Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:24 pm

A 21-year-old man who admitted rape after having sex with a 12-year-old girl has walked free from court.

Daniel Cieslak wept after police informed him of the girl’s age, having believed she was 16, Glasgow’s High Court heard.

Cieslak met the girl at a taxi rank at 4am and later had sex with her at a flat in Edinburgh in 2015.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daniel-cieslak-walks-free-from-court-after-admitting-raping-girl-12_uk_58cbd5bbe4b0be71dcf3c3dd?utm_hp_ref=uk

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Original Quill on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:34 pm

It the US there is no leeway for this result.  Statutory rape is a status crime, and neither consent nor mistake is a defense.

what about deceit on the part of the younger party?

_________________
"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

Terrorism: "..many fine people, on many sides" ― Donald Trump, Charlottesville, 8.15.17

"Work for America to fail whenever the other party is in power."
― Republican Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 20444
Join date : 2013-12-18
Age : 52
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Lord Foul on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:36 pm

Hmm dunno where to stand on this one....

a bit of a job with a girl who looks much older than she is....
bear in mind he wasnt (as far as the report says) guilty of rape in the sense of violent unwelcomed rape, but statutory rape as the girl was underage......there IS a difference...both legally AND morally

perhaps girls should be bar coded with a "dont touch before" and a "best before" date????

<<<

_________________
If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 8904
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:It the US there is no leeway for this result.  Statutory rape is a status crime, and neither consent nor mistake is a defense.


Its not a defense in the UK normally either Quill and hence why I was surprised at the decision.

Did the judge use common sense here or have they opened up the door here for abuses with a defense for such rape?

But am interested to see if people agree or not with the decision and why.


Last edited by Thorin on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:40 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Hmm dunno where to stand on this one....

a bit of a job with a girl who looks much older than she is....
bear in mind he wasnt (as far as the report says) guilty of rape in the sense of violent unwelcomed rape, but statutory rape as the girl was underage......there IS a difference...both legally AND morally

perhaps girls should be bar coded with a "dont touch before" and a "best before" date????

<<<


I am stuck on this one mate also.


I am though worried how this judgement could have consequences on other cases of child rape.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Tommy Monk on Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:48 pm

12 year old girls do not look 20+ years old... and also not out hanging around taxi ranks at 4.00am on their own either...


Something stinks about this...

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 19203
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:12 year old girls do not look 20+ years old... and also not out hanging around taxi ranks at 4.00am on their own either...


Something stinks about this...

Well, I think we would need to see a picture to gauge on this

For example

Do you think this girl who is 12 looks 12 Tommy?




https://www.pinterest.com/pin/485122191082885215/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Tommy Monk on Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:24 pm

Was she out on her own hanging around a taxi rank in scotland at 4 in the morning too...!?

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 19203
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:45 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Was she out on her own hanging around a taxi rank in scotland at 4 in the morning too...!?


Clearly she must have been.
If she can pass for 18, then its very possible she was out clubbing or a party also Tommy. Then failure of clubs allowing her to enter must be brought to bear, if that is the case. 

You would be right to ask why she was out and her parents unaware (even worse if they were aware) and I would second you on this, but some girls lie where they are for the night, to their parents.

I understand your skepticism, and like I said earlier. I do not know where I stand on this, but you are playing off you questioning why to facts.

She was out, at 4 am and clearly looks far older than her years based off claims.

To be honest I am uncomfortable with the decision and why a 12 year old must have had friends cover for her to be out

Night Tommy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Tommy Monk on Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:03 pm



Also... if the girl was looking so much older (20+) so as nobody had reported anything dodgy about seeing a young girl child out late and getting in a cab with some dodgy bloke etc... and if she was such a willing participant in it all etc... who reported this as a crime to police...!?


_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 19203
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Also... if the girl was looking so much older (20+) so as nobody had reported anything dodgy about seeing a young girl child out late and getting in a cab with some dodgy bloke etc... and if she was such a willing participant in it all etc... who reported this as a crime to police...!?



