View Full Version : Is it really abduction??
downquark1
17-07-2003, 11:04
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3073355.stm
Is it really abduction? the girl left her home willingly. I suppose it depends what happened when she realised he was a adult.:shrug:
I don't understand why everyone is blaming the internet - it can't force you to do anything.
Originally posted by downquark1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3073355.stm
Is it really abduction? the girl left her home willingly. I suppose it depends what happened when she realised he was a adult.:shrug:
I don't understand why everyone is blaming the internet - it can't force you to do anything.
I suppose it matters as well if \ and when he found out her true age. If she maintained that she was 17 then he cant be blamed, but if he knew then, well, NO punishment would \ could be enough :mad:
downquark1
17-07-2003, 11:17
How old did she think he was? - It's hard to keep up in this case.
Originally posted by downquark1
How old did she think he was? - It's hard to keep up in this case. The police are saying that he knew.....and he's got previous
Originally posted by downquark1
How old did she think he was? - It's hard to keep up in this case.
I don't know for sure, I've heard that many conflicting stories on the news.
But I can see this turning into another " trial by media " case as they are already digging up and broadcasting stuff from the guys past, so any future jury member ( if it goes to trial ) is already going to be biased, IMHO that is
:shrug:
Originally posted by Ramrod
The police are saying that he knew.....and he's got previous
As much as I don't like the system ( in the fact that he got off ) but wasn't that case dropped ?
timewarrior2001
17-07-2003, 11:23
To me it seems another case of a very stupid girl getting an innocent man into serious trouble.
What I really really dislike is the fact the news insist on inferrring that he may have slept with her in a sexual sense. Unless she makes this allegation then the press should be prosecuted for slander.
If she went of her own free will, what laws has he broken, why should he face a trail? Unless he physically grabbed her and restrained her whilst boarding an aircraft theres no wrong doing. The fact she took her passport shows she was willing to go abroad with this guy.
As for his previous record, he was either found not guilty, or the case was dropped, either way he is legally NOT GUILTY therefor there should be NO record of his alleged crime.
duncant403
17-07-2003, 11:24
Originally posted by downquark1
How old did she think he was? - It's hard to keep up in this case.
It's been reported that she thought he was 19. It was also reported that he thought she was 19 - although it is now being suggested that he knew all along that she is 12.
I'm not sure I understand why a 12-year-old girl would want to run off with someone she thinks is 19.
I hate the way the US police have already been insinuating things against this guy. Quite early on in this case they let it be known that he was 'investigated' for alleged offences against children, but no charges were ever brought. In any civilised country, that means he hasn't done anything wrong! It may have been useful information for the officers investigating this, but what possible justification was there for releasing that information to the public?
He may or may not have committed a crime in this case. If he goes on trial anywhere, he'd better hope it's in the UK. At least he'll be shielded from the worst excesses of prejudicial media reporting.
timewarrior2001
17-07-2003, 11:29
Goes to trail for what though? I still dont understand what law he has broken.
downquark1
17-07-2003, 11:30
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
The fact she took her passport shows she was willing to go abroad with this guy.
. [/B]
Just have to see what is said.
It annoys me that the they keep going on about it being the internet's fault. Which is easier? Getting filters and monitoring children - or teaching them common sense?
Must.... meet bopdude abroad...:spin:
duncant403
17-07-2003, 11:31
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
If she went of her own free will, what laws has he broken, why should he face a trail? Unless he physically grabbed her and restrained her whilst boarding an aircraft theres no wrong doing. The fact she took her passport shows she was willing to go abroad with this guy.
As for his previous record, he was either found not guilty, or the case was dropped, either was he is legally NOT GUILTY therefor there should be NO record of his alleged crime.
AFAIK, you need the parents/guardian's permission to take a minor out of the country - even if the minor is willing. I suppose in that respect, it's a bit like statutory rape - even if both are willing, because one is still a minor it is still unlawful. It's not abduction in the more commonly thought sense in fact she wasn't (as far as we know) taken against her will - but it is still abduction as he didn't have her parents' permission (and he should have known that). (Similarly, separated parents can be charged with abduction if they take their children without the other parent's permission).
With regards his previous record, the criminal case was dropped due to lack of evidence - but the lawyer who deciding against prosecuting him is quoted as saying he regretted the decision, given the recent saga.
Originally posted by downquark1
Must.... meet bopdude abroad...:spin:
:shrug: :wavey: :confused:
downquark1
17-07-2003, 11:37
Originally posted by bopdude
:shrug: :wavey: :confused:
I was just pointing out that because I talk on the internet I don't want to go and meet people.
Originally posted by duncant403
With regards his previous record, the criminal case was dropped due to lack of evidence - but the lawyer who deciding against prosecuting him is quoted as saying he regretted the decision, given the recent saga.
"Lack of evidence", no trial... innocent
"Recent saga" ?.... still unfolding, no case has been bought yet, which re-inforces my earlier statement about " trial by media "
Originally posted by downquark1
I was just pointing out that because I talk on the internet I don't want to go and meet people.
I see :) But I'm in the U.K. :shrug:
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Goes to trail for what though? I still dont understand what law he has broken.
They will investigate to see if he abducted her, or 'groomed' her for paedophile activity. He hasn't been charged with anything and the police may yet decide he hasn't broken any laws.
gotta agree with bopdude, there is no evidence againsed this guy yet - but the media have already decided hes some sicko who was out to do her harm.....
if he had set out out with that plan, then why is she back home? if he was going to do something/done something then surely she would simply of vanished? why would he let her go home and tell folk what they had been upto?
downquark1
17-07-2003, 11:57
I wonder if he ment to target other countries or it was just a coinsidence.
That is hyperthetically assuming he is guilty which there is no evidence yet.
Originally posted by bopdude
As much as I don't like the system ( in the fact that he got off ) but wasn't that case dropped ? Yes, don't know why
Originally posted by Mark W
the media have already decided hes some sicko who was out to do her harm.....
I just had a look at today's Daily Mail, which contains an interview with someone who claims he assaulted her years ago. This is absolutely outrageous! He was never even prosecuted over it, so for a start it could well be libellous. Furthermore, it could be held to be contempt of court.
Now let's see if I can remember my journo training ...
