Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Man: "You honor, that 7 year-old girl pinned me down and forced her tongue in my mouth, it's not my fault" Judge: "Hmm, seems legit"   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 29
    More: Fail, custodial sentence, County Durham, Teesside Crown Court  
•       •       •

12421 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:05 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-20 11:29:03 PM  
3 votes:
grimlock1972: Dafuq did i just read?

Pedophiles will justify their victimization of children by saying that it was something the child did. The child actually wants to be molested or raped in their mind. Their body language or actions are read as sultry or alluring to someone like the guy in the article.

They don't view it as harming a child. They view it as giving a child what they want, and showing their love towards a child.

Normal people, on the other hand, view it as justifiable homicide.
2012-07-20 11:12:31 PM  
3 votes:
Mail Online article
[please don't be the US please don't be the US please don't be the US]

"Teesside Crown Court"
Whew!

"But Judge Gillian Matthews gave him a suspended sentence because it was the only way he could receive treatment"

WTF, Britain?
2012-07-20 10:21:28 PM  
3 votes:
Actually, it looks like "Judge Gillian Matthews gave him a suspended sentence because it was the only way he could receive treatment"

So the Judge found him guilty and gave him to a suspended sentence so he could go to the looney bin to be with doctors.

The old UK laws were better. Was a time when 7 would get you 6 (feet under)
2012-07-21 12:36:44 AM  
2 votes:
BronyMedic:

Pedophiles will justify their victimization of children by saying that it was something the child did. The child actually wants to be molested or raped in their mind. Their body language or actions are read as sultry or alluring to someone like the guy in the article.

Some kids do watch soap operas or non-G-rated stuff on TV and imitate that. When I was little I did, and I knew girls my age who also did. (Except I was afraid to tongue-kiss because I thought that might make her pregnant and her child would have no name, like on As The World Turns.) To assume that a 7 year old has no idea at all of what she's doing is naive: she's trying to make a boy like her just like they do on TV. What else are females in the USA supposed to be good for? "We make her paint her face and dance."

However, an adult -- or anybody older than say 12 -- is supposed to know that she doesn't really fully understand, and refuse to take advantage of her "sexiness." That the fact that the kid has been watching TV or movies and is consciously trying to copy the mannerisms and behavior they see portrayed is no excuse to do it with her.

Still, hiding in a platonic cave and swallowing exaggerated propaganda whole is silly: haven't you ever watched an afternoon soap opera or a prime-time dramatic series that depicts women in "alluring" roles?

If so, do you hear anything like, oh, a voiceover say "Don't try this at home KIDS, these people are adult professionals?" Is there some kind of built-in electronic device that will make it impossible for a 3rd grader to watch the show? No?

Given the givens, some kids will try to grow up too fast. What the adults around them should do is realize where such behavior comes from and explain to the kid why, if she must try such things, she should do them with other kids her own age.


They don't view it as harming a child. They view it as giving a child what they want, and showing their love towards a child.


Here's the rub: from their perspective they may be perfectly correct. If it's true that most people are born heterosexual except the few who are born homo- or bisexual, it must be possible for people to be born pedophiles. This doesn't make it right to act on those urges, certainly not in a culture like ours that cultivates such pernicious neuroses around mixing sex with power, but it does make it understandable with a wee bit of effort. And you should not lose sight of the fact that your disapproval of his/her drives does not cancel out the pedo's humanity.

That said, I myself can't make the leap from "cute kid" to WOW! must get nekkid!" I remember having crushes on 3rd grade girls in 3rd grade, but by the time I'd turned 11 what interested me was 16 year olds. (And I never understood how any farmboy could boink a sheep or something.) It takes no great feat of imagination to have some empathy for another human being, but to imitate some aspects of their desires and behaviors is quite beyond me.

Which is well and good: I don't deserve any credit for not molesting a kid when I don't want to anyway. The person who deserves credit is the person who does have such desires and chokes them down, analogous to the fact that though I've been surrounded by annoying idiots my whole life I ain't yet stabbed any of them. (For that y'all should give me credit, sho' nuff, or better yet stacks of 20s.)

For extra credit, try this: imagine what it must be like to be born a pedophile. I expect it would suck: one false move and the local peasants will gore you with a thousand pitchforks. Yet there is temptation all around, because being a self-abnegating monk in an understanding little community far away from where kids might be has gone out of style.