That makes no sense highlighted.
If she looks much older, how would anyone perceive her as a young child out late?
Who knows who reported this, I would guess the parents.
He admitted to the Police himself, when he found out her age Tommy.
Read the article

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:24 pm

Found out mope info




The police had spoken to the teenager earlier in the evening whilst searching for another girl, but they had not even noted her details as there were no concerns about her age. 

Their taxi driver later said that he thought the girl was 20. 

For what it is worth my impression from viewing the victim on the CCTV footage on assessment by appearance that the victim was over 16 years of age would be a reasonable oneLady Scott
Cieslak and the 12-year-old had sex and she left in the morning on good terms. 

However, she later told her sister she was worried she was pregnant and her sister reported it to the police. 



After watching the CCTV and hearing from the witnesses including the police who shared Cieslak's views on her age Lady Scott said it would have been "reasonable" for him to believe she was over 16. 



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/student-raped-12-year-old-will-not-punished/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Original Quill on Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:18 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:12 year old girls do not look 20+ years old... and also not out hanging around taxi ranks at 4.00am on their own either...

Something stinks about this...

You are asking about evidence that would go nowhere. She was underaged, therefore all the evidence you would need is her birth certificate. It matters not what she looked like and what her actions were.

It's a status crime: 1) was she underaged: and 2) did he have sex with her? The law charges the adult with knowledge of, and/or the duty to find out is the minor is underaged. Ignorance is not an excuse.

End of...

_________________
"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

Terrorism: "..many fine people, on many sides" ― Donald Trump, Charlottesville, 8.15.17

"Work for America to fail whenever the other party is in power."
― Republican Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 20444
Join date : 2013-12-18
Age : 52
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:31 pm

I think that if a man meets a girl at a taxi rank at 4am, it's reasonable to assume that she's much older than 12.

It's probably best not to hook up with anyone one meets in such casual circumstances - generally speaking.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that if a man meets a girl at a taxi rank at 4am, it's reasonable to assume that she's much older than 12.

It's probably best not to hook up with anyone one meets in such casual circumstances - generally speaking.

Which is more the point here.

Also more to the point a 12 year old cannot give consent legally.

As the adult, he should have ensured, he verified the age.

Its the same if a girl is drunk, as they have not the capacity to freely consent, hence you are right, that if unsure of age, then they should not have sex.

The more I think about this, the more I believe the judge made a mistake

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:57 pm

It's a problem these days. Retailers have a similar problem, and the guideline is that if someone looks under 25, they should ask for ID in order to sell alcohol or other age-restricted items.

It's not clear if the girl told that chap that she was 16. If she did, she's in the wrong.

I think the judge was reasonable in light of the fact that the girl obviously looks much older than 12.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:20 am

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a problem these days. Retailers have a similar problem, and the guideline is that if someone looks under 25, they should ask for ID in order to sell alcohol or other age-restricted items.

It's not clear if the girl told that chap that she was 16. If she did, she's in the wrong.

I think the judge was reasonable in light of the fact that the girl obviously looks much older than 12.

She was with a friend and claimed she was 16 and her friend 17.

I can see your point Rags, but to me she was still 12 and cannot legally given consent, no matter if she claimed she was 16.

Difficult case.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:21 am

The engineering student said he believed the victim was 16 and her friend 17 when they went to a flat for an impromptu party. Cieslak and the 12-year-old then had sex, the court was told.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/17/man-who-pleaded-guilty-of-raping-12-year-old-freed-by-glasgow-high-court

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:26 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It's a problem these days. Retailers have a similar problem, and the guideline is that if someone looks under 25, they should ask for ID in order to sell alcohol or other age-restricted items.

It's not clear if the girl told that chap that she was 16. If she did, she's in the wrong.

I think the judge was reasonable in light of the fact that the girl obviously looks much older than 12.

She was with a friend and claimed she was 16 and her friend 17.

I can see your point Rags, but to me she was still 12 and cannot legally given consent, no matter if she claimed she was 16.

Difficult case.


I don't think it's that difficult. It's still not clear if she told him she was 16, but if she did, and she looked 16 or more, he could not have known that she was 12 and that she couldn't give consent.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:40 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

She was with a friend and claimed she was 16 and her friend 17.