A newspaper can be found in contempt of court if something it reports represents a 'substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to particular proceedings.'
As a further guide, the newspaper is only at risk if the proceedings in question are currently 'active'. Now I can't remember at what point proceedings become active, (well I left the training centre years ago...) but I am fairly sure they can be active before someone is charged. I would have thought an extradition request by Greater Manchester Police was fairly active...
It should have been immediately obvious to him she wasn't 19, or even 17. I'm not really keen on meeting up with females from the internet :) thats what pubs are for, but if I did and they turned out to be 12 the right thing to do is take them right back home and explain to their parents what happened. You don't fly to Paris with them ? when they are obviously under age.
I also find it abit worrying that he left her in germany to make her own way home. In saying that we only know half the story she could have still been proclaiming to be 17 or something and he just wanted out of there. The media want a paedophile groomed on the internet story and they'll slant everything they can to get it, its sickening really that'll they bury a bloke before most of the information is even known.
I this was an abduction, the guy is a right tw*t for travelling to the UK to abduct a girl and go abroad. I'd think that if he was out for it, he probably would be able to find a victim closer to home with less chance of being found out. But then again, maybe he is just very stupid.
If someone took my 12 year old daughter out of the country without my knowledge, I'd personally like to see them hanged (publically).
downquark1
17-07-2003, 12:09
Originally posted by danielf
I this was an abduction, the guy is a right tw*t for travelling to the UK to abduct a girl and go abroad. I'd think that if he was out for it, he probably would be able to find a victim closer to home with less chance of being found out. But then again, maybe he is just very stupid.
It occured to me he targetted other countries because they may not cause an international fuss, like America would.
But then I ask myself "could anyone be that stupid?":shrug:
zoombini
17-07-2003, 12:12
Although I do not know everything thats been reported, based on what I have seen my thoughts are...
While I can appreciate that "they" may have fibbed about thier ages to each other (in my view, the girl is the worst offender for that, given that her lie changed her perceived minor/adult status) when they met, "They" should have been able to tell that they were different ages than they were supposed to be.
This then leads to a problem, who is supposed to take control of the situation and stop any wrong doing. Unfortunately for him, my understanding of the CPA makes it "his" responsibility to prevent any harm, physical or mental being done to her, given that she is still a child, also to act as a responsible parent would in her parents absence.
What really puzzles me is why then, he allowed her to come on the first plane that was an internal flight?
(Who paid for it? a 12 year old out of her pocket money?)
That is where his abduction of her began, being called abduction because he has taken a minor without parental consent.
Had he stopped the whole shebang there, then he would have been at no fault and it would have been just a real ****er for him, having paid so much for the flights.
However, I am aware that young girls CAN make themselves up to look older and that he may have been fooled for a short while.
(I have not seen a present day picture of her, the released ones are usually old) once he realised, it was his responsibility to ensure that she returned safely. Just leaving her to return on a flight alone was inadequate.
Therefore, he is NOT innocent, even if he did not physically force nor sexually assault her. He HAS broken british law while on British soil. There may have been mitigating cirmumstances and I do not know if the US has the same child protection laws as the UK but he should have had a moral sense that what he was doing was wrong and would be against the law.
Any letter he claims to have can be ignored unless it was witnessed by a non biased third party as it could easily be claimed to have been signed by her under duress.
They both lied, they both did wrong.
SO whats going to happen now?
He will pay for it, maybe in prosecutions/jail time/record etc.
He will never be able to forget nor live it down, the press will not let him, even if he gets off with it all.
She will have her internet account removed & her passport taken away. Get all her friend gossiping with her, become a school celebrity & eventually get a boyfriend in the UK of her own agegroup.
Just my thoughts, right or wrong.
downquark1
17-07-2003, 12:16
In addition to what zoombini said:
And the government will push internet filtering and monitoring - but it won't do anything because a filter can't filter the stupidity of the user.
Seriously, if someone says meet me in such a place and "don't tell anyone" wouldn't you get a little suspecious?
I've told you it'll be okay
Sociable
17-07-2003, 12:25
Originally posted by downquark1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3073355.stm
Is it really abduction? the girl left her home willingly. I suppose it depends what happened when she realised he was a adult.:shrug:
I don't understand why everyone is blaming the internet - it can't force you to do anything.
Short answer is yes it is abduction to take any child out the country without parental consent. It would actually still be abduction if he had only taken her away from the local area in many circumstances. That's why schools have to always get permission slips for school trips.
The issue is clear in this case as a child of 12 can not give consent to being taken overseas. However "willing" the child is is not an issue other than that obviously the seriousness of the offence multiplies exponentially when the child is being forced against their will.
The responsibility always lays with the adult in cases like this. If the basic facts are as reported so far it is clear this guy not only broke the law but knew he was doing so. Had he been in his late teens and the girl been a mature looking 15 year old then the issue would be slightly different but only slightly.
Sorry but given the disparity between their respective ages in this case any claims to being confused over age do not hold water, once they had actually met it must have been obvious she was a child and not an adult.
The seperate issue of the part the internet played in this affair is harder to comment on. Sadly the internet has pitfalls as well as benefits where children are concerned. What is clear is that parents now have to be aware of the potential for abuse this new medium has and must share some of the responsibility for keeping their children safe.
If one good thing comes out of this it will be that everyone from the children themselves, their parents and the authorities will all be more aware of the various issues this raises.
The legislation currently going through parliament will address some of these issues especially with regard to "grooming" but laws can only ever be reactive the responsibility for staying safe will still rest with the adults who influence the activities and behaviour of children and the children putting into practice the lessons they are taught.
Parents, teachers and anyone else able to help make children aware of the dangers they face have a responsibility to make the children under their care safe by informing them and where necessary restricting them for their own safety.
Companies, organisations and even individuals that provide services used by children need to put safeguards in place to ensure their safety and protect them from abuse.
Children need to learn the sad truth that not all adults are good and that often the restrictions that are placed on them as they grow up are essential to protect them from harm rather than to stop them having fun.
timewarrior2001
17-07-2003, 12:30
Its too late to stop the media witchhunt I'm afraid, in many peoples eyes this poor guy is already guilty.