Maybe in this case we should bring back "monasteries" where people can go to hide from what they want. Which should be protected from people who want to kill them just because of the way they were born.
2012-07-20 11:38:04 PM  
2 votes:
If it is true, this person should be , but its the Daily Mail, which means it may have as much relation to the truth as martians visiting the President and giving him the 2030 version of the Wii. They actually damage the cause when the report a true story, and that's a damned shame.
2012-07-20 11:24:36 PM  
2 votes:
Dafuq did i just read?
2012-07-20 11:20:06 PM  
2 votes:
doglover: Actually, it looks like "Judge Gillian Matthews gave him a suspended sentence because it was the only way he could receive treatment"

So the Judge found him guilty and gave him to a suspended sentence so he could go to the looney bin to be with doctors.

The old UK laws were better. Was a time when 7 would get you 6 (feet under)


So much this. Some people just need a good killing.
2012-07-21 04:16:18 PM  
1 votes:

Mithiwithi: Meethos: The One True TheDavid: Meethos: The One True TheDavid: Pedo apologist crap

Dude, no. All of it. No.

Read it again. Slowly. Move your lips if you have to.

Or are you unable to think outside your blinkered little box?

I'm good man. Thanks though.

Playing devil's advocate is fun, just not with pedos.

Feel free to quote any part of any of The One True TheDavid's posts where he says it's okay to have sex with the little kiddies, or where he says anyone who does so shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.


Hey, now I don't have to say that. Thanks.
2012-07-21 07:53:16 AM  
1 votes:

profplump: Second, we could spend less money imprisoning drug offenders and more money treating pedophiles. Everyone wins, no additional money needed.


This is the main part of my grand overhaul scheme of the justice system. I'd like to see a lot of the judicial system in general be cut back. No, you don't get a bunch of weird little laws, infinite appeals, and lawyer tricks. For criminal law, a lot of things can simply be discarded or dealt with as a lot more minor than they currently are.

Underage drinking? You should have the cop drag you by your ear back to your old man who should then yell at you for awhile and possibly take his belt off and menace you with it. Then the cop goes home writes up a mission accomplished report, and you and your old man crack some more beers and laugh about how your dumb ass got caught and how to avoid it in the future.

Pot? How is it a crime to be high? Stoners really only hurt themselves. Hard drug users also smoke pot, but it's not a violence enhancer on its own. Whiskey should be illegal long before pot's on the block. Let people grow their own. If you really need a binky, make it illegal to import or something.

Raping somebody? Incarceration costs a lot of money. Rehabilitation is long, expensive road. Pinking shears are $2.99 at Walmart. They've got two choices: be rendered safe through an expensive rehabilitation program the jails can suddenly afford, or opt out and learn about "cut rate" solutions.
2012-07-21 06:08:12 AM  
1 votes:

doglover: Since we can't really fix them, and we can't leave them out there on the streets, and we can barely afford to care for all of our law abiding citizens.... what choices are left?


First, you can't say things like "barely afford to care for all of our law abiding citizens" and expect to be taken seriously.

Second, we could spend less money imprisoning drug offenders and more money treating pedophiles. Everyone wins, no additional money needed.

Third, we could reform the prison system in general; pedophiles need to be isolated from children, but that doesn't necessarily mean they need to be locked in a tiny room, under 24/7 heavy guard, doing nothing economically productive. Is there some reason a pedophile couldn't be a perfectly good accountant or computer programmer or factory worker, so long as they were kept isolated from their potential victims?
2012-07-21 04:53:15 AM  
1 votes:

Damn that judge for believing that story (THIS DID NOT HAPPEN) and acquitting the man (THIS DID NOT HAPPEN EITHER).

Thompson admitted a charge of sexual assault and was given an eight-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, with probation service supervision. He was also put on the sex offenders' register, banned from having unsupervised contact with girls under 16 and ordered to attend a treatment programme. Judge Matthews told Thompson: 'You are a man of good character and that is an important feature in the sentencing assessment, and also your having pleaded guilty.

'I note what has been said about that child and her background. However, it is very clear to me she is an extremely vulnerable victim. I know not whether you selected her deliberately, but it seems to me you should have been able to withstand such attentions as she was giving you.

'I have read the pre-sentence report and noted the factors in there carefully, and you reveal some worrying traits in your beliefs about this matter. Therefore, it is impossible for me to assess fully the risk you pose and I have to err on the side of caution that you are potentially a high risk of offending against other female children.