I can see your point Rags, but to me she was still 12 and cannot legally given consent, no matter if she claimed she was 16.

Difficult case.


I don't think it's that difficult. It's still not clear if she told him she was 16, but if she did, and she looked 16 or more, he could not have known that she was 12 and that she couldn't give consent.

That does not matter, when she legally cannot give consent.
You cannot assume age, just as you cannot assume, that a girl drunk wants sex if you go back to her apartment. So it does not matter whether he knew her age. He should not have had sex with her until he did know her age. The judge made a grave error of judgement and it sends out the wrong message.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:49 am

What was the girl doing out so late, and why did she go back to his flat anyway? She consented, and he clearly thought she was over 12. The spirit of the law should be applied here rather than the letter of the law.

The guy was only 19 himself, and he was clearly shocked to find out her real age. He has suffered enough. I think the girl should have some remorse about what he went through.

I don't like the term "statutory rape" anyway - I think it's misleading and silly.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:54 am

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the girl doing out so late, and why did she go back to his flat anyway? She consented, and he clearly thought she was over 12. The spirit of the law should be applied here rather than the letter of the law.

The guy was only 19 himself, and he was clearly shocked to find out her real age. He has suffered enough. I think the girl should have some remorse about what he went through.

I don't like the term "statutory rape" anyway - I think it's misleading and silly.


She cannot legally consent because she is 12 years old.
I agree she should not be out and there is the question of that.
Its his responsibility to know the age and verify this and if he cant, he should never have had sex.
That is the law.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:55 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:What was the girl doing out so late, and why did she go back to his flat anyway? She consented, and he clearly thought she was over 12. The spirit of the law should be applied here rather than the letter of the law.

The guy was only 19 himself, and he was clearly shocked to find out her real age. He has suffered enough. I think the girl should have some remorse about what he went through.

I don't like the term "statutory rape" anyway - I think it's misleading and silly.


She cannot legally consent because she is 12 years old.
I agree she should not be out and there is the question of that.
Its his responsibility to know the age and verify this and if he cant, he should never have had sex.
That is the law.

He didn't know she was 12 though. She clearly did consent. I suppose he could have asked for her ID.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:57 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


She cannot legally consent because she is 12 years old.
I agree she should not be out and there is the question of that.
Its his responsibility to know the age and verify this and if he cant, he should never have had sex.
That is the law.

He didn't know she was 12 though. She clearly did consent. I suppose he could have asked for her ID.


It does not matter that he did not know, that is not a defense.
She cannot give consent, as she is 12 years old, now matter how many times you keep claiming otherwise.
He simply should not have jumped into bed with her.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:00 am

Also its impossible to be consent when he admitted to rape.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:10 am

This is why I don't like the term "statutory rape". It implies some kind of force or verbal non-consent. The girl clearly consented.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:13 am

Raggamuffin wrote:This is why I don't like the term "statutory rape". It implies some kind of force or verbal non-consent. The girl clearly consented.


“Under 13” – The victim must be below the age of 13-years at the time of the rape.
Note that the victim’s consent does not matter. This is because children aged under 13 are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity – this means that even if the child agrees to engage in a sexual activity, a crime has still been committed because their “consent” is considered invalid.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:14 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:This is why I don't like the term "statutory rape". It implies some kind of force or verbal non-consent. The girl clearly consented.


“Under 13” – The victim must be below the age of 13-years at the time of the rape.
Note that the victim’s consent does not matter. This is because children aged under 13 are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity – this means that even if the child agrees to engage in a sexual activity, a crime has still been committed because their “consent” is considered invalid.

But he didn't know she was 12. Did she actually tell him she was 16? The reports say that was "told" she was 16, but it's not clear if the girl herself told him that.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:17 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


“Under 13” – The victim must be below the age of 13-years at the time of the rape.
Note that the victim’s consent does not matter. This is because children aged under 13 are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity – this means that even if the child agrees to engage in a sexual activity, a crime has still been committed because their “consent” is considered invalid.