I personally think that the girl herself should be in as much trouble. After all, she did enough to lead the guy astray in the first place and if he's guilty of abduction, shes guilty of entrapment in my oppinion.
downquark1
17-07-2003, 12:33
Companies, organisations and even individuals that provide services used by children need to put safeguards in place to ensure their safety and protect them from abuse.
They do - it's called the shut down button.
Theodoric
17-07-2003, 12:36
The German police had to charge him with something fairly serious in order to hold him, so abduction was as good as anything. From today's papers I see that they aren't going to charge him and we will now try to extradite him, so a succesful conviction for abduction could be problematic.
EDIT: On the other hand, as you don't find many cases of unsuccessful convictions, let's try 'a successful prosecution' instead. :)
Taken from the Times
July 17, 2003
Police 'mind games' rescue girl
By Patrick Barkham, Russell Jenkins and Roger Boyes in Frankfurt
Paedophile Marine is held in Germany
TOBY STUDABAKER, the former US Marine arrested yesterday after running away with a 12-year-old British girl he met on the internet, was a predatory paedophile, police said last night. As Shevaun Pennington was reunited with her parents, detectives revealed that the 31-year-old Afghan war veteran downloaded child pornography and was investigated over sexual allegations concerning two other underage girls in America.
Studabaker was arrested by armed German police in Frankfurt as the Wigan schoolgirl flew back to Britain alone to be reunited with her parents, Stephen and Joanna Pennington, after she was left at Stuttgart airport by Mr Studabaker.
Shevaun had been urged to return home in a series of appeals designed by police psychologists to bring the lovestruck punk rock fan safely back to her family.
In a hugely complex operation involving Greater Manchester police, the FBI, Interpol, numerous psychologists and even the Home Secretary, Mr Studabaker partly arranged his own arrest after telling his brother that he was †œscaredà€ and telephoning the FBI.
After consulting FBI psychologists, naval intelligence and associated intelligence sources in the US, as well as their own criminal profilers, Greater Manchester police privately asked the media yesterday not to disclose the paedophile allegations against Mr Studabaker, which they feared could alarm or endanger Shevaun.
Believing that the runaway pair were watching their own story on satellite television news, police asked the media not to reveal that the FBI had found child pornography on the computer used by the ex-Marine to assiduously cultivate his friendship with Shevaun.
After parting from Shevaun in Stuttgart, the burly bible scholar, who joined the Marines three years ago and was decorated after serving in Afghanistan, was picked up by German police on the streets of Frankfurt.
Shevaun went missing on Saturday when she secretly met Mr Studabaker at Manchester airport and flew with him to Paris.
The international search for Shevaun descended into chaos on Tuesday as French police flatly contradicted British detectivesââ ¬â„¢ insistence that the couple had entered France at the Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.
The Times has learnt that David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, then took the extraordinary step of personally intervening to urge the French to search for Shevaun more seriously.
Police made a breakthrough when Shevaun called home for two-minutes on Tuesday evening, telling her mother she was fine but indicating she was still with the man she had proudly told schoolfriends was her American boyfriend. The police investigation was soon on the trail of electronic footprints that the pair left across Europe.
The pair entered Germany together yesterday. When Shevaun left him at Stuttgart airport to fly home, an increasingly panicky Mr Studabaker telephoned the FBI and travelled to Frankfurt in a bid to end a situation that had rapidly spiralled beyond his control.
Police also paid close attention to advice from psychologists, who warned them that Shevaun was completely in love with the man she had received mobile phone-calls from while at Lowton Community High School and spent hours conversing with every day from the computer in her kitchen. Anxious not to antagonise Mr Studabaker, detectives asked the press not to reveal FBI evidence that, contrary to the claims of his relatives, the ex-Marine was fully aware Shevaun was only 12 during his year-long internet courtship.
The media were also asked not to publish details of a police investigation into Mr Studabakerââ ¬â„¢s alleged sexual assault of his 12-year-old niece and a complaint that he gave a nine-year-old girl some †œsex lotionÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â five years ago. Instead, police publicly peddled a message that Shevaun was not in trouble, while her mother talked lovingly of home comforts such as their †œgirlie nights inâ₠¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ together eating and playing Monopoly.
(Emphasis added by myself)
timewarrior2001
17-07-2003, 12:49
Ahhh the lovestruck Punk rock fan........and there we have it, the evils of rock music yet again:rolleyes: What makes this worse is that this comment has no place in or relevance to the story.
I swear the media are a bunch of *%$£"^&*(^ who really need to learn a little about the story before the print such utter bull****.
downquark1
17-07-2003, 12:55
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/39288000/rm/_39288091_netchat07_sequence.ram
Interviews of class mates if anyones interested.
It seems she knew he was 30+.
Sociable
17-07-2003, 13:07
As a social worker I find it mindblowingly disturbing that anyone feels that any adult can deny these basic principles.
Adults that come into contact with children in any capacity have a inherant duty to ensure the child's safety and welfare is always paramount.
Children sometimes need protecting from themselves just as much as protection from others.
To blame a child for the inappropraite behaviour of any adult is NEVER an excuse. That's part of what makes being an adult an adult.
I am not saying this child was abused I am simply pointing out that in my experience in every case of abuse of a child the abuser inevitably resorts to trying to shift the blame on others especially the abused child.
Each adult is, and must be, responsible and fully accountable for their own actions. This applies as much to corporate bodies and other institutions as it does to individuals.
I find it amazing that anyone here is supporting someone who has kiddie porn on his hard drive and has then disappeared with a 12 year old!
orangebird
17-07-2003, 13:20
Originally posted by Ramrod
I find it amazing that anyone here is supporting someone who has kiddie porn on his hard drive and has then disappeared with a 12 year old!
I don't think that's the case - a lot of people probably haven't had the updated news abput thaty kiddie porn etc.
I have to be honest, when this first happened and before all the child porn stuff that has since been discovered, I felt sorry for the guy.... :erm:
Originally posted by orangebird
I don't think that's the case - a lot of people probably haven't had the updated news abput thaty kiddie porn etc.
I have to be honest, when this first happened and before all the child porn stuff that has since been discovered, I felt sorry for the guy.... :erm: I did too, but I was in two minds about the whole case.....Still am a little as the porn may not be his, he might be innocent, but it dosn't look like it.
