14-year-old sentenced over rape of girl at sleepover

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.

 

Liz Jones: Pity the MeToo gang can’t admit women DO use looks to get ahead

Our thanks to a number of people for this. Extracts, emphases ours:

Last October, I attended Liverpool Fashion Week. Unlike its London counterpart, it was billed as an inclusive and diverse event, with female models of all shapes, ages, colours and sizes.

Rather less PC was the fact that those of us in the front row were served prosecco and muffins by muscular, tattooed male waiters wearing nothing but an apron, exposing their naked, hairy bottoms. Goodness! We were never served up anything like that in Milan.

Unlike the female reporter who last week ‘exposed’ the skimpy clothes worn by hostesses at the Presidents Club charity dinner, I had no need to go undercover to report on this blatant sexism: there it was, laid bare, inches from my nose…

Doubtless, the feminists wailing in the press and on social media are far too principled to deploy their looks as part of their armoury. Having said that, I know two high-flying female journalists who, despite their Oxbridge educations, used their breasts and much perching-on-the-male-boss’s-desk to get promoted. ’Twas ever thus, and always will be, no matter how many #MeToo hashtags clog Twitter.

Don’t take my word for it. A young woman I know takes occasional work hostessing at London events not unlike the Presidents Club. She explained: ‘It’s a type of girl who applies for those jobs. They aren’t idiots and they like being paid to look pretty and flirt.

‘Yes, they may bitch and moan with the other girls. But they go back because they enjoy the attention, the nice venues… the better pay than most other shift work.

‘You’d be moronic not to know what was coming. I was warned the dresses on one job would be microscopic; shorts were recommended underneath, but no one wore them because they didn’t want to ruin their “look”.’

This is not to justify sexual harassment, ever. It’s only to say that for all the talk of men abusing their power, never underestimate the ability of women to manipulate male desire to get what they want.

William Collins: “Rape – Part 2 (Case Histories of False Allegations)”

Just published. William starts the piece with a quotation from solicitor Matthew Graham, from last Wednesday:

This isn’t a story of a few rogue cops gone bad, or a crumbling, underfunded criminal justice system overwhelmed by national austerity (though both get blamed daily in courts and the press to cover a wider, more difficult truth).  This is a story of a state funded system designed with political ends in mind to convict those accused of crime, because once a person is charged they must be guilty, if only the Crown can prove it.

DPP chief Alison Saunders embroiled in row over ‘plot to frame’ man

Saunders: wrote in support of charging decision

A piece in today’s Sunday Times. Emphases ours.

The embattled director of public prosecutions (DPP) is under fresh pressure over an alleged police plot to frame an innocent man for beating his wife.

Alison Saunders is embroiled in the fallout from the failed prosecution of Ade Samuel, who was wrongly accused of domestic violence.

After the collapse of the case, Saunders wrote a letter in support of the decision to charge Samuel with common assault, soon after he had complained about police treatment of his ill wife at their home in north London.

Samuel, 41, claims his protest angered a detective constable at the Metropolitan police, who then allegedly tried to frame him for beating his wife, Jo, whom he cares for 24 hours a day. He has the support of his local MP, Iain Duncan Smith, who raised the case with David Gauke, the justice secretary, in the Commons last week.

“In 2009 my constituent Mr Samuel was acquitted of common assault after an unsuccessful prosecution centred on a fabricated witness statement by the police,” the former Tory leader told parliament on Tuesday. “Since then, his efforts to seek redress through the courts have been frustrated by a cover-up that reaches right to the top of the Crown Prosecution Service.”

Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor, said the alleged behaviour of the police “stinks” and some of the decision-making by prosecutors “beggars belief”.

Samuel is suing the Metropolitan police and the CPS for misfeasance in public office, conspiracy and malicious prosecution. His claims have been struck out, but he is preparing to appeal.

The news is potentially serious for Saunders, who was criticised last week for saying some rape victims who stayed silent during an attack could give the impression they were consenting.

In 2008 Samuel complained to police officers about their treatment of Jo, who suffers from sickle cell anaemia. Officers and ambulance staff had been called to the family home to deal with Jo’s “vaso-occlusive crisis”, which can cause organ damage.

Samuel became infuriated when detectives arrested his pregnant wife on suspicion of attacking him. He claims the police action prevented her from obtaining immediate medical treatment.

Two months later his wife was cleared — but Samuel found himself charged with common assault after the same Met police officer claimed Jo had made a statement alleging her husband had beaten her. Samuel and his wife deny she made such a statement, deny having seen a statement and are amazed the police claim they took it from her when she was on strong painkillers.

Internal police logs seen by The Sunday Times also reveal that on the day Jo was said to have given the statement, the police officer in attendance said she was “distressed” and that “information was very difficult to extract from her”. The day after the police say Jo gave the statement, the log records an officer in the case saying investigators needed to “obtain” a statement.

“It was forged. I never made a statement,” Jo said. “This case is really murky. They tried to frame Ade. Most people wouldn’t believe what went on.” The CPS charged Samuel despite Jo’s repeated complaint that she had been “misrepresented” by police, internal CPS files show.

He says he was not served with the witness statement before his trial at Waltham Forest magistrates’ court, at which he was acquitted. Afzal said omissions by junior prosecutors were “completely bizarre and require a full explanation”.