But he didn't know she was 12. Did she actually tell him she was 16? The reports say that was "told" she was 16, but it's not clear if the girl herself told him that.


It does not matter that he did not know, that is not a defense.
Again she was 12, she cannot give consent and he admitted to rape.
You can claim otherwise all you like, but you will still be in error.
Now please continue to repeat yourself, it won't make you right on this.

Laters

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:24 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

But he didn't know she was 12. Did she actually tell him she was 16? The reports say that was "told" she was 16, but it's not clear if the girl herself told him that.


It does not matter that he did not know, that is not a defense.
Again she was 12, she cannot give consent and he admitted to rape.
You can claim otherwise all you like, but you will still be in error.
Now please continue to repeat yourself, it won't make you right on this.

Laters

You're the one repeating yourself over and again. In the KH case you set great store on the decisions of judges, and now you don't - what suits you at the time eh?

I suppose you would have thrown him in jail and ruined his life because he made a mistake.

Of course I can be right - you're the one disagreeing with the judge, not me.


_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:46 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


It does not matter that he did not know, that is not a defense.
Again she was 12, she cannot give consent and he admitted to rape.
You can claim otherwise all you like, but you will still be in error.
Now please continue to repeat yourself, it won't make you right on this.

Laters

You're the one repeating yourself over and again. In the KH case you set great store on the decisions of judges, and now you don't - what suits you at the time eh?

I suppose you would have thrown him in jail and ruined his life because he made a mistake.

Of course I can be right - you're the one disagreeing with the judge, not me.



Oh dear

You are wrong, the law disagrees with you, the guilty party disagrees with you as he admitted rape, even the judgement is that he raped her.

Its your stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong that is the issue here, not anything else..

You have basically argued that now to you a pedophile is not committing rape to children under 13 if they according to you, consent.

Go figure

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:00 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're the one repeating yourself over and again. In the KH case you set great store on the decisions of judges, and now you don't - what suits you at the time eh?

I suppose you would have thrown him in jail and ruined his life because he made a mistake.

Of course I can be right - you're the one disagreeing with the judge, not me.



Oh dear

You are wrong, the law disagrees with you, the guilty party disagrees with you as he admitted rape, even the judgement is that he raped her.

Its your stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong that is the issue here, not anything else..

You have basically argued that now to you a pedophile is not committing rape to children under 13 if they according to you, consent.

Go figure

Of course he had to plead guilty. However, the judge gave him an absolute discharge on the grounds that it was reasonable to assume that the girl was over 16. Are you suggesting that she broke the law? I agree with her. I think he was a victim actually.

A paedophile would know that someone was under 13 - this chap did not. Do you see the difference?

By they way, paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:04 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


Oh dear

You are wrong, the law disagrees with you, the guilty party disagrees with you as he admitted rape, even the judgement is that he raped her.

Its your stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong that is the issue here, not anything else..

You have basically argued that now to you a pedophile is not committing rape to children under 13 if they according to you, consent.

Go figure

Of course he had to plead guilty. However, the judge gave him an absolute discharge on the grounds that it was reasonable to assume that the girl was over 16. Are you suggesting that she broke the law? I agree with her. I think he was a victim actually.

A paedophile would know that someone was under 13 - this chap did not. Do you see the difference?

By they way, paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children.


And many have condemned the judge for the decision.

Which is not the first time either she has made such a gaff on a court case

A pedophile may not know the age also

So again you are justifying rape by pedophiles

You can think all you like, but its not consent and you justify child rape.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:09 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course he had to plead guilty. However, the judge gave him an absolute discharge on the grounds that it was reasonable to assume that the girl was over 16. Are you suggesting that she broke the law? I agree with her. I think he was a victim actually.

A paedophile would know that someone was under 13 - this chap did not. Do you see the difference?

By they way, paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children.


And many have condemned the judge for the decision.

Which is not the first time either she has made such a gaff on a court case

A pedophile may not know the age also

So again you are justifying rape by pedophiles

You can think all you like, but its not consent and you justify child rape.

