 1993 it was not possible to convict a 13 year old boy of rape because they were deemed unable to consent. But feminists abolished this concept. It’s yet another case of feminists having their cake and eating it too. If the feminist argument for the age of consent is that “children lack the capacity to consent and are not sexual” then it follows that you cannot convict children for rape or any sex crime because they lack the mental capacity to be held accountable or to even have any urge to commit one!
The feminists must choose either:
1) Children are not sexual until a certain magical age, thus there should be an age of consent which also means that it is not possible for a child below that age to be convicted of a sex crime.
2) Children are sexual, thus the age of consent should be abolished
But it seems instead their real reason for “age of consent” laws is just to vindictively punish men and boys for the hell of it. Their mantras of “children lack the capacity to consent” blah blah blah are just a facade to hide the fact that they hate men and boys and want any excuse they can to lock them up for a sex crime. They’d lock a toddler up for sex crimes, in fact, they are already trying to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/toddler-aged-three-investigated-by-police-for-abusing-other-chil/
LikeLike
Accusing a 13 year old boy of rape is hallucinations. Kids that age are simply experimenting. But given we are living in a society gone off the rails,where anything a man or a boy does is immediately classified as sexual abuse,misconduct or rape, it is small wonder then. It is kind of ironic that a society where men and boys have virtually no rights anymore is still the land of the gentlemen. It does beg a question whether treating women like gentlemen actually turns them into the dishonest opportunistic monsters they have become. It certainly seems so because in most non western cultures women are far more humble, honest and feminine.
LikeLike
It is really dangerous to comment on a court case based on newspaper accounts without being there and hearing what is said in its entirety.
The comments by the defence counsel that have been highlighted were probably made after the verdict, if so, the criticism of her is completely unfair.
The issue is that once again this comes down to a he said , he said situation so how can guilt beyond doubt be established? There is the added factor that she was older than him so if anything it seems less likely that he forced himself on her but as mentioned above it is dangerous to comment without being present during the trial.
There is a legal problem, that convinctions can be obtained without corroborative evidence and a societal one which is the constant demonisation of men and the myth that false rape accusations are rare means that juries will decide that they are sure of guilt even when it is just one persons word against anothers. The propoganda about the rarity of false rape accusations is perhaps the easiest thing to attack. The overwhelming majority of those accused are not convicted and this should be sufficient to say that legally the majority of accusations are, in at least this sense, false but the dominant media message is the opposite.
LikeLike
The girl, her mother, the judge, the prosecution and the defence were all feminists. The poor boy never stood a chance.
LikeLike