After his acquittal, Samuel launched a series of complaints to Scotland Yard and the CPS backed by Stella Creasy, his then constituency MP. Saunders, who was the chief crown prosecutor in London at the time, replied to Creasy in August 2010 on behalf of the CPS.

Saunders backed the prosecution and described Jo’s statement as “clear and detailed”, despite, it seems, not having seen it herself. The DPP also said there was “no suggestion of the allegations having been fabricated by her [Jo]”. However, Jo had told the CPS that the “only true statement” she made retracted all allegations against her husband, who she described as “not guilty”.

Saunders told Creasy that inquiries had been hampered because the statements were “missing”. However, her letter did not say that, by this stage, the CPS had a note on file that the officer in charge of the original investigation had taken them from Scotland Yard’s archive. They have never been found.

A statement from Saunders said there was no reason to believe there were “any material inaccuracies” in the briefing used to prepare the letter. She and the CPS “absolutely refute any suggestion that any actions were carried out in bad faith”. They deny there had been any conspiracy, falsification or cover-up and and say there was no credible reason for such claims. The Met said Samuel’s complaints were not upheld and it could not comment further because of the litigation.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Sexually transmitted or even passed from mouth to mouth, the HPV virus is the cause of our fastest-growing killer cancer. The NHS immunises girls against it but NOT boys.

Our thanks to Mike P for this. The start of the piece:

The NHS is refusing to give teenage boys an inexpensive vaccine that grants long-term protection against Britain’s fastest-growing form of cancer – on the grounds that it is cheaper to treat deadly tumours later in life.

The jab grants immunity to the human papillomavirus (HPV), and has been provided free to all girls aged 12 to 13 since 2008 because HPV causes cervical cancer.

But it is now known it also causes ‘oropharyngeal’ cancer of the tongue, mouth and throat, whose incidence is rocketing, as well as tumours of the genitals and anus.

Vaccinating boys would cost an additional £22million a year – against a total NHS UK budget of £148billion. But according to Treasury rules, vaccinating boys is not thought ‘cost-effective’, even though HPV cancer patients face months of expensive, agonising treatment.

We covered the issue of gender differences in healthcare provision in our 2015 manifesto (pp. 61-5). At that time £150m p.a. was being spent on the national screening programme for cervical cancer, plus a sum vaccinating girls, we assume about the same as that estimated for vaccinating girls, £22 m p.a. So £172m p.a. is being spent to reduce and detect cervical cancer, and £0 p.a. to reduce and detect HPV-related cancers (the fastest-growing killer cancers) in males.

 

Ant McPartlin’s divorce could cost him £155m: Wife Lisa’s lawyers ‘will demand TV star pays her up to a THIRD of his future earnings’ in record settlement

Change of plans: It was previously said that Ant, 42, was willing to pay Lisa, 41, half of his £62million fortune to end their marriage amicably

Our thanks to Mike P for this. The start of the piece:

Ant McPartlin’s estranged wife Lisa Armstrong could make £155 million from their divorce, according to reports she has been advised to go after her presenter partner’s future earnings.

It was previously said that Ant, 42, was willing to pay Lisa, 41, half of his £62million fortune to end their marriage amicably.

Yet The Sun reports that The Strictly Come Dancing make-up artist is said to have been told to follow in the footsteps of Karen Parlour, the ex-wife of Arsenal star Ray Parlour, who was awarded a third of the footballer’s future earnings when they divorced in 2004.

An insider told The Sun On Sunday: ‘[Lisa] is not motivated by money [J4MB emphasis] and she has been focusing on getting through the devastating end of her marriage in one piece.

‘But she has a very strong legal team behind her. Their argument is Lisa has been pivotal to Ant achieving his fortune so she deserves to see some of his future earnings.’ [J4MB emphasis]

Remember, folks, Men shouldn’t marry.

Police forces and prosecutors failing to carry out ‘basic’ procedure in rape cases, Attorney General says

Alison Saunders’s boss is Jeremy Wright QC (45). Our thanks to Mike P for this. The start of the piece:

The failings which have lead to a nationwide review of all live rape and serious sexual assault cases were caused by police forces and prosecutors not carrying out “basic” procedure, the Attorney General has suggested.

In a stinging criticism of authorities’ handling a series of failed rape cases, Jeremy Wright QC has said there was “no excuse” and that there was a “substantial problem” with how disclosure protocol is followed. [J4MB emphasis]

He also declined to say whether Alison Saunders, director of public prosecutions, should consider her position, [J4MB emphasis] but said that tackling the issue required a “joint effort” from prosecutors and police. [J4MB: it was “joint effort” from them, driven by Saunders and other harridans, with their mangina allies, which got us into the present mess.]

Mr Wright made the comments yesterday as he revealed he had asked the CPS to review all live cases, [J4MB: Interesting. An admission that Saunders hadn’t made the decision pro-actively.] amid fears that dozens may be compromised by the failure to disclose vital evidence ahead of trial.

Ms Saunders has admitted the review – which will affect every force in England and Wales – will likely result in a number of cases being stopped as others are brought forward. [J4MB: This is clearly at odds with her claim that no innocent men are in prison as a result of false rape and serious sexual assault allegations.]