Originally posted by Ramrod
I did too, but I was in two minds about the whole case.....Still am a little as the porn may not be his, he might be innocent, but it dosn't look like it.
The whole point is I don't think any of us can say whether or not he appears to be guilty. There is no mid-way legal status of 'possibly guilty'. He is innocent until proven otherwise in court, and therefore as of right now he is an innocent man.
It is for the police, prosecutors and relevant experts to gather the full facts, and ultimately it's for a jury, and a jury alone, to change this man's status from 'innocent' to 'guilty'.
Originally posted by orangebird
I don't think that's the case - a lot of people probably haven't had the updated news abput thaty kiddie porn etc.
I have to be honest, when this first happened and before all the child porn stuff that has since been discovered, I felt sorry for the guy.... :erm:
Same here really, but on reflection I also have to agree with Zoombini. He should have seen she was not 19 (I mean even if it does't 'show', you would notice talking to her I suspect). The fact that he didn't leave it then and there makes it suspicious, and definitely worth investigating.
Sociable
17-07-2003, 13:35
Originally posted by Ramrod
I find it amazing that anyone here is supporting someone who has kiddie porn on his hard drive and has then disappeared with a 12 year old!
I could not agree more !!!!
As you see from my post i held that view even before the extra detail was released.
What I didn't say im my earlier post was the other side of this particular coin about "Blame".
Maybe if those making pleas in mittigation using the childs actions as a possible excuse would have a different view had they ever tried to convince a preteen child that they were NOT responsible at all for having been brutally raped.
I know this is an extreme example but it is the way people defend and excuse lesser behaviour by shifting blame that encourages the use of the "but they were willing" or "they led me on" as a deffence.
In this case the child did not know better.
She will need help support and understanding to recover from this not blame for the actions of the adult concerned.
He did know better and must be held fully accountable for whatever decisons and actions he took subject only to the requirement that such actions will have to be proved in court.
downquark1
17-07-2003, 13:38
Originally posted by danielf
Same here really, but on reflection I also have to agree with Zoombini. He should have seen she was not 19 (I mean even if it does't 'show', you would notice talking to her I suspect). The fact that he didn't leave it then and there makes it suspicious, and definitely worth investigating.
In the interview I posted they said that he phoned her at school. Couldn't he have told by the way she sounds? But then again everyone in america talks like a teen age girl [voice going up].
duncant403
17-07-2003, 13:39
Originally posted by towny
The whole point is I don't think any of us can say whether or not he appears to be guilty. There is no mid-way legal status of 'possibly guilty'. He is innocent until proven otherwise in court, and therefore as of right now he is an innocent man.
True. But he's guilty of being incredibly stupid, if nothing else. But then being stupid isn't a crime.
Originally posted by downquark1
In the interview I posted they said that he phoned her at school. Couldn't he have told by the way she sounds? But then again everyone in america talks like a teen age girl [voice going up].
I was actually referring to what she would say. I mean, she is 12 years old, she is a child. I think you would notice the difference between having a conversation with a 12 or a 19 year old.
Originally posted by Sociable
As a social worker I find it mindblowingly disturbing that anyone feels that any adult can deny these basic principles.
Adults that come into contact with children in any capacity have a inherant duty to ensure the child's safety and welfare is always paramount.
Children sometimes need protecting from themselves just as much as protection from others.
To blame a child for the inappropraite behaviour of any adult is NEVER an excuse. That's part of what makes being an adult an adult.
I am not saying this child was abused I am simply pointing out that in my experience in every case of abuse of a child the abuser inevitably resorts to trying to shift the blame on others especially the abused child.
Each adult is, and must be, responsible and fully accountable for their own actions. This applies as much to corporate bodies and other institutions as it does to individuals.
If he knew she was 12 then this indeed is a sick scenario and he needs to be punished for being a danger to children. But what brought them together? Although this is not any kind of excuse or explanation for his behaviour, what if she originally lied about her age, as many kids of her years often do? Teens also need to be educated about how something which (to them) seems like a harmless prank can have serious consequences.
orangebird
17-07-2003, 14:03
Originally posted by danielf
I was actually referring to what she would say. I mean, she is 12 years old, she is a child. I think you would notice the difference between having a conversation with a 12 or a 19 year old.
Don't you believe it. I have a 13 year old niece - The way I hear her talk on the phone sometimes, it makes me want to lock her up til she's 30..... :erm:
It is scary how grown up young girls can be....
Sociable
17-07-2003, 14:17
Originally posted by Russ D
If he knew she was 12 then this indeed is a sick scenario and he needs to be punished for being a danger to children. But what brought them together? Although this is not any kind of excuse or explanation for his behaviour, what if she originally lied about her age, as many kids of her years often do? Teens also need to be educated about how something which (to them) seems like a harmless prank can have serious consequences.
Yes what you say is certainly true but, even if the affair started with her lieing about her age, the point at which he knew the age was in fact below 16 was when his crime started as it was at that point all other defences become irrelevant.
With regard to your comments about educating teens I could not agree more and this is where hopefully lessons will be learned.
Any parent with teenage children will confirm this is often a difficult and thankless task but regardless of this we all have to play a part in this by ensuring the lessons are reinforced not just in our own homes but also in the wider world including the Net.
This is one reason I am encouraged by the attention being given to so called "grooming" so that is becomes an offence even to develop an inappropriate on-line relationship with a child once one is aware you are not talking to an adult. Arrangements are also being put in place so that such offences committed overseas are notified to UK authorites and vice versa.
timewarrior2001
17-07-2003, 14:19
Originally posted by Sociable
In this case the child did not know better.
She will need help support and understanding to recover from this not blame for the actions of the adult concerned.
Help and support to recover from what? She willingly went with him, there is no evidence yet that he has abused her in any way, so what the hell does she want help and support for?
As far as I am concerned she's a stupid little girl and any support she gets would be far better used on a deserving case where the child had no part of organising what happened.
As for the reaction of her school mates, I'm sorry but she should have thought of that beforehand!!!!!.
I just dont feel any sorrow or pity for the girl.
I think she's been incredibly naive, but she is 12 years old. However worldly wise she pretended to be she is still a child who probably enjoyed telling her friends about her older American boyfriend. It would have made her seem more mature to her friends, but the fact she did that shows her immaturity.