'Therefore, it is vital that you are subject to a sex offenders' treatment programme. Bearing in mind the guidelines for sentencing in such cases, I could not pass a sentence of imprisonment which would ensure you receive treatment.'
2012-07-21 04:23:08 AM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Mithiwithi:
Feel free to quote any part of any of The One True TheDavid's posts where he says it's okay to have sex with the little kiddies, or where he says anyone who does so shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.

Uh, maybe you missed this. It's understandable.

The One True TheDavid: Here's the rub: from their perspective they may be perfectly correct. If it's true that most people are born heterosexual except the few who are born homo- or bisexual, it must be possible for people to be born pedophiles. This doesn't make it right to act on those urges, certainly not in a culture like ours that cultivates such pernicious neuroses around mixing sex with power, but it does make it understandable with a wee bit of effort. And you should not lose sight of the fact that your disapproval of his/her drives does not cancel out the pedo's humanity.

We should feel sorry the poor, poor pedophiles. Oh, woe are them. They were "born that way".


No, we need to understand that they were born that way. That's a whole lot different from EXONERATING them from being born that way. We also need to acknowledge that about 35% of them would like to change what they recognize as a horrible behavior, treat them; and adjust our incarceration laws so the other 65% can be kept locked up indefinitely.

Semi-cool story: My friend the CO has a known pedophile in his pod. This guy has been incarcerated twice for kiddie-diddling. He continually screws up in prison (thus ruining his chances for parole) because he KNOWS he will reoffend when he is released and doesn't want to--he literally cannot help himself. This inmate's solution is to keep himself in prison as much as possible so he can't commit any more crimes. But our current laws don't allow us to keep him in prison past his release date.

I don't feel sorry for him, but I do feel sorry that he realizes he's doing wrong, and trying to keep himself away from his prey.
2012-07-21 03:36:46 AM  
1 votes:

Z-clipped: I think The David has a point. He's not apologizing for the behavior of pedophiles. He's just pointing out our unusual willingness to dehumanize them, instead of treating them like we treat other criminals (ie, that there exists at least the possibily of rehabilitation, repaying society for their crimes, and leading a consructive life).

His point isn't about the guy in the article, folks... It's about you.

I can't say I follow on the whole "redneck" thing though. People may look down on poor white trash, but nobody's advocating the idea that they deserve to be lined up and shot just for existing.


No, that wasn't his point at all. It was a lame pastiche pseudo-intellectual disingenuous "Just asking questions" frankenstein's monster of a strawman combining parts of 'white christians are the REAL persecuted people' 'intentional dog whistle conflation of gays and pedos' and 'lieberals are the REAL racists for not tolerating XYZ-stupidity'. I disagree with capital punishment, and despise the condoning or suggestion of torture under any circumstances, and I still think he's an idiot.
2012-07-21 03:18:05 AM  
1 votes:
I think The David has a point. He's not apologizing for the behavior of pedophiles. He's just pointing out our unusual willingness to dehumanize them, instead of treating them like we treat other criminals (ie, that there exists at least the possibily of rehabilitation, repaying society for their crimes, and leading a consructive life).

His point isn't about the guy in the article, folks... It's about you.

I can't say I follow on the whole "redneck" thing though. People may look down on poor white trash, but nobody's advocating the idea that they deserve to be lined up and shot just for existing.
2012-07-21 01:52:38 AM  
1 votes:

Meethos: The One True TheDavid: Meethos: The One True TheDavid: Pedo apologist crap

Dude, no. All of it. No.

Read it again. Slowly. Move your lips if you have to.

Or are you unable to think outside your blinkered little box?

I'm good man. Thanks though.

Playing devil's advocate is fun, just not with pedos.


Feel free to quote any part of any of The One True TheDavid's posts where he says it's okay to have sex with the little kiddies, or where he says anyone who does so shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.
2012-07-21 01:42:34 AM  
1 votes:

I sound fat: Gyrfalcon: I sound fat: Okay internet tough on crime guys, hypothetically, what are you SUPPOSED to do if a seven year old forces her tongue in your mouth? What are YOU gonna say in court?

Can you tell me where this has ever even hypothetically happened...until now?


I notice you have dodged the question. By asking another question. Are you afraid of what your answer might be?


Not being a guy, and not being a pedophile, I'm unlikely to encounter the hypo you have posed.

What a NORMAL person should say if a 7-year old child innocently slips you the tongue is to first tell it that that is inappropriate for a child to be doing. Second is to tell the parent what their child is up to. Third is to find out where a 7-year old child discovered about sticking its tongue in someone's mouth when kissing them and crush that at the source.

