Judge Farrel
Two paedophile rapists get 40 months jail, after the Judge declares the 11 year old was up for it!
There are many things that annoy me and grate me but some things totally make me want to scream. This is one of them!
Roshane Channer and Ruben Monteiro, both 21, attacked the girl while someone filmed it.
But Judge David Farrell QC said: “Despite her age it is accepted she was a willing participant.”
The pair claimed the victim looked at least 14 — and the judge agreed.
Channer had sex with her while Monteiro had oral sex — now classed as rape, Luton Crown Court was told. Channer, of no fixed address, and Monteiro, of Luton, Beds, admitted rape. They will be on the sex offenders register for life.
Crown lawyers are now considering appealing against the “unduly lenient” jail terms.
Yvonne Traynor, chief executive of the Rape Crisis charity, said the sentences were “among the worst” she had heard.
This is courtesy of a UK Newspaper, The Sun.
As a father I cannot see at all how any right minded person could possibly think that this sentence was in any way adequate for the crime of raping an eleven year old child. I do not bloody care what age the child looked, I do not care how she dressed and I do not care whether the rapists said she was willing or not.
What I do care about are the absolute facts in any case and in this one it has been proven that the child was raped, it is rape as this child is nowhere near old enough to give consent. It is fact that two adults had penetrative sex with a minor. It is fact that those adults filmed the abuse. To you Judge Farrel I state this, it is absolutely abhorrent that you stated that she was a willing participant, she is a child for God’s sake man!
Once again we are supposed to sit back and say nothing whilst the Judiciary hand down such lenient sentences to paedophiles. I THINK NOT! The Judiciary seem to be so out of touch with reality that they are living in their own wee plastic sheilded worlds. How would you feel Judge Farrel if this had happened to your daughter or grandaughter? I bet that those convicted would be handed a sentence of somewhat greater magnitude.
Where is the consistency when Robert Green, who has campaigned tirelessy against child abuse and exposing paedophilia rings is sentenced to one year in prison for breach of the peace.
When facebook users are sentenced to two and three years in jail for purporting to be planning riots when infact they had only made flippant and somewhat stupid comments and posts. When looters are jailed for three and four years for stealing a pair of Nike trainers. Where MP’s who were convicted of Fraud after stealing many thousands of pounds do not even serve a third of their short sentences. You tell me Judge Farrel, where is the bloody consistency?
You see Sir, there is no consistency and the general public of this country see your ruling as abomnibale, you Sir need to live in the real world for a day or two.
Imagine this Judge Farrel, just imagine it because I am ceratin that it will be before your eyes online.
Imagine that you were not a QC, nor an appointed Judge. Imagine that you lived on a council estate and a child had been raped.
Imagine that all of the good men and women on that estate apprehended the rapists and they were under the custody of those same good people. If you then stood up and stated that the 11 year old girl was up for it, what do you think would happen? What would happen when the good men and women of the shire found out that the rape of a child had been recorded? What would happen JUDGE FARREL?
I write not about mob rule, I write about common sense, in which you are obviously seriously lacking. Any right thinking man or woman would have seen this for what it is. The rape of a child. Your comments leave a lot to be desired Sir from someone who supposedly upholds an oath of office.
You Sir, are not a man in my mind, you are a facilitator and have no reason to hold any office in this great land of ours.
When the Prosecutors appeal, and they will, they will have 100′s of thousands supporting them and even if the appeal fails then we shall make sure that it goes to the Supreme Court. Make no mistake about the power of one multiplied by any number you wish to choose.
I have zero faith in the Judicial system in this country and I mean the whole of the UK.
Who are these judges, and who appoints them? the system seems to be rotten from the top down, they protect their own, and hand out lengthy sentences to anyone who questions the system.
They protect their own, and that seems to include paedophiles and rapists!
Robert Green’s case is a prime example, Grampian police refused to investigate Hollie Greig’s claims of being systematically raped, by a gang of establishment paedophiles over a 14 year period. Hollie was awarded £13500 from the criminal injuries board for her horrific medical injuries from the rape, she was deemed an honest and creditable witness by the criminal injuries board, yet Grampian still refused to investigate. When Robert Green started fighting for justice for Hollie, he was arrested, his home raided, the most bizarre bail conditions were set, and ultimately he was jailed for a year!
His crime….Breach of the peace!!!!! And the breach was investigating Hollie’s claims because the police refused to!
Their days are numbered, everyone is waking up to the level of corruption in the system, and sooner rather than later their whole child raping cabal will fall!
Sandra, whilst I do not know the ins and outs of this case I am raging here. There was a conviction, there are no mitigating circumstances. This pair of rapists shopuld serve seious time, not 40 fucking months!
What is this judge thinking of? Is he a child abuser himself? Damn what is he thinking. No child is asking for it… no matter how they dress… what makeup they wear or anything like that. Rape is rape no matter what. That judge is nuts, crazy, bloody bonkers. Him and the rapist should be in prison for the rest of their lives if anything. The rapist for what he did and the judge for accessory after the fact.
There were two rapists and both filmed it, let us not forget that they were PAEDOPHILE RAPISTS Celese.
This make me bloody sick, it makes me ask the question, does he get a kick out of this sort of thing, does he agree with this sort of thing, he in my opinion is no bloody better than the sick pervs who did this to this poor child,, which makes me think he is into this sort of thing himself.
This sick idiot should be locked up with the pervs he is giving the light sentences to, then maybe the could swap note,
What kind of message is this sending, its ok to rape and violate a 11 year old who will have to live with this for the rest of her life, and whose life will never ever be the same again, but hey the pervs that done this will walk free in 4 years or less without a care in the world free to do it again to someone else’s daughter,
SICK THATS WHAT THEY ALL ARE, IT HAS TO BE STOPPED NOW!!!!!!!
Our “Justice System” has become an absolute JOKE! (although not a funny one). I find it sickening and this judge should be jailed.
Cheryl, it was never my Justice system, was it yours? Therin lies a joke and it is theirs, those that control us. Makes you think does it not\/
I fully support your sense of anger here m8, will reblog it tomorrow and link back here for your take on it, thanks for the heads up even though it makes me feel sick that our “justice system” is so perverted!
Feel free to re-blog anything you want nominedeus. Anger, that word does not quite cover how I feel about this one.
blogged and linked m8!
The definition of ‘rape’ is sex by force. If the participants want sex, regardless of age, it’s consensual and therefore not rape.
We live in a society where most 11 year old girls have already had their first period. In fact 11 year olds have committed rape – an 11 year old raped a 9 year old in Sunderland recently. The fact is 11 year old’s aren’t ‘children’ (physically or mentally) like they were 50 years ago.
This looks like a victimless crime.
Johnny,
The current definition for rape is as follows:
Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
_ A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
_ B does not consent to the penetration; and,
_ A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
Now the keyword here is consent, definition of consent:
The Act has three important provisions relating to consent. They are:
A statutory definition of consent
The test of reasonable belief in consent
The evidential and conclusive presumptions about consent and the defendant’s belief in consent
Section 74 defines consent as “if she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice” . In the offences of rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, a person (A) is guilty of an offence if (s)he:
Acts intentionally;
(B) does not consent to the act; and
does not reasonably believe that B consents.
Deciding whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents (subsection (2) of sections 1-4). It is likely that this will include a defendant’s attributes, such as disability or extreme youth. This is a major change in the law and the Act abolishes the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. It means that the defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps he took to satisfy him that the complainant consented.
Note that extreme youth is mentioned here, this is very important in cases like this. Can an eleven year old be relied upon to know exactly what consent is? I think not,
Good point. However an 11 year old knows what they are doing – the age of criminal responsibility in England is 10.
During the London riots so called ‘children’ aged 11 committed adult crimes.
The kids who killed James Bulger were 10, because the public are so good at doublethink they had no problem demanding the death penalty for these two child criminals.
The law should disregard petty morality and arbitrary ages of consent and embrace the laws of nature.