He was an adult, who would have at least picked up warning signs from her voice and style of writing that she was young. What shared interests did they have? She won't have had any experience of work, going clubbing or so on, so he must have been aware. And if this relationship has been going on a year then she would have been 11 or just 12 when it began.
She's had a very lucky escape. She isn't emotionally mature enough to take the blame for her actions. She was a silly little girl who has probably had a huge shock.
He was an adult, well experienced in life, and he should have stopped this a long time ago. Or at the very least sent her home from Manchester airport. He would have seen how young she was [she looks young in the pics in the papers], and perhaps even her passport. Her age would have been on her passport.
Sociable
17-07-2003, 14:56
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Help and support to recover from what?
If you can't see the impact this would have on a 12 year old girl I trust you will think twice before having any children of your own.
Your post is devoid of any sense of understanding of the needs of the young or the impact cold and unfeeling adults have on them.
Not that you will appreciate it but I do feel sorrow and pity for you. In many ways you are just as misguided and lost as that poor young girl.
darkangel
17-07-2003, 15:00
dont think anyone has mentioned this but how are the FBI defining child porn is some states that can mean 18-20yr olds
The Diplomat
17-07-2003, 15:03
Had he told the truth about his age when chatting on the net, would she have still met him?
downquark1
17-07-2003, 15:04
Originally posted by darkangel
dont think anyone has mentioned this but how are the FBI defining child porn is some states that can mean 18-20yr olds
good point
But I think the FBI would have considered the impact their statement would make - show they wouldn't be that technical.
downquark1
17-07-2003, 15:05
Originally posted by The Diplomat
Had he told the truth about his age when chatting on the net, would she have still met him?
according to interview with her friends she knew he was 30+
zoombini
17-07-2003, 15:05
The matter of the passport was bought up in conversation here.
He may not have been able to look at the passport, not everybody says, "here look at my passport" especially if you have something to hide, so he cannot be harangued for that.
However, the passport control guard/airport security should be.
Surely a single female child, travelling alone or with an adult not of the same name should be questioned?
Thereby giving rise to the revealing of her true age.
At which point he would have had no ability to sayhe did not know it, and was instantly guilty of abduction there & then.
Were there no questions at both UK airports?
If not, why not?
The whole debacle may have been severely reduced had there been such simple checks in place, as ascertaining the relationship of a child to any accompanying adults not of the same name/country at an airport?
....
Oh hang on, cant say any more, "LustyLucy13" wants to talk to me in the chat room...She's 19 honest! Cu..
timewarrior2001
17-07-2003, 15:19
Originally posted by Sociable
If you can't see the impact this would have on a 12 year old girl I trust you will think twice before having any children of your own.
Your post is devoid of any sense of understanding of the needs of the young or the impact cold and unfeeling adults have on them.
Not that you will appreciate it but I do feel sorrow and pity for you. In many ways you are just as misguided and lost as that poor young girl.
I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, I openly admit I am part of the be tougher not gentler with these kids/adults whatever.
I am totally opposed to having kids who stab people, mug old people commit rape talk about their feelings to others. Maybe this helps to explain that I am not fond of what I consider to be left wing politics.
I think rapists should be castrated abd murderers should be hanged.
Although this girl is 12 years old, there is no way on earth I would have done somthing so completely idiotic when I was 12, for the record I am now 27. I was brought up in an age where we learnt from our own mistakes and got on with life, If I had done something as stupid as this I would have been given the slipper and grounded until I was 18. And you know what, the fear of that is probably what would have prevented me doing it in the first place.
All this nicey nicey poor little souls thing has resulted in one thing.......Massive increase in violent crime.
Also for the record I have a one year old son, and I take great offense to you inferring I am unfit to be a parent!
Originally posted by Sociable
In many ways you are just as misguided and lost as that poor young girl.
Are you naturally patronizing or was it part of your training?
For sure we do not know the facts of this case. We will not if/until they are revealed in court. But some things we do know for sure, and one of them is that this girl, at the age of 12, is above the age of criminal responsibility as set by UK law. As she is legally judged to have enough common sense to know the difference between 'right' and 'wrong', I do not understand how you can characterize her as 'misguided and lost' without knowing any more about her than the rest of us.
She may be poor and misguided. She may equally just be very, very stupid.
She may be poor and misguided. She may equally just be very, very stupid. [/B] I'd pick the latter
Has anyone thought to ask the question as to why she told her parent that she was going to see her friend.
She Knew what she was doing was wrong ...
Poor and misguided - I doubt it
The Diplomat
17-07-2003, 15:49
Originally posted by Nemesis
Has anyone thought to ask the question as to why she told her parent that she was going to see her friend.
She Knew what she was doing was wrong ...
Poor and misguided - I doubt it
And she also tricked her mum into giving her her passport, so she knew she would need it.
Sociable
17-07-2003, 16:05
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Also for the record I have a one year old son, and I take great offense to you inferring I am unfit to be a parent!
I did not mean to imply you were unfit but simply that your views will not sit comfortably with being a parent in the real world we live in now. Time will mellow some of those attitudes and your sons reaction to them in later life be part of that process.
As it happens I am far from left wing and agree that people should be held responsible for their actions. Over protection can be just as bad as too little a child needs to grow and accept higher degrees of responsibility as they move to adulthood. But what we are talking about in this thread is a 12 year old child.
The sad fact is that the world now is not the same as when you were 12 and far less like it was when I was that young. What I would suggest happened between then and now is society's attitude to, and expectations of, children shifted.
Before the Internet parents generally had at least a good idea of who their childrern were meeting and talking to. Now through the internet and mobile phones anyone including peadofiles can talk to children and many parents will be totally unaware.
Children of 12 may appear worldlywise and independant but the reality is they are still children. The pressure to "grow up" hits children from all sides making them vulnerable to the temptation to try to show how adult they are.
The sudden realisation that she is not invulnerable and just how easy this escapade could have ended in disaster will impact on her life for years to come. The family too will have to come to terms with the guilt many will feel about what part of any they may have played in allowing it to happen. This is why I say help will be needed.
Why is it necessary for someone who makes a mistake to require help ?
Can they not learn from their own mistakes and move on, isn't this how most if not all of us have grown up.
I cannot understand the need for agencies to involve themselves in things that do not concern them, when there is nothing untoward going on.
Let the parents be parents, and help and guide. If they need help I'm sure they will ask for it.
Sociable
17-07-2003, 16:32
Originally posted by Nemesis
Why is it necessary for someone who makes a mistake to require help ?
Depends entirely on the mistake and any consequences.
As a social worker I can assure you intervention is rarely made unless asked for but sometimes it is right and proper that it is given even if unwelcome.
In this situation it appears more than likely that a criminal trial will be one of the outcomes which will add to the already heavy media coverage. I may be wrong but I would be surprised if in these specific circumstances they not only need help but will be asking for it.
timewarrior2001
17-07-2003, 16:34
Originally posted by Sociable
I did not mean to imply you were unfit but simply that your views will not sit comfortably with being a parent in the real world we live in now. Time will mellow some of those attitudes and your sons reaction to them in later life be part of that process.
As it happens I am far from left wing and agree that people should be held responsible for their actions. Over protection can be just as bad as too little a child needs to grow and accept higher degrees of responsibility as they move to adulthood. But what we are talking about in this thread is a 12 year old child.
The sad fact is that the world now is not the same as when you were 12 and far less like it was when I was that young. What I would suggest happened between then and now is society's attitude to, and expectations of, children shifted.
Before the Internet parents generally had at least a good idea of who their childrern were meeting and talking to. Now through the internet and mobile phones anyone including peadofiles can talk to children and many parents will be totally unaware.
Children of 12 may appear worldlywise and independant but the reality is they are still children. The pressure to "grow up" hits children from all sides making them vulnerable to the temptation to try to show how adult they are.
The sudden realisation that she is not invulnerable and just how easy this escapade could have ended in disaster will impact on her life for years to come. The family too will have to come to terms with the guilt many will feel about what part of any they may have played in allowing it to happen. This is why I say help will be needed.
:Peaceman: I'm sorry I jumped down your throat, I just feel that although this guys intentions may have been far from innocent, that the girl still has a lot to answer for.
The media circus surrounding this affair is way out of line, and like its showing here, is tainting peoples views.
As much as he may have broken US laws by having child porn on his computer, until its proved that he abused this girl in anyway, he cannot be regarded as a paedophile for this current affair.
Anything that has happened in the US should be dealt with in the US. It simply isnt the british courts responsibility. If he is charged with abduction then fair enough as yes that is illegal here. But people need to be carefull of unsubstantiated rumours as these can and will cause more harm than has been done.
downquark1
17-07-2003, 16:54
Anyway, the press are calling for more internet safetly
What can really be done??
Internet filters can't stop paedophiles unless they ban chat rooms totally.
And I'm afraid I agree that the girl was very foolish, obviously more details will emerge but this almost sounds to me as an attention seeking stunt.
Originally posted by downquark1
Anyway, the press are calling for more internet safetly
Well, they have to do something to fill their pages. Thing is the vast majority of the hacks that write this stuff haven't a clue what they're talking about.
timewarrior2001
17-07-2003, 16:59
Sounds to me like a flash in the pan to ban a few things, like my comment on her being a punk rock fan. Ban punk rock, ban the internet, ban americans, ban the marines.
Sensibly though the girl has kept quiet. Maybe her actions are sinking home and she feels very foolish.
Chimaera
17-07-2003, 17:19
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Sounds to me like a flash in the pan to ban a few things, like my comment on her being a punk rock fan. Ban punk rock, ban the internet, ban americans, ban the marines.
Sensibly though the girl has kept quiet. Maybe her actions are sinking home and she feels very foolish.
Yes, but wait timewarrior - the News of the World isn't out till Sunday! Wait for the exclusive! :D
Sociable
17-07-2003, 17:21
Originally posted by downquark1
Anyway, the press are calling for more internet safetly
What can really be done??
1) Parents will, for a time at least, take more notice of their kids and what they are doing on the internet this will help.
2) Responsible children's chat sites will make sure they are adequately moderated and hopefully some of the less responsible sites will be forced to either improve or close.
3) The addition of "panic" buttons to chat rooms which alert staff to problems as soon as they start would be a usefull extra measure as will logging of chats and reporting of suspicious activity to the users ISP.
4) The passing of the new offence of "grooming" into law making any attempt to coerce children into inappropriate activity punishable by a prison term of up to 7 years.
The world will never be 100% safe but at least these few measures will help make it harder for this story to be repeated in the future.
A 12 year old child is a child.In law and in fact.To blame this girl for the crime of the adult is disgusting.If she was 16 I might possibly have understood some of the comments I read here.But she is not and to try and lay blame at her door makes me see red.
This is how peadophiles think.They always shift the blame to their victim and portray themselves as being totally innocent and sinned against.This child is a victim not the 30 year old male,who if he was misled as he claims,then as soon as he saw the child and realised her age he should have gone straight to the nearest police station and reported the whole thing to the authorities.Instead he chose to fly around Europe whilst phoning home trying to get his version across to the police and public and cover himself at the same time.
The sad thing is his victim will probably try very hard to defend him and to take the blame herself.
The one thing that saddens me is that the internet will yet again be the target of well meaning interference when it is a parents responsibility to be very nosy about their children's use of the internet.Why do parents allow children unlimited access to the internet particularly unsupervised?I would have thought that there had been enough scare stories recently to make any parent think twice.
Parents! It is your duty to be nosy,by all means snoop about on the PC.If you don't know how a PC or the internet works FIND OUT!!!Forewarned is forearmed.Trust is all very well but it is no defence against the unscrupulous.
As I always said to my two children "I trust you implicitly,I just don't trust the rest of the world" whenever I had to question what they were doing.
Incog.
zoombini
17-07-2003, 22:03
Incog, I don't think the girl is getting blamed for all this, however it is apparent that she was not entirely without fault.
Even 12 year olds can be grown up enough to be devious, lie to and deceive others. Which she appears to have done. Not that it is being said that that is anything in comparison to what he did.
Oh I give up!!
If you can't see that already this girl is being blamed for being used,conned and taken in then I might as well save my breath..er fingers.
No smoke without fire is always going to let them off the hook.Funny how they can elicit sympathy if it seems that the victim is seen to connived at the situation.
I'll just point out that such people are very artful manipulators and very adept at blowing smoke and laying blame to avoid feeling any blame.It's no wonder that peadophiles do so well and find so many victims.
However,how well they do was hidden from me until the FBI internet sting caught so many of them.To discover just how deeply they were imbedded in society even down to policemen and teachers was a horrifying shock.To find oneself wondering just how far it might extend amongst those I work with was a worrying thought.
Incog.
timewarrior2001
18-07-2003, 10:08
incog, she lied to her mother to obtain her passport, she lied about going to meet friends. What else needs to be done to make you realise that although this guy should have sent her packing, she has to share a proportion of the blame.
No matter how you look at it, the girl is a liar and devious. At 12 years old, she is legally above the age of criminal responsibility.
Ok she is 12, when I was 14 I was regularly going in my local and drinking alcohol. 14-18 is 4 years. She claimed she was 17, thats 5 years there is room for error. Kids these days do not look as young as the actually are, I couldnt tell the difference between a 12 year old and a 16 year old sometimes. Thats one reason why some shops sell alcohol to kids, because its neigh on impossible in some cases to tell their age.
Enterian
18-07-2003, 10:50
Unfortunately we live in an age where many kids know more about the Internet than their parents do.
Parents need to know that the Internet is not a 'safe' place for children, and they need to take the same care about knowing where they 'are' on the internet, who they are with and what they are doing as they would in the great outdoors.
Of course most kids will see that as parental oppression, but they've been doing that for hundreds of years!
Enterian
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
incog, she lied to her mother to obtain her passport, she lied about going to meet friends. What else needs to be done to make you realise that although this guy should have sent her packing, she has to share a proportion of the blame.
No matter how you look at it, the girl is a liar and devious. At 12 years old, she is legally above the age of criminal responsibility.
Ok she is 12, when I was 14 I was regularly going in my local and drinking alcohol. 14-18 is 4 years. She claimed she was 17, thats 5 years there is room for error. Kids these days do not look as young as the actually are, I couldnt tell the difference between a 12 year old and a 16 year old sometimes. Thats one reason why some shops sell alcohol to kids, because its neigh on impossible in some cases to tell their age.
I'm very reluctant to excuse the man for not spotting that she was underage - I can't believe that a 12-year-old could act convincingly like she was 17 even if she looked it (and from her photos in the paper, she clearly didn't).
But I find the hysteria that generally surrounds paedophile cases in this country to be very puzzling. It's a witch hunt in the truest sense. Yes it's a disgusting thing, and if that's what he has been doing, he shoud be punished. But to imply that he somehow weaved a kind of magic-like influence over this girl such that she is in no way personally responsible for lying to her family and her friends is totally ridiculous. The Law says she is old enough to be responsible for her actions and know what is right and what is wrong.
Let me be clear about the very narrow issues I am suggesting this girl may herself be 'guilty' of, regardless of anything the man concernced may have done:
1. She tricked her mother into giving her her passport
2. She lied to her family and friends about where she was going
Incog, why can't you see that it is possible to acknowledge this girl acted very stupidly, knowing what she was doing was 'wrong', without reducing the man's own liability for the situation?
Sociable
18-07-2003, 11:11
Don't forget she did all that after a year being "groomed" by a 30 year old adept in the art of deception.
Yes children lie, yes it was foolish and wrong, but she is just a child she didnt brake any law so the age of criminal responsibility does not come into this at all.
Any suggestion that a child "looking" older than they are justifies any action by an adult only gives aid and comfort to those wishing to take advantage and yes I include shopkeeprs, cinema managers and anyone else who turns a blind eye in situations where it is to their advantage to do so.
More than that the difference between 14 to18 and 12 to 17 bear no comparison however you look at it.
timewarrior2001
18-07-2003, 11:14
hang on, wheres the evidence yet alone the proof that she was groomed?
I admit I THINK his intentions were not honourable, but that is yet to be stated/proved.
We cannot label this guy a paedophile yet. Until he is convicted of anything he is Inoocent whether we liek it or not. It is also about time the witch hunt was stopped, the media are like a pack of baying wolves.
If people are guilty of being paedophiles before they are charged then the whole law and order system in this country has broken down. Why not lock somone up in case they do somehting wrong in 20 years time!!!! sheesh thats unbeleivable.
There is NOTHING in the public knowledge that says this guy tried to harm the girl. In fact so far as far as I can see all the evidence suggests that he did nothing to her apart form the legallity of abduction. We cannot convict people for their alleged intentions no matter how sick they are.
But how do we educate teenagers that the advances from an older person may appear attractive but can cause untold pain and trouble?
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
We cannot label this guy a paedophile yet. Until he is convicted of anything he is Inoocent whether we liek it or not. Well he seems to have kiddy porn on his 'puter.....
timewarrior2001
18-07-2003, 11:20
Also Russ when you take into account most abuse is from a family members how do you tell kids not to trust say grandad, or uncle john?
Teling kids to not speak to strangers is missing the mark somewhat. If we lead them to beleive everyone is guilty of something then they are going to grow up severly damaged.
There's a difference between grandad, and someone who 'comes on' to someone online.
timewarrior2001
18-07-2003, 11:23
Originally posted by Ramrod
Well he seems to have kiddy porn on his 'puter.....
Yes ramrod he SEEMS to have, but he is still innocent until convicted, thats how law works and it works that way for a reason.
I'm not trying to make excuses for him, he did something very wrong, but people seem to be saying that he's a paedophile and that he abused this girl. When at the moment theres nothing but rumours and convictions by the media. We need to be very very carefull, this guy should have some anominity until he is convicted, because if the charges are dropped most of the world will still label him a paedophile and thats extremely dangerous.
timewarrior2001
18-07-2003, 11:24
Originally posted by Russ D
There's a difference between grandad, and someone who 'comes on' to someone online.
But all these people are uncles, brothers, grandads to someone. It scares the hell out of me that these people are so widespread.
Sociable
18-07-2003, 11:27
Originally posted by towny
<SNIP>..to imply that he somehow weaved a kind of magic-like influence over this girl such that she is in no way personally responsible for lying to her family and her friends is totally ridiculous.<SNIP>
So ridiculous that the new offence of "grooming" as it is called will carry a maximum penalty of 7 years even if this is the only offence commited.
Should the person actually act on the enticement and attempt to put the "grooming" into effect the penalty rises to an ultimate tariff of Life Imprisonment.
Yes the child will need to be made aware of the seriousness of the implications of her mistaken trust in this individual.
Yes this will involve addressing the fact she lied.
This will I hope be done in a loving and supportive way not in a punative way for one very important reason, and that is ensuring she feels in no way guilty of any complicity. For reasons that would take too long to explain here this overrides ALL other considerations in a case like this.
The Diplomat
18-07-2003, 11:28
It REALLY is time that the press were brought to book over this kind of reporting.:mad:
imo he should be sent straight back to America as he will NEVER get a fair trial in this country.
The press who have reported on his (alleged) background should be prosecuted and fined into bankruptcy.
downquark1
18-07-2003, 11:29
Originally posted by Russ D
But how do we educate teenagers that the advances from an older person may appear attractive but can cause untold pain and trouble?
You give them this as an example of what could happen.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
We need to be very very carefull, this guy should have some anominity until he is convicted, because if the charges are dropped most of the world will still label him a paedophile and thats extremely dangerous.
Well, mr Studebaker isn't quite anonymous anymore. I agree with you timewarrior. In fact, I think it is quite ridiculous that names and addresses of people are printed when they are suspects only. You can wreck innocent people's lives this way.
timewarrior2001
18-07-2003, 11:34
Sociable, I think towny has a point, No matter how much you trust someone, at the age of 12 you must understand right from wrong. Obviously this cant cover all ages.
What I've noticed is that, theres an outcry about a 12 year old not knowing right from wrong. Yet theres was blood being called for in the case of the 10 year olds that killed poor little jamie bulger and people insisted they knew right from wrong.
People that are involved in social services etc will see things from a different point of view than the rest of the public. I actually understand some of it, as I have a family member that works for social services re-housing sex offenders after their prison sentences and this include paedophiles. the difficulty there is you are then dealing with proven sickos, not alleged as we are in the case in the media at the moment.
downquark1
18-07-2003, 11:34
You can wreck innocent people's lives this way
I'm reminded of the time a pediatrician was attacked.
Sociable
18-07-2003, 11:48
For those not following the new sexual offences bill making it's way through parliament it may be comforting to hear that the anonimity of suspects prior to charging and even during trials is being considered. The recent cases of Kelly et al have highlighted the need for reform in this area.
Interestingly the child involved would normally automatically have anonimity in a case like this but because of the circumstances BOTH parties have already been named.
In this specific case the need to locate them was paramount and even if anonimity is included for suspects in the future a case like this will always be an exception.
Originally posted by Sociable
So ridiculous that the new offence of "grooming" as it is called will carry a maximum penalty of 7 years even if this is the only offence commited.
But to return to one of the central themes of this thread, no court has yet convicted him of this and there is no suggestion as yet that he is even going to be charged with this. 'Abduction' seems to be the favourite potential charge so far.
I assume given the serious nature of the sentence attached to a conviction for 'grooming', the definition of it must be reasonably narrow. Is it therefore the case that a lengthy correspondence by email is necessarily grooming?
I ask because I'm interested and I don't know how in theory this new Law works. Not because I think we should judge this specific case against any criteria ... there has been enough pre-judging going on in this thread already.
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Yes ramrod he SEEMS to have, but he is still innocent until convicted, thats how law works and it works that way for a reason.
I'm not trying to make excuses for him, he did something very wrong, but people seem to be saying that he's a paedophile and that he abused this girl. When at the moment theres nothing but rumours and convictions by the media. We need to be very very carefull, this guy should have some anominity until he is convicted, because if the charges are dropped most of the world will still label him a paedophile and thats extremely dangerous.
Thats why I used the word 'seems'
Sociable
18-07-2003, 12:29
Originally posted by towny
But to return to one of the central themes of this thread, no court has yet convicted him of this and there is no suggestion as yet that he is even going to be charged with this. 'Abduction' seems to be the favourite potential charge so far.
I assume given the serious nature of the sentence attached to a conviction for 'grooming', the definition of it must be reasonably narrow. Is it therefore the case that a lengthy correspondence by email is necessarily grooming?
I ask because I'm interested and I don't know how in theory this new Law works. Not because I think we should judge this specific case against any criteria ... there has been enough pre-judging going on in this thread already.
They are working on the various deffinitions and evidential requirements as we type but I should make clear no such offence exists at this time so it will not be a charge he would face in any case as no act can be made a "crime" retrospectively.
I used the example of "gooming" purely as it helps explain the girls actions as much as his. However the "process" has been recognised by parliament as being intolerable behaviour used by those wishing to take advantage of children especially via the internet and there is almost unanimous cross party support for this activity to be criminalised.
I should also point out that I am a passionate defender of the both the right to a fair trial and the concept of innocent untill proven guilty. I do though, have some issues regarding the treatment of previous convictions whereby they are witheld from the jury especially in cases involving rape or offences against children.
It will be for a jury to decide his guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence provided to them. My bet is he will be advised to plead guilty to any charge and will take that advice.
Should he not take that option the jury will not even be allowed to take into consideration any previous convictions let alone "suspicions" of previous wrongdoing or any speculation by the press prior to the trial however persausive that may be so I am confident he will get the fair trial he like everyone deserves.
I'd just like to add to all this that I live only a few miles down the road from Paulsgrove (remember The News of the Screws ill-advised "naming and shaming of paedophiles" circulation boosting campaign?)
I have friends who live there who were more scared of the *lynch mob* that was marching around their streets than any possible threat to their children from a complete stranger.
Unfortunately it seems that these days, with the sort of climate our totally impartial and unbiased (yeah, right) media have engendered, that it's enough for someone to "presumed guilty" on just the *suggestion* that they may be a paedophile.
Forget about due process, forget about innocent until proven guilty, forget about a fair trial, let's just string them up! :(
downquark1
12-02-2004, 15:15
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3481219.stm
I hereby raise this thread from the crypt.
/Me reaches for hammer and wooden stake...!!
zoombini
13-02-2004, 08:47
Hmm, seems daft that when this happened the parents were seen on telly making plea for return (they were wer'nt they?) & now they are all in the dark...
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.