If you let it get all the way to court, you've missed those three very important steps, and probably deserve what you get.
2012-07-21 12:54:33 AM  
1 votes:

The One True TheDavid: Pedo apologist crap


Dude, no. All of it. No.
2012-07-21 12:52:23 AM  
1 votes:
In contemporary America there are two kinds of people it's perfectly acceptable to hate, loathe and despise: poor white people (especially rural and/or southern ones) and people cursed by an unacceptable attraction to children. Indeed, it's become P.I. to even consider that "those people" might be human. (Unlike, say, RuPaul, whose every lip twitch must be applauded.)

Everybody else gets a pass: even guys who gun down a dozen perfect strangers for no good reason get their behavior and supposed psychology analyzed all over the New York Times and People Magazine, but let a white guy listen to Conway Twitty in a trailer or let anybody feel up one kid (or -- gasp -- both) and the attitude becomes "there's no understanding such people, you just have to beat them down."

Anyone who can swallow that some people are born "women trapped in male bodies" -- especially those who furiously defend them and their ways -- should be able to at least decry bigotry against rednecks and pedos as well. If it's bigotry itself that's wrong, that is.
2012-07-21 12:25:55 AM  
1 votes:

I sound fat: Okay internet tough on crime guys, hypothetically, what are you SUPPOSED to do if a seven year old forces her tongue in your mouth? What are YOU gonna say in court?


Can you tell me where this has ever even hypothetically happened...until now?
2012-07-21 12:04:27 AM  
1 votes:
Guys, it's the Daily Fail.
2012-07-20 11:47:47 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: grimlock1972: Dafuq did i just read?

Pedophiles will justify their victimization of children by saying that it was something the child did. The child actually wants to be molested or raped in their mind. Their body language or actions are read as sultry or alluring to someone like the guy in the article.

They don't view it as harming a child. They view it as giving a child what they want, and showing their love towards a child.


What I really wonder about is whether they are rationalizing after the fact, or actually perceiving innocent behavior as sexual. And if it's the latter, why they don't think "let's not encourage this."
2012-07-20 11:45:59 PM  
1 votes:
'Bearing in mind the guidelines for sentencing in such cases, I could not pass a sentence of imprisonment which would ensure you receive treatment.'

Aren't mandatory sentencing guidelines great? I'm SO glad judges are prevented from using their judgement.
2012-07-20 11:42:43 PM  
1 votes:
Playing doctor before puberty as we did in the white slums of Baltimore, I can agree that some little girls know about tongue-kissing somehow. However I was 9 at the time and no 7 year old girl could hold me down then; 40 years later I could throw one across a one-way street.

The flirtiness and tongue-kissing I buy, especially given what they show in TV, but not the held down part. And why was he in such close quarters with a 7 year old he's not related to at age 61? Is he some kind of pervert or something? You're not supposed to take a 7 year old up on it, you're supposed to say "if you're going to do that you should pick on somebody your own age" -- and gently shove her off your lap. (If I could do it age 13 anybody can.)
2012-07-20 11:39:36 PM  
1 votes:
Should be -Insert painful punishment here-
is what I meant
2012-07-20 11:27:15 PM  
1 votes:
Could the judge be a Pedophile? They hate to convict one of their buddies they see socially under ground.
2012-07-20 11:26:51 PM  
1 votes:

doglover: Actually, it looks like "Judge Gillian Matthews gave him a suspended sentence because it was the only way he could receive treatment"

So the Judge found him guilty and gave him to a suspended sentence so he could go to the looney bin to be with doctors.

The old UK laws were better. Was a time when 7 would get you 6 (feet under)


I disagree with the judge's ruling. This criminal would have gotten the correct and just treatment in prison. By the other inmates.
2012-07-20 11:17:30 PM  
1 votes:
So who else read the Daily Mail headline as "Furry as paedophile,"?
2012-07-20 11:17:00 PM  
1 votes:

ExperianScaresCthulhu: I don't know, man. I truly believe MJ was an innocent.


I have tens of millions of US dolars in Nigeria that I need to get out of the country. If you help me retrieve it I'll cut you in for 40%.
2012-07-20 11:13:43 PM  
1 votes:

danielscissorhands: This could have been Michael Jackson's defence.

I don't know, man. I truly believe MJ was an innocent.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report