Why would a paedophile want someone he thinks is older than 16? I'm merely explaining the difference to you re a paedophile and someone who genuinely thinks someone is over 16. If you choose to interpret that as justifying child rape, that's up to you, but it makes you look rather petulant and foolish.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:11 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


And many have condemned the judge for the decision.

Which is not the first time either she has made such a gaff on a court case

A pedophile may not know the age also

So again you are justifying rape by pedophiles

You can think all you like, but its not consent and you justify child rape.

Why would a paedophile want someone he thinks is older than 16? I'm merely explaining the difference to you re a paedophile and someone who genuinely thinks someone is over 16. If you choose to interpret that as justifying child rape, that's up to you, but it makes you look rather petulant and foolish.


Because many pedophiles have normal adult sexual relationships.
Or did you not know that?
You are again failing to show you understand anything

Conclusion:

Its not consent.
He committed Rape
The judgement was rape
Not knowing the age, is not an excuse.

You justify child rape

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:17 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Why would a paedophile want someone he thinks is older than 16? I'm merely explaining the difference to you re a paedophile and someone who genuinely thinks someone is over 16. If you choose to interpret that as justifying child rape, that's up to you, but it makes you look rather petulant and foolish.


Because many pedophiles have normal adult sexual relationships.
Or did you not know that?
You are again failing to show you understand anything

Conclusion:

Its not consent.
He committed Rape
The judgement was rape
Not knowing the age, is not an excuse.

You justify child rape

This guy isn't a paedophile, so it's completely irrelevant. Paedophiles are attracted to children who are pre-pubescent - which bit of that do you not understand? This guy was not attracted to the girl because she was pre-pubescent - he thought she was over 16.

Believing that someone is 16 is a defence actually, especially if they say they are, and they clearly look as if they are.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:21 am

Anyway, my advice to this young man is to try to the put the incident behind him and move on, and also to refrain from meeting young women of any kind at taxi ranks and taking them home.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:25 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


Because many pedophiles have normal adult sexual relationships.
Or did you not know that?
You are again failing to show you understand anything

Conclusion:

Its not consent.
He committed Rape
The judgement was rape
Not knowing the age, is not an excuse.

You justify child rape

This guy isn't a paedophile, so it's completely irrelevant. Paedophiles are attracted to children who are pre-pubescent - which bit of that do you not understand? This guy was not attracted to the girl because she was pre-pubescent - he thought she was over 16.  

Believing that someone is 16 is a defence actually, especially if they say they are, and they clearly look as if they are.


It does not matter, as you just argued based off you believing that under 13's can give consent to sex.
A pedophile will also groom teens.
Ignorance is not a defense as Quill has pointed out.
Are you claiming, that because someone does not know how to drive and then drives a car and kills someone, that their ignorance of not knowing how to drive is a defense?
Stop making up nonsense.
Again, you are justifying child rape, based off your belief under 13's can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:33 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

This guy isn't a paedophile, so it's completely irrelevant. Paedophiles are attracted to children who are pre-pubescent - which bit of that do you not understand? This guy was not attracted to the girl because she was pre-pubescent - he thought she was over 16.  

Believing that someone is 16 is a defence actually, especially if they say they are, and they clearly look as if they are.


It does not matter, as you just argued based off you believing that under 13's can give consent to sex.
A pedophile will also groom teens.
Ignorance is not a defense as Quill has pointed out.
Are you claiming, that because someone does not know how to drive and then drives a car and kills someone, that their ignorance of not knowing how to drive is a defense?
Stop making up nonsense.
Again, you are justifying child rape, based off your belief under 13's can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

You're introducing red herrings yet again. This is about a young man who thought, and was told, that a girl was over 16, for good reasons. Paedophiles "grooming" young girls are nothing to do with it.

Driving cars is also nothing to do with it - another red herring. If someone can't drive and then tries to drive and kills someone, they're not doing it out of ignorance are they? That's just nonsense.

Ignorance of the law is a different issue. There's no indication that this chap was ignorant of the law, he just believed the girl was over 16 - for good reason.


