Two Birmingham men are banned from 'approaching' girls

[littlebabyjesus]

I
There's nothing very novel about injunctions as such, or about Council's seeking them in other situations - anti-social behaviour cases spring to mind. And obviously, in any exercise of state power there is the possibility of even greater injustice and abuse than is implied in the very existence of states. But what are these 'better ways' you refer to given where we actually are ?

An order to stay away from this girl, I would understand, and accept with a far lower burden of proof. But all girls everywhere? And named publicly on the national news? They've been given a nonce branding.

This particular measure strikes me as the use of a populist sledgehammer to deflect from the real issues of system failure in Birmingham social services.

 

[8ball]

Rape , living off immoral earnings , Kidnap, Threatening behaviour. All sorts of shit basically.

No, not the lawyers, the men with the injunction.

 

[Fez909]

Rape , living off immoral earnings , Kidnap, Threatening behaviour. All sorts of shit basically.

Thanks. I was being a bit naive and thinking she was there voluntarily, but her carers didn't approve or thought she was being naive or something.

 

[8ball]

An order to stay away from this girl, I would understand, and accept with a far lower burden of proof. But all girls everywhere? And named publicly on the national news? They've been given a nonce branding.

Doesn't that nonce branding extend to everyone else mistakenly under the impression that the age of consent is 16?

 

[likesfish]

Shes in care and classed as vulnerable so fuck em and if the have to flee uk firsts armoured landrover of justice so be it.

 

[purenarcotic]

Doesn't that nonce branding extend to everyone else mistakenly under the impression that the age of consent is 16?

What does consent have to do with child sexual exploitation? Or any sexual exploitation for that matter. If it's sexual exploitation then the person being exploited isn't consenting.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Shes in care and classed as vulnerable so fuck em and if the have to flee uk firsts armoured landrover of justice so be it.

Sort yourself out ffs. Would you be saying that if they'd been named Bert Brown and Trevor Mullins?

ffs

 

[8ball]

What does consent have to do with child sexual exploitation? Or any sexual exploitation for that matter.

Post of the year?

 

[Blagsta]

Sort yourself out ffs. Would you be saying that if they'd been named Bert Brown and Trevor Mullins?

ffs

Yeah I would. It's been going on for ages the exploitation of young girls in care. Personally I'm all for the exploiters being named and shamed.

 

[purenarcotic]

Post of the year?

The point I was making was that there is no consent when it's sexual exploitation (I did edit to expand). I don't understand your post about the age of consent; sexual exploitation isn't a one off event, it's a series and patterns of behaviours and abuse. Legally, someone is a child until the age of 18 so 17 year olds who are sexually exploited are legally defined as child sexual exploitation victims.

 

[classicdish]

Should the age of consent be raised to 21? Then noone would be allowed to have sex with teenagers.

 

[dylanredefined]

Doesn't that nonce branding extend to everyone else mistakenly under the impression that the age of consent is 16?

Not really,if, you become involved with young girls classed as vulnerable

Sort yourself out ffs. Would you be saying that if they'd been named Bert Brown and Trevor Mullins?

ffs

Hopefully their would be a better class of vigilante after them

 

[8ball]

The point I was making was that there is no consent when it's sexual exploitation (I did edit to expand). I don't understand your post about the age of consent; sexual exploitation isn't a one off event, it's a series and patterns of behaviours and abuse. Legally, someone is a child until the age of 18 so 17 year olds who are sexually exploited are legally defined as child sexual exploitation victims.

Legally, the law is confused as fuck over when someone is an adult. They're obviously worried these guys will just move onto someone else vulnerable if they make an injunction specific to this one girl. It's the sort of thing that needs a society where people look out for each other rather than random legal spasms.

 

[purenarcotic]

Should the age of consent be raised to 21? Then noone would be allowed to have sex with teenagers.

What a stupid post.

 

[8ball]

Not really,if, you become involved with young girls classed as vulnerable

Not sure what that means - was this injunction specific to some kind of measure of vulnerability?

 

[8ball]

What a stupid post.

It would resolve a lot of confusion tbf.

Unless you're pointing out the poster's mathematical illiteracy in not noticing that we could equally make the age of consent 20 rather than 21 and still achieve the desired aim.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah I would. It's been going on for ages the exploitation of young girls in care. Personally I'm all for the exploiters being named and shamed.

yeah right, saying that they can always leave the country has nothing to do with their Pakistani names.

Yeah yeah.

 

[Diamond]

I'd like to know more about the legal aid aspects of this case and how those who were represented were funded and why those who were not represented were not.

I suspect the government cuts angle goes both ways re: the council and legal representation.

It'd be good to read the judgment(s) and see what is really going on here.

 

[purenarcotic]

It would resolve a lot of confusion tbf.

Unless you're pointing out the poster's mathematical illiteracy in not noticing that we could equally make the age of consent 20 rather than 21 and still achieve the desired aim.

I think it's a stupid post because I think it misses the point a bit. Sexual exploitation is very different to sex.

 

[Lurdan]

An order to stay away from this girl, I would understand, and accept with a far lower burden of proof. But all girls everywhere? And named publicly on the national news? They've been given a nonce branding.

This particular measure strikes me as the use of a populist sledgehammer to deflect from the real issues of system failure in Birmingham social services.

We live in a racist society and that's going to be reflected in the way that Council's and Court's operate. (And why should a criminal case be any less affected by that than civil proceedings ?). And I'm more than happy to accept that Birmingham Council are a pack of cunts looking for publicity and a cost effective half measure. But is the potential injustice to people subject to such injunctions more significant than the need to protect people in care from being sexually exploited or abused ?

 

[Blagsta]

yeah right, saying that they can always leave the country has nothing to do with their Pakistani names.

Yeah yeah.

Eh? I missed that bit!

Maybe I should read the thread in full before sticking my oar in!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But is the potential injustice to people subject to such injunctions more significant than the need to protect people in care from being sexually exploited or abused ?

That's a tricky question, and not one with a straightforward answer. But you yourself provide a clue as to how that balance is skewed by council cuts, incompetence and ulterior motives.

 

[8ball]

I think it's a stupid post because I think it misses the point a bit. Sexual exploitation is very different to sex.

This is true, but it takes a bit of semantic wrangling to make approaching the same as sexual exploitation too.

I'd guess these fuckers deserve whatever they get, but whether we agree on this decision or not, I find the ability to make up laws more or less on the spot a little worrying.

You said legally someone is a child at the age reported in which case I would have thought there were 'grooming' laws which would apply.

 

[8ball]

Eh? I missed that bit!

Maybe I should read the thread in full before sticking my oar in!

I'd missed their names too.

 

[Diamond]

We live in a racist society and that's going to be reflected in the way that Council's and Court's operate. (And why should a criminal case be any less affected by that than civil proceedings ?). And I'm more than happy to accept that Birmingham Council are a pack of cunts looking for publicity and a cost effective half measure. But is the potential injustice to people subject to such injunctions more significant than the need to protect people in care from being sexually exploited or abused ?

That's the central question, isn't it?

Whose interests weigh heavier in the balance - the claimants' or the defendants'?

This is why you have to look to see whether these men got a fair hearing when some of them were not even represented.

 

[likesfish]

Sort yourself out ffs. Would you be saying that if they'd been named Bert Brown and Trevor Mullins?

ffs

Tbf uk firsts armoured landrover doesnt exsist and if it does it will be sitting on the side of the motorway in a puddle of oil
Probably go with release the nonce hounds

 

[purenarcotic]

This is true, but it takes a bit of semantic wrangling to make approaching the same as sexual exploitation too.

I'd guess these fuckers deserve whatever they get, but whether we agree on this decision or not, I find the ability to make up laws more or less on the spot a little worrying.

You said legally someone is a child at the age reported in which case I would have thought there were 'grooming' laws which would apply.

I'm not particularly sure this is a very effective way to protect children / young people tbh, especially when you factor in the raft of cuts to services meant to protect children, the response of the police when crimes such as these are reported and so on. The police are also notoriously bad at using the powers of arrest that come attached with civil injunctions.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

Fuck them.

Name them and let people in their community deal with them the creepy fucks.

 

[Pickman's model]

Tbf uk firsts armoured landrover doesnt exsist and if it does it will be sitting on the side of the motorway in a puddle of oil
Probably go with release the nonce hounds

not surprised this armoured landrover doesn't exist as neither does uk first.

 

[Pickman's model]

Rape , living off immoral earnings , Kidnap, Threatening behaviour. All sorts of shit basically.

no such offence.