16 June 2010

Do we really want to know the grubby details of teen sex?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
91

The Canberra Times has a highly descriptive story of a former Scout on trial for his alleged sexual engagements with 13-15 year old girls (also involved with scouting) when he was 17-18.

I’ll leave it to the judge to decide just how serious this is.

But as a reader is this the level of detail you want?

(And how do we stop this sort of thing without returning to the days of chaperones?)

Lurid court details of teenage sex

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Join the conversation

91
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Captain RAAF said :

Umm…looks to me like daddy’s little girl (who just happens to have a liking for c#*%) got busted and now in order to salvage some semblance of dignity the family are crying ‘abuse’.

Not all 13 year old girls are sweet and innocent, in fact from what my 12 year old daughter tells me a lot of them are dirty whores who like nothing more than to conduct the very same activities outlined in that article.

I 100% agree. There needs to be protection for guys who are accused when girls cry rape after just regretting something or getting caught by their parents.

I’ve heard many stories where a girl goes around telling everyone a guy ‘raped’ her after she consented and then was embarrassed by sleeping with said guy. (The girl later admitting she consented).

The said thing is, these guys that it happens to have no protection. A girl can easily cry rape and then the guy can do nothing about it.

13 year old girls are far from innocent these days. I went to an all girls school in Canberra, and by the time I was 15 I was considered ‘frigid’ because I hadn’t slept with a guy.

I’m not saying that they are making it up, just that there needs to be more protection because they could be easily making it up.

Deadmandrinking said :

VG, I would refer you to a story about a WA kid who was just recently cleared of rape, after a year in prison. Our legal system is not perfect. Innocent people do sometimes go to jail. I’m not going to comment on a case that involved a completely different legal system to ours, or one that involve trial by an illegal process, but I can pretty much safely say that there are people in jail all around the world who are innocent.

DMD – That case actually backs up VG’s point. The kids did not plea bargain but maintained his innocence and fought it tooth and nail. The issue with that was that he was banged up in remand for so long as a juvenile while awaiting trial. I seem to recall, and am open to be corrected, that the DPP actually ended up giving the option of dropping the charges but the family wanted an acquittal so pursued the trial to the end.

Getalife sounds a lot American. Different country, different legal system. I get that some of you are concerned about people being falsely accused and having their life wrecked. This will happen. What I don’t get is raising this issue in a way that makes it seem like it happens all the time. For me Bimbogeek summed up the legitimate doubt.

Maybe someone should drag out the real stats for how many cases are reported and never make it to court, or make it to court and never go beyond a committal. How many people who have been raped and felt the legal system has failed to get justice. I think you may be horrified. Its not the alleged perpetrators that are being let down by the legal system.

getalife123457 said :

“That is absolute bollocks, and your friend can’t be too ‘learned’”

I do work in the legal profession and the 30% statistic is absolutely correct – everything is a plea bargain these days: if you (just per say) were up on countless charges regardless of your guilt, but lets just say you were not guilty, and there was the very large risk of jail time if you proceeded with a not guilty plea, however if you chose to plea guilty there would be no risk of jail time and some of your charges were dropped, what would you honestly opt for…seriously?…however thankyou for your ever so insightful and well informed comments vg.

To quote the crucible (salem witch-hunts):

“If she is innocent! Why do you never wonder if Parris be innocent, or Abigail? Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers? I’ll tell you what’s walking Salem—-vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law! This warrant’s vengeance!”

It’s sad from reading this thread that it would completely blow so many peoples minds to even FATHOM that there’s another side to the story, or to even FATHOM that not everything you read about or hear is true, or to even really fathom that teenage girls can be vengeful, manipulative and spiteful.

There was a case a few years back in the US where a math teacher failed half of his year 12 class. 7 of the failed students launched sexual assault cases in a vengence attempt against said teacher…it happens.

I will again say bollocks, having spent the last 20 years, not 20 minutes, right amongst it in the ACT judicial system. The fact that you refer to ‘jail time’ in the ACT only shows how little you know. Plea bargaining is also an American phrase

“but I can pretty much safely say that there are people in jail all around the world who are innocent.”

You’d have to be an idiot not to agree, but I can pretty much safely say there’s 1000 times more guilty people in prison

getalife1234578:15 pm 23 Jun 10

“That is absolute bollocks, and your friend can’t be too ‘learned’”

I do work in the legal profession and the 30% statistic is absolutely correct – everything is a plea bargain these days: if you (just per say) were up on countless charges regardless of your guilt, but lets just say you were not guilty, and there was the very large risk of jail time if you proceeded with a not guilty plea, however if you chose to plea guilty there would be no risk of jail time and some of your charges were dropped, what would you honestly opt for…seriously?…however thankyou for your ever so insightful and well informed comments vg.

To quote the crucible (salem witch-hunts):

“If she is innocent! Why do you never wonder if Parris be innocent, or Abigail? Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers? I’ll tell you what’s walking Salem—-vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law! This warrant’s vengeance!”

It’s sad from reading this thread that it would completely blow so many peoples minds to even FATHOM that there’s another side to the story, or to even FATHOM that not everything you read about or hear is true, or to even really fathom that teenage girls can be vengeful, manipulative and spiteful.

There was a case a few years back in the US where a math teacher failed half of his year 12 class. 7 of the failed students launched sexual assault cases in a vengence attempt against said teacher…it happens.

I wonder how many people saw “Do we really want to know the grubby details of teen sex?” and clicked the link in order to find out just how grubby those details were.

And that’s the same reason the Canberra Times wrote what they did.

Peter Hollingsworth had to resign as GG for suggesting that a 13 yr old threw herself at a molesting priest.

And yet still people believe this type of rubbish.

Deadmandrinking10:48 am 21 Jun 10

On RAAF’s argument (which makes me really, really angry, sorry) – he’s forgotten the massive friggin elephant in the room: The girl was 13! She probably looked 13, sounded 13 and thought 13. If that girl ‘threw herself at you’ at age 13 and you went for it, you are most likely a pedophile.

How not to be a pedophile? Don’t sleep with kids. Pretty god-damn basic.

VG, I would refer you to a story about a WA kid who was just recently cleared of rape, after a year in prison. Our legal system is not perfect. Innocent people do sometimes go to jail. I’m not going to comment on a case that involved a completely different legal system to ours, or one that involve trial by an illegal process, but I can pretty much safely say that there are people in jail all around the world who are innocent.

georgesgenitals9:41 am 21 Jun 10

LurkerGal said :

I love you VG

Me too. And don’t worry, I’m older than 13.

I love you VG

bronte said :

Skidbladnir said :

bronte said :

I realise many people have already made up their minds regarding this man’s guilt…

Bearing in mind that the defendant had also made up his mind regarding guilt, he plead guilty on the 16th, ie: the same day we were all talking about it.

My learned friends in the law profession inform me that a substantial proportion (something like 30%) of defendants that enter a guilty plea are doing so even though they are innocent. Sometimes it is just impossible and impractical to spend more time and money to prove the unprovable. Just sayin’.

That is absolute bollocks, and your friend can’t be too ‘learned’.

There are plenty of ‘innocents’ in prison who, despite the testimony of countless eye witnesses, still profess ‘it wasn’t me’.

The old ‘woe is me, its too expensive to defend’ argument is bollocks. How many QCs did Eastman use whilst living in public housing……oh thats right, he’s innocent as well.

I would be infinitely more experienced in the Court system than your learned friend, and they are talking out their bot bot

Why do people here assume these stories result in extra newspapers being sold? I doubt even the paper believes that.

Media reports about legal hearings are important, because they are usually the only way the public finds out about trials and decisions. Would you be happy for judges to be accountable to no one other than their peers? Especially the ACT’s judges? I doubt the public eye bothers them, but it’s better than nothing.

As for the level of detail, I think the public should be told enough facts to understand the seriousness of the charge, but no more. I can’t really see how the original story is a step too far, as fewer details could steer readers to what might be called the Captain RAAF position.

Schapelle Corby is as guilty as the day is long, and Hicks was caught after attending a terrorist training camp (and admitting such).

It wasn’t Corby protesting her innocence that got her 20 years in a Balinese prison, it was all the dope in her boogie board bag. Their country, their rules. Welcome to 1st grade Schapelle

dvaey – you’re kidding right? Two shining examples of stand up Australians there. One was found with dope in her boogie board and the other was hanging out in a terrorist training camp.

People who are innocent do fight tooth and nail. Taking a plea on one count of sexual assault when you know you’re guilty of 3 sounds like trying for a discounted sentence rather then an innocent person who has ust given up.

Pull your head out of the sand and smell the bullshit sprinkled on the roses.

This guy would have a lawyer and/or family members advising him. He is not being bullied by the prosecutor, alone on an oval, or in a car I don’t see any similarities t all between his guilty plea, and his victims being forced by him into doing what he wanted.

I would be amazed if he were innocent. There are multiple victims, telling similar stories, over the course of several years. And he has chosen to plead guilty.

I’m not sure why people here are so keen to tout the possibility of his innocence. Not wanting to believe that this stuff really happens perhaps?

As to preventing these incidents. Perhaps printing the details (or some of the circumstances) warns people of what can happen.

Skidbladnir said :

PS: Can people go and rape mutes? They don’t say no…

Can a mute consent to anything then?

Tooks said :

How many accused of sexual offences plead guilty when they’re innocent?

Youre looking at the specifics too much. The real question should be ‘how many people will plead guilty to a charge in order to get other charges dropped?’. Whether youre pleading guilty to manslaughter to get out of murder, or pleading guilty to one count of sex with a minor, to get out of 2 others and a charge of child pornography.

This person was put in a position like theyre claiming he put the girls in.. either give the authority figure what they want, or risk the unknown (assault in her case, longer jail-time in his case). His life was probably already ruined, even if he’d cleared his name in court, due to the publicity surrounding this case. Publishing all this stuff means no-one comes out a winner, except the newspaper who sold a few more copies, both lives are ruined.

vg said :

Typical of another of the bull shit reasons to try and excuse someone from responsibility. I would fight tooth and nail for my innocence. We’re not talking about someone defending a speeding ticket here. Grow the f up!

One story comes to mind here, remember schapelle corby, kept pleading her innocence, got her 20 years in a dirty prison. David Hicks comes to mind too, tells authority what they want to hear, since he probably figured its better to be thought of as guilty, than risk the worse option.. not all of us have the determination to ‘fight tooth and nail for innocence’, if the options are weighed up. If a person in authority (ie. prosecutor) says ‘plead guilty and get probation, or plead not-guilty and we’ll throw you in jail for 20 years’, its easy to understand what a young boy would do.

“I’m sorry, i don’t have that information to hand. But i stand by my original comment. If you were in that position (and i hope you never come to be), accused of something that you were unable to prove you had not done, what would you do? Shell out thousands of dollars more to continue to plead your innocence? Or cut your losses and end it with a guilty plea? If this is what has happened, it wouldn’t be the first time in the history of the judicial system.”

Typical of another of the bull shit reasons to try and excuse someone from responsibility. I would fight tooth and nail for my innocence. We’re not talking about someone defending a speeding ticket here. Grow the f up!

The reason he pleaded guilty was because he is guilty. Made even more pertinent because of the way ACT Courts treat people. Pleading guilty in an ACT Court says something

How many accused of sexual offences plead guilty when they’re innocent?

I’m sorry, i don’t have that information to hand. But i stand by my original comment. If you were in that position (and i hope you never come to be), accused of something that you were unable to prove you had not done, what would you do?

I would fight it til the very end. You would never get a guilty plea from me in that situation – not in a million years.

Special G’s comment (#73) is spot on, in my opinion.

What a load of crap. Any person claiming innocence and pleading guilty, especially in the ACT Court system, is kidding you.

Some of the comments in relation to treatment of children here are just out of line. 13yr olds are willing to please and like to think they are more mature than they are. This is what can make them prey for older people. This is why there is legislation in place to protect our young people.

I just hope that Mr Nameless doesn’t run out of excuses to stop Backdoor Bubba in Cellblock 13 from accessing his prostate.

Oh – and not sure if anyone here actually went to high-school, but guys two-? three years older going out with a girl was pretty much normal in my neck of the woods..

Is it still the case that most paedophile activity or abuse of a minor occurs within the family? Perhaps every parent must pass a ‘working with kids’ test before they are allowed to bond with their offspring.

Must be easier in riotact where everything is either black OR white. no grey possible.

Tooks said :

How many accused of sexual offences plead guilty when they’re innocent?

I’m sorry, i don’t have that information to hand. But i stand by my original comment. If you were in that position (and i hope you never come to be), accused of something that you were unable to prove you had not done, what would you do? Shell out thousands of dollars more to continue to plead your innocence? Or cut your losses and end it with a guilty plea? If this is what has happened, it wouldn’t be the first time in the history of the judicial system.

Why are so many riotactors, and for that matter the Canberra Times, so unwilling to even entertain the thought that maybe, just maybe, there is another side to this story? And any time anybody has posted an alternative view on this board, they are attacked? Try to open your tiny little minds a little and take a more critical view of this whole fiasco.

bronte said :

Skidbladnir said :

bronte said :

I realise many people have already made up their minds regarding this man’s guilt…

Bearing in mind that the defendant had also made up his mind regarding guilt, he plead guilty on the 16th, ie: the same day we were all talking about it.

My learned friends in the law profession inform me that a substantial proportion (something like 30%) of defendants that enter a guilty plea are doing so even though they are innocent. Sometimes it is just impossible and impractical to spend more time and money to prove the unprovable. Just sayin’.

How many accused of sexual offences plead guilty when they’re innocent?

Bronte. With respect, my learned friends in the law profession would call that statistic totally incorrect. Maybe 30% of them still CLAIM they are innocent and only pled guilty because of the above reasons, but most of them are still guilty.

It’s (his innocence)unprovable because it’s non existant.

Skidbladnir said :

bronte said :

I realise many people have already made up their minds regarding this man’s guilt…

Bearing in mind that the defendant had also made up his mind regarding guilt, he plead guilty on the 16th, ie: the same day we were all talking about it.

My learned friends in the law profession inform me that a substantial proportion (something like 30%) of defendants that enter a guilty plea are doing so even though they are innocent. Sometimes it is just impossible and impractical to spend more time and money to prove the unprovable. Just sayin’.

neanderthalsis12:39 pm 18 Jun 10

Consent or perceived consent doesn’t come into the arguement when you have an adult in a position of authority and a child. Being 13/14, it doesn’t matter how she dresses or acts or what she says, if the other party knows she is a minor then it is illegal. If she had said she was 17/18 things would be different.

As for giving consent, “no, no, no, no, ok get it over with” to me reeks of coercion. Any decent male (given the removal of the age and authorative issues) would have moved on after the first no.

OMFG…Tinker84 are you serious?

I’d have to agree wholeheartedly with fgzk, it IS hard to tell whether your vehement comments come from naivity or stupidity…either way, it is clear as a bell that you have never been placed in the horrid position of having your “no” ignored, or not taken seriously, or open to interpretation. “Giving in to something” is not consent, it not even a choice at that point. I pray for your sake that neither you nor your loved ones ever find themselves frightened to the point of having it “give in to something”.

Tinkers….A child being pressured by an adult in a position of power to do something. You work out what a child is conditioned to do.

What is your excuse for trying to excuse the inexcusable. Blaming the victim for failing to protect themselves is an old defence used by perpetrators to excuse their crimes. He pleaded guilty to a crime so at least he isn’t trying to blame others. You are. You are effectively blaming a child for their own rape by an adult.

Once again this is the type of justification used by paedophiles. Consent is not an issue with children. What you where taught as a child is not relevant. A paedophile will use what they where taught as a child to justifies their actions and make the child think they are doing something that is normal. They will introduce the concept of consent giving the illusion of control. They want the child to submit. Its called grooming.

Raaf uses the same type of concept but takes it a step further by saying a child is dirty and deserves nothing better. So it does not matter what happens to them. This would be a form of conditioning. All adult concepts projected on to children for the eventual gratification of a paedophile.

Tinker84 you might just be naive or stupid, its hard to tell.

p1 said :

tinkers84 said :

…If you are giving in to something that means your no has changed into a yes….

I’m sure glad you aren’t a judge.

+1. Obviously escaped from a mensa convention.

bronte said :

I realise many people have already made up their minds regarding this man’s guilt…

Bearing in mind that the defendant had also made up his mind regarding guilt, he plead guilty on the 16th, ie: the same day we were all talking about it.

Tinkers: I read the article. But I also heard it all first hand. No meant no. No continued to mean no.

So when someone is raped, and they stop saying “no”, they are lying there in shock, and have given up, their “no” has changed to a “yes”?

If a 13 year old gets so scared they just give in because it’s easier than fighting someone in authority, and no one will believe your story because this person is trusted, then their no has changed to a yes? At 13 are you even capable of knowing the difference?

tinkers84 said :

…If you are giving in to something that means your no has changed into a yes….

I’m sure glad you aren’t a judge.

Grrrr said :

tinkers84 said :

No only means No if you say it.

So it doesn’t matter how many times you say no to someone – if you finally give in and do what they ask you, then there’s no problem?

Read the article, the girl said she ran out of excuses… you don’t need an excuse, if you don’t want to do something then say “No!”. It’s what my parents always taught me. If you are giving in to something that means your no has changed into a yes. If you truly mean it then don’t back down for anything, and if someone is hasseling you to agree to something then THAT is when you take action, not after the alleged incident.

The guy plead guilty today, so this story is now definitively about ‘sexual assault’ rather than ‘teen sex’.

georgesgenitals7:51 pm 17 Jun 10

I’m going to go out on a bit of a limb here, and suggest that the 13 year olds who think they’re ready for sex with adults are kidding themselves. They don’t know any better, which is why the law is in place to protect them.

Just because someone had a sexual experience at 13 and isn’t messed up now, doesn’t make it right.

I realise many people have already made up their minds regarding this man’s guilt, but can i just echo a point made earlier in this thread – that this is still before the courts, that there are two (or more) sides to every story, and maybe what is written in the trashbag Times is not all the information that is currently available.

Tink, I’m happy for you that at 13 you were mature
enough to want to sleep with whoever offered. These girls
were young, scared, clueless about sex and emotionally immature.

tinkers84 said :

If they had wanted to say no then they should have, they were not forced or threatened.

So, you mean exactly like is quoted in yesterday’s CT article?
…drove the then 15-year-old to a nearby oval and asked her to perform oral sex.
“He asked me… as he was pulling his pants down… I said that no, I didn’t really want to…”
…CD told the court that, under pressure from the man…
…she felt uncomfortable…

tinkers84 said :

No only means No if you say it.

This is possibly the stupidest comment in this thread.

How many times does a person have to say no, before you want them to fight their way out, if they are apparently ‘accepting’ of your further advances?
If they resign themselves to not getting out, and give up the goods to your demand, is there no problem in your mind?

PS: Can people go and rape mutes? They don’t say no…

“No only means No if you say it.”

That’s one of the least intelligent comments I’ve read on this site. I can’t believe some of the comments on this thread.

tinkers84 said :

I would have been considered a victim like these girls when I was their age, except I was never vindictive and bitter the way these girls are.

If they had wanted to say no then they should have, they were not forced or threatened. No only means No if you say it.

What an absolute load of crap.

“I haven’t had this much sex since I was a boy scout leader!” – Frank Drebbin.

tinkers84 said :

No only means No if you say it.

So it doesn’t matter how many times you say no to someone – if you finally give in and do what they ask you, then there’s no problem?

Mr Unnamed has now changed his plea.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/former-scout-pleads-guilty-to-sex-with-underage-girl/1860877.aspx
When the judge-alone trial resumed, the man entered guilty pleas to three counts of having sexual intercourse with AB when she was 13, and one of possessing child pornography. A charge of having sex with AB when she was 14 was dropped.

It only two years of court process, and forcing victims to be subjected to the defendant’s QC making the claim that they made it all up…

BimboGeek and Captain RAAF, I love you.

I would have been considered a victim like these girls when I was their age, except I was never vindictive and bitter the way these girls are.

If they had wanted to say no then they should have, they were not forced or threatened. No only means No if you say it.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

In older times, people were considered mature at much younger ages than we consider them mature today.

Hint: we’re not in older times. We don’t feed Christians to lions, we let women vote, and lynching black people is frowned upon. In any case, your argument is bullsh*t. In olden times children were just exploited.

As I stated, I was using the ‘olden times’ example to prove how life expectancies have changed, now how culture has changed.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Most people can handle sex before 16 in the same way that most people can handle smoking a joint.

Is that your professional opinion? Is it still your opinion when one of the parties is an adult? You go on to claim a 50 year old with a 10 year old is wrong – where exactly do your arbitrary limits kick in, and how are they better than the arbitrary legal limits we have now?

If you bother to read what I said immediately after the part you quoted, you’ll see I said ‘the laws are there to protect the vulnerable’.

You did however find the point that I was trying to make, that arbitrary limits dont work. Everyone is different, and while some people might be perfectly able to live on the streets by themselves at age 13 or 14, others cant even live by themselves by age 25, in the same way some people are mature enough to understand sex at age 13 and others still dont understand into their 20s. If there was a law passed that said you must live with your parents until age 25 (or 18), because some people under that age cannot live on their own, would you feel the same way about a law that says you cant have sex until 16?

As for where ‘my arbitrary limit kicks in’, my example of 2 generations of age difference, is an example of abuse, whereas I consider 2 (or 3 or 4) years difference in high-school year, is an example of curious teenagers.

Woody Mann-Caruso6:10 pm 16 Jun 10

Its interesting how many people jump on the age bandwagon, as if things magically change when you turn 16, 18 or 21.

Legally, they do. A minor (heh) detail when you’re looking at a jail term and being a registered sex offender for the rest of your days.

In older times, people were considered mature at much younger ages than we consider them mature today.

Hint: we’re not in older times. We don’t feed Christians to lions, we let women vote, and lynching black people is frowned upon. In any case, your argument is bullsh*t. In olden times children were just exploited. It wasn’t a happy Neverland ranch where kids made informed choices about getting raped by their elders.

children of today are different to 20 years ago, and different to 100 years or more ago.

Make up your mind. Do we let them do what they were allowed to do (or forced) in ye olden days, or are they different and so should be treated differently?

Most people can handle sex before 16 in the same way that most people can handle smoking a joint.

Is that your professional opinion? Is it still your opinion when one of the parties is an adult? You go on to claim a 50 year old with a 10 year old is wrong – where exactly do your arbitrary limits kick in, and how are they better than the arbitrary legal limits we have now?

Pommy bastard6:02 pm 16 Jun 10

Captain RAAF said :

Yeah, the odds of finding so many young girls all with the same character flaw, it’s unfathomable!!!

But wait a sec, he was also extremely unfortunate in chancing on so many 13 year old girls that had parents that let them drive off with 17/18 year old boys….must have been the scout uniform that fooled them…..

Interesting, most people let their kids go to scouts, a Christian and military style organisation, as they believe, rightly or wrongly that persons involved, especially those in positions of authority, will be good people. The perfect place for a predatory pedophile to gain trust and to abuse that trust,as we see here.

Thanks for supporting my points Captain Pedo. I will certainly not let my kids be involved in such an organaisation, in the same way I would not let my kids be involved with the Catholic Church.

Its interesting how many people jump on the age bandwagon, as if things magically change when you turn 16, 18 or 21. In older times, people were considered mature at much younger ages than we consider them mature today. Even as recently as 100 years ago, some European countries had a head-of-state (ie. king or queen) who was under 13 (in one case, 10 years old). With a life expectancy of 50 considered high, people werent waiting until their 30s to have kids like is happening now.

We only have to look at the constant police releases about young teenagers behaving like adults (at least, like childish adults) and commiting offenses such as assault and robbery, to know that children of today are different to 20 years ago, and different to 100 years or more ago.

IMHO, the problem with the ‘system’ is the same problem that affects drug users. Most people can handle sex before 16 in the same way that most people can handle smoking a joint. The laws are there to protect (and/or punish) the vulnerable, ie. those with mental disease, those with poor tolerance, etc. Sure, there are some instances for example a 50 year old adult with a 10 year old child, where protections are needed, but not between a 13/15 and 17 year old (or 18, he doesnt magically change on his 18th birthday, he’s still wired the same as when he was 17).

georgesgenitals4:40 pm 16 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

Amazing how this poor misunderstood young man managed to end up in sexual relationships with so many underage girls of the sort who have second thoughts and get their parents to “salvage some semblance of dignity the family” by crying ‘abuse’.

And of course taking out underage girls in your car, gifting them with vibrators, and asking them for oral sex, well come on! It’s just a natural thing to do at that age (18/19/20 yrs old) isn’t it?

Poor misunderstood lad, I mean, once is unfortunate, twice is terrible bad luck, but three or four times? The poor boy is cursed I tell you.

All he had to do was point his romantic skills at girls his own age (as most of us tried to do in the second half of our teens) and he would have been fine.

Assistant to leader does equal a position in power. Also second in charge, a responsibility that shouldn’t be taken lightly one would think…

I think we’re getting a bit caught up in the details. Almost as much as the Canberra Times have.

In short the guy was given some authority and he allgedly abused it so he could take advantage of minors. Wether he was in charge, second in charge or just hanging around it’s not the done thing.

If he’s guilty they should lock the little rock spider up and let his fellow inmates sort him out.

Captain RAAF4:15 pm 16 Jun 10

Yeah, the odds of finding so many young girls all with the same character flaw, it’s unfathomable!!!

But wait a sec, he was also extremely unfortunate in chancing on so many 13 year old girls that had parents that let them drive off with 17/18 year old boys….must have been the scout uniform that fooled them…..

icantbelieveitsnotbutter3:48 pm 16 Jun 10

Pommy bastard said :

Amazing how this poor misunderstood young man managed to end up in sexual relationships with so many underage girls of the sort who have second thoughts and get their parents to “salvage some semblance of dignity the family” by crying ‘abuse’.

And of course taking out underage girls in your car, gifting them with vibrators, and asking them for oral sex, well come on! It’s just a natural thing to do at that age (18/19/20 yrs old) isn’t it?

Poor misunderstood lad, I mean, once is unfortunate, twice is terrible bad luck, but three or four times? The poor boy is cursed I tell you.

I shouldn’t laugh, but I did when reading this…

Pommy bastard3:08 pm 16 Jun 10

Amazing how this poor misunderstood young man managed to end up in sexual relationships with so many underage girls of the sort who have second thoughts and get their parents to “salvage some semblance of dignity the family” by crying ‘abuse’.

And of course taking out underage girls in your car, gifting them with vibrators, and asking them for oral sex, well come on! It’s just a natural thing to do at that age (18/19/20 yrs old) isn’t it?

Poor misunderstood lad, I mean, once is unfortunate, twice is terrible bad luck, but three or four times? The poor boy is cursed I tell you.

Yes, position of power, however, not in charge.

there have very recently been some revalations come out in scouting as to who can and cannot be around children (sparked by the “allegations”). There are new rules dictating what is a position of power and who is considered in charge. The rules for that were much more blurry before this all happened.

Assistant to the Leader = Position of Power

Same as a teaching assistant, if that makes it easier for you to understand?

kl123 said :

He wasn’t in charge of the minor. He was a rover assistant to the leader.

…and I suspect that distinction will make for an interesting part of the final verdict, whatever that may be.

Deadmandrinking1:32 pm 16 Jun 10

Sorry RAAF, but the ‘uncovered meat’ line doesn’t work. If you are 18, you should know that 13 is not an okay age for a partner, regardless of what the 13 year old says or does. The buck stops there.

I don’t think this level of detail is nessercary either, but, I don’t think the defendants name should be released untill he has been convicted. Regardless of the evidence found, he is not guilty of a crime untill the courts find him guilty. We don’t live under the law of the media or mob mentality. We live under the law of a Liberal Democracy.

p1 said :

Err, except that as an adult in charge of a minor, he had a duty of care and responsibility which would be broken by engaging in sexual contact. In the same way the a school teacher in their twenties having relationships with 17 year olds is illegal.

He wasn’t in charge of the minor. He was a rover assistant to the leader.

Moving on (as this isn’t really the discussion at hand)

kl123 said :

p1 said :

Even were the comments of the likes of Capt RAAF an accurate description of the situation, by his nature of being in a position of responsibility, it was both illegal and stupid (and would have been, was he 18 and one day, and her 17 and 364 days old).

Actually, It wouldn’t have been illegal as such (in the above example) seeing as how the age of consent is 16 years old. Stupid, yes. Frowned upon (in the above example), yes.

I’m not saying that what the scout member involved [Allegedly] did was right, in fact it was very wrong and he should most definately be put in prison [if found guilty], im just getting facts straigh.

Err, except that as an adult in charge of a minor, he had a duty of care and responsibility which would be broken by engaging in sexual contact. In the same way the a school teacher in their twenties having relationships with 17 year olds is illegal.

p1 said :

Even were the comments of the likes of Capt RAAF an accurate description of the situation, by his nature of being in a position of responsibility, it was both illegal and stupid (and would have been, was he 18 and one day, and her 17 and 364 days old).

Actually, It wouldn’t have been illegal as such (in the above example) seeing as how the age of consent is 16 years old. Stupid, yes. Frowned upon (in the above example), yes.

I’m not saying that what the scout member involved [Allegedly] did was right, in fact it was very wrong and he should most definately be put in prison [if found guilty], im just getting facts straigh.

Dvaey

None of my views were formed by the newspaper article.

My views were formed 2 and a half years ago.

Just so you know, my asertion of his guilt was not influenced in any way by the 500 words in the article. And as I said, much was not reported. Hence some of my comments.

I’m not giving anyone his name (although it has been mentioned in the media during many of the hearings) so I’ll say what I feel.

Whoops, forgot to answer the question in the OP. No, we don’t need too much detail in the reporting. Detailed descriptions of actions like this (in my opinion) border of child porn themselves. Would the Canberra Times print the mobile phone photos if they were public?

icantbelieveitsnotbutter12:24 pm 16 Jun 10

Reporting salacious details to sell newspapers… who would have thought a trashy local, ahem… sorry, national rag would do that???

As for debating the merits of the case, I feel no one on this forum is qualified to do that as we don’t really know what happened except for what has been reported in all of 500 words.

Many of the comments here about the perfectly happy actions of people ranged 13 to 20ish fooling around are fine, and most of the time I feel that way myself. However, in this case, the accused was in a position of authority, by nature of being considered in a leadership role. This makes it wrong for a whole ‘nother reason. Even then, I know that the real world isn’t simple and the absolute values, like the number of days since your birth, can loose meaning. However again, he is accused of multiple offences against different individuals (making it hard to claim a lapse of judgement in the heat of passion), and the alleged victims have made complaints (making it not a technical violation of a age limit, but rather the violation of a person.

Even were the comments of the likes of Capt RAAF an accurate description of the situation, by his nature of being in a position of responsibility, it was both illegal and stupid (and would have been, was he 18 and one day, and her 17 and 364 days old).

Skidbladnir said :

Lets clarify something here.
This accused wasn’t -actually- a group leader, simply in a position of authority by being a Rover in charge of ‘organising a Scouting activity’.

ACT Scouting used to have a policy requiring only group leaders to report suspect child offences, not the Scouting membership themselves.
In November 2009 the policy was updated to include a requirement on every adult Scout to report offences, and included a mandatory requirement on any Venturer or Rover Scout in a position of authority (like taking children on a camp or being Gang Show director, for example) to undergo police checking every three years.

ACT Scouting’s Child Protection Policy document is here

Media coverage (and Stanhope’s nod of approval) of the Policy is here

Thanks for the clarification Skid. I think my point remains the same though, I’m sure to the younger members of that group he was percieved as a leader and took advantage of that position to get what he wanted out of them (allegedly).

Being in a position of authority denotes some kind of leadership surely.

So its better to #### them …hey Captainraaf. Still sounding very grooming. Its word for word in some places. Maybe you don’t know what you are saying for what it is. Maybe some one should help you with that before it becomes a problem.

“I could really live without it.”

Pommy bastard12:05 pm 16 Jun 10

Captain RAAF, you sound as if you are suffering a bad case of NBPE. As the proud father of a teenage daughter, I’d be happy to apply the cure.

Ideas like yours are an anathema to any thinking person. Did it not cross your mind that any underage girl who acts “like a dirty whore” has probably got BIG problems already, and that anyone like yourself who promote them as culpable is just pandering to pedophiles.

Woody Mann-Caruso11:58 am 16 Jun 10

Tha was a long reply, Cap’n, but I’m not sure it had anything do with what I said. I didn’t say anything about trying to change kids’ behaviour. I’m saying that adults – and minors in positions of trust – need to take the high road and walk away.

I thought the argument was about the level of detail from the Canberra times…?

Bimbogeek +1

Captain RAAF said :

Wasn’t the suspect 17 at the time?

For only one offense.
Of the many.
Not the two subsequent victims.
Nor for his child pornography charge.

Captain RAAF11:35 am 16 Jun 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Its not the innocents of the child that is an issue its the actions of the adult. You make me wanta puke.

+100. It doesn’t matter if daddy’s little girl has a voracious sexual appetite and throws herself at you naked and oiled – if you’re an adult, you Walk. The. F*ck. Away.

Woody, you can try to change the attitudes of these kids as much as you like and you will invariably fail. They are happy to conduct these activities and us, as concerned parents can try and shape and manipulate them to what is right but if they don’t wnat to change, they won’t!

If such attitudes worked there would be no repeat offenders in our juvenile correctional facilities, they would all have changed their ways after their first offence and incarceration, but they DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE. It is typical of todays society to expect to be able to impose their will on everyone and not just accept that some people are entirely happy living a life of crime or of anti-social behaviour. All the case-managers and welafer do-gooders in the world can’t fix these people.

Now I’m not saying that these girls involved are definately in this category but there is a very real chance that they are happy with their actions and have been driven by mum and dad to make a complaint, it happens very often nowadays.

But god forbid if I should offer up the other side of the argument and confront people here with what is a ‘possible’ scenario as now I’m apparently a paedophile (them’s fighting words btw), disgusting, abhorrent etc etc.

Wake up people and accept that you can’t help everyone, not everyone wants to be helped and some people are just not worth helping!

georgesgenitals11:32 am 16 Jun 10

Captain RAAF said :

georgesgenitals said :

The whole point is that these kids aren’t legally old enough to be making these decisions, which is why the responsibility rests with the adult. The behaviour of the child doesn’t change anything.

Wasn’t the suspect 17 at the time?

Only for some of the offences. And it’s still illegal, I think.

Captain RAAF11:23 am 16 Jun 10

georgesgenitals said :

The whole point is that these kids aren’t legally old enough to be making these decisions, which is why the responsibility rests with the adult. The behaviour of the child doesn’t change anything.

Wasn’t the suspect 17 at the time?

AngryHenry said :

This guy was a group leader and had a duty of care.

Lets clarify something here.
This accused wasn’t -actually- a group leader, simply in a position of authority by being a Rover in charge of ‘organising a Scouting activity’.

ACT Scouting used to have a policy requiring only group leaders to report suspect child offences, not the Scouting membership themselves.
In November 2009 the policy was updated to include a requirement on every adult Scout to report offences, and included a mandatory requirement on any Venturer or Rover Scout in a position of authority (like taking children on a camp or being Gang Show director, for example) to undergo police checking every three years.

ACT Scouting’s Child Protection Policy document is here

Media coverage (and Stanhope’s nod of approval) of the Policy is here

georgesgenitals10:59 am 16 Jun 10

The whole point is that these kids aren’t legally old enough to be making these decisions, which is why the responsibility rests with the adult. The behaviour of the child doesn’t change anything.

Our culture is definitely caught up on age, particularly magical barriers at which little princesses become dirty whores, unpolluted children become binge-drinkers, etc.

I first kissed a boy at 13 and he was ~18, it wasn’t abuse, it was just kids smooching. The fact that I didn’t meet anyone I considered f*ckable until I was 17 doesn’t mean my girlfriends were “abused” and I wasn’t, it just means we all had teen sex and started at different ages. One girlfriend had a 25yo boyfriend at 15 and was perfectly capable of handling it, she was just the mature and remarkably well balanced one in our group.

Those kinds of age gaps are often overlooked by police who are just not willing to ruin lives particularly where the parents are the ones doing the complaining and the kids are perfectly happy. They certainly don’t intervene when everyone’s happy.

I know little girls can sometimes regret their actions and I know very well from my own life that sometimes a grown-up can threaten or persuade a girl into doing things that she thinks is wrong and doesn’t want to do. But there’s also a difference between a teacher, adult family member or friend’s parent and another older teenager.

But since I have NFI the details here and it’s none of my business, I’m going to shut up now.

Captain Raaf your comment is so far from reasonable that I don’t know where to start.

But I suggest you stop using phrases like ‘dirty whores’ in conversation with your young daughter about her peers. This will not help her to gain a healthy self esteem as a woman, nor give her a good basis for future relationships – which she will have one day, even if she isn’t interested now.

Woody Mann-Caruso10:48 am 16 Jun 10

Its not the innocents of the child that is an issue its the actions of the adult. You make me wanta puke.

+100. It doesn’t matter if daddy’s little girl has a voracious sexual appetite and throws herself at you naked and oiled – if you’re an adult, you Walk. The. F*ck. Away.

I can’t believe I worked with that guy. He thought he was a real chick magnet. Revolts me!

Captain RAAF you sound like a paedophile I once new. He said much the same things as you do. Its not the innocents of the child that is an issue its the actions of the adult. You make me wanta puke.

Maybe not all 13 year olds are sweet and innocent Captain RAAF but we as adults should do our best to preserve and protect that innocence. Especially people who are in positions of responsibility such as the accused.

This guy was a group leader and had a duty of care. If the allegations are proven