Last edited by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:37 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:36 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


It does not matter, as you just argued based off you believing that under 13's can give consent to sex.
A pedophile will also groom teens.
Ignorance is not a defense as Quill has pointed out.
Are you claiming, that because someone does not know how to drive and then drives a car and kills someone, that their ignorance of not knowing how to drive is a defense?
Stop making up nonsense.
Again, you are justifying child rape, based off your belief under 13's can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

You're introducing red herrings yet again. This is about a young man who thought, and was told, that a girl was over 16, for good reasons. Paedophiles "grooming" young girls is nothing to do with it.

Driving cars is also nothing to do with it - another red herring. If someone can't drive and then tries to drive and kills someone, they're not doing it out of ignorance are they? That's just nonsense.

Ignorance of the law is a different issue. There's no indication that this chap was ignorant of the law, he just believed the girl was over 16 - for good reason.


It has everything to do with it, you just have a tunnel vision aspect at looking at anything.

Driving cars was a very good example to show your argument from ignorance is invalid. As not knowing how to drive, would be an invalid defense.

Again this is besides the point, you have argued that its acceptable to rape a child, as to you under 13's can give consent to sex.

No they cannot.


Last edited by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:39 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:39 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're introducing red herrings yet again. This is about a young man who thought, and was told, that a girl was over 16, for good reasons. Paedophiles "grooming" young girls is nothing to do with it.

Driving cars is also nothing to do with it - another red herring. If someone can't drive and then tries to drive and kills someone, they're not doing it out of ignorance are they? That's just nonsense.

Ignorance of the law is a different issue. There's no indication that this chap was ignorant of the law, he just believed the girl was over 16 - for good reason.


It has everything to do with it, you just have a tunnel vision aspect at looking at anything.

Driving cars was a very good example to show your argument from ignorance is invalid.

Again this is besides the point, you have argued that is acceptable to rape a child, as to you under 13's can give consent to sex.

No they cannot.

The red herrings are stacking up now. Laughing

You're comparing the situation to someone who doesn't know he's actually trying to drive a car. You need to come up with something better than that.

The girl did give consent - there's no suggestion that she was forced or "groomed" in any way.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:42 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


It has everything to do with it, you just have a tunnel vision aspect at looking at anything.

Driving cars was a very good example to show your argument from ignorance is invalid.

Again this is besides the point, you have argued that is acceptable to rape a child, as to you under 13's can give consent to sex.

No they cannot.

The red herrings are stacking up now. Laughing

You're comparing the situation to someone who doesn't know he's actually trying to drive a car. You need to come up with something better than that.

The girl did give consent - there's no suggestion that she was forced or "groomed" in any way.


The counters from ignorance are stacking up from you... Smile

I am comparing arguments from ignorance and in each case they are invalid.
So I dont need to come up with anything for you further, that nailed it

So you again approve of child rape

As you believe 12 year olds can give consent to sex
No they cannot


“A 12-year-old child does not legally have the capacity to give their consent and sexual activity with them is always therefore a sexual offence.”

They added: “It’s any adult’s legal and moral responsibility to actively seek and be sure they have received the other person’s consent for any and all sexual activity with them.

“This includes making sure that that person has the freedom and capacity to give their consent. For example, if someone is unsure as to whether the person they’re with is too drunk to freely consent, they should not have sex with them.”


Last edited by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:47 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:47 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The red herrings are stacking up now. Laughing

You're comparing the situation to someone who doesn't know he's actually trying to drive a car. You need to come up with something better than that.

The girl did give consent - there's no suggestion that she was forced or "groomed" in any way.


The counters from ignorance are stacking up from you... Smile

I am comparing arguments from ignorance and in each case they are invalid.
So I dont need to come up with anything for you further, that nailed it

So you can again approve of child rape

As you believe 12 year olds can give consent to sex
No they cannot


“A 12-year-old child does not legally have the capacity to give their consent and sexual activity with them is always therefore a sexual offence.”

They added: “It’s any adult’s legal and moral responsibility to actively seek and be sure they have received the other person’s consent for any and all sexual activity with them.

“This includes making sure that that person has the freedom and capacity to give their consent. For example, if someone is unsure as to whether the person they’re with is too drunk to freely consent, they should not have sex with them.”

As you're so fond of red herrings, how about this one?

If the boys who had killed Jamie Bulger had been 9 instead of 10, would you say that they didn't commit a criminal offence? Would you say they didn't murder him? After all, children under 10 cannot be prosecuted for a criminal offence.

You haven't nailed anything, and repeatedly accusing me of approving of child rape just makes you look desperate. Razz

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:48 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


The counters from ignorance are stacking up from you... Smile

I am comparing arguments from ignorance and in each case they are invalid.
So I dont need to come up with anything for you further, that nailed it

So you can again approve of child rape

As you believe 12 year olds can give consent to sex
No they cannot




As you're so fond of red herrings, how about this one?

If the boys who had killed Jamie Bulger had been 9 instead of 10, would you say that they didn't commit a criminal offence? Would you say they didn't murder him? After all, children under 10 cannot be prosecuted for a criminal offence.

You haven't nailed anything, and repeatedly accusing me of approving of child rape just makes you look desperate. Razz


I have nailed it

Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Again you approve of child rape, as you believe girls of 12 can give consent.

No they cannot

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:51 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

As you're so fond of red herrings, how about this one?




I have nailed it

Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Again you approve of child rape, as you believe girls of 12 can give consent.

No they cannot

There's no suggestion that the chap was ignorant of the law. He just believed she was over 16, which is a different issue.

You're looking really desperate now. lol!

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:52 am

I see you completely ignored my question about the boys who killed Jamie Bulger. Cool

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:53 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I have nailed it

Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Again you approve of child rape, as you believe girls of 12 can give consent.

No they cannot

There's no suggestion that the chap was ignorant of the law. He just believed she was over 16, which is a different issue.

You're looking really desperate now. lol!


You claimed a 12 year old can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

Thus that means you are justifying and approving of child rape

“Under 13” – The victim must be below the age of 13-years at the time of the rape.

Note that the victim’s consent does not matter. This is because children aged under 13 are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity – this means that even if the child agrees to engage in a sexual activity, a crime has still been committed because their “consent” is considered invalid.

The mens rea of a crime can be thought of as its “mental” part, i.e. the intentions and thought processes of the defendant. The rape of a child under 13 is unusual in that there is no mens rea element.

This means that it does not matter if the defendant thought the victim was consenting, or if they thought the victim was over the age of consent (16) – they are still guilty.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Guest on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:55 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I see you completely ignored my question about the boys who killed Jamie Bulger. Cool

Mainly as it was dumbly based hypothetically, off a different age to what they were.

Zero relevance

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by HoratioTarr on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:55 am

What the hell was a 16 year old doing out alone at 4am?
avatar
HoratioTarr

Posts : 6871
Join date : 2014-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:56 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no suggestion that the chap was ignorant of the law. He just believed she was over 16, which is a different issue.

You're looking really desperate now. lol!


You claimed a 12 year old can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

Thus that means you are justifying and approving of child rape

“Under 13” – The victim must be below the age of 13-years at the time of the rape.

Note that the victim’s consent does not matter. This is because children aged under 13 are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity – this means that even if the child agrees to engage in a sexual activity, a crime has still been committed because their “consent” is considered invalid.

The mens rea of a crime can be thought of as its “mental” part, i.e. the intentions and thought processes of the defendant. The rape of a child under 13 is unusual in that there is no mens rea element.

This means that it does not matter if the defendant thought the victim was consenting, or if they thought the victim was over the age of consent (16) – they are still guilty.

If he didn't know she was 12, he couldn't know that she couldn't legally consent. He wasn't a mind reader and he couldn't have known that she was 12.

Are you going to accuse the judge of approving of child rape too? Be careful - that could be libellous. Cool

Perhaps the best solution would be to prosecute girls (and boys) who have sex when they're underage. Then perhaps they wouldn't go around agreeing to have sex with adults, or even initiating it.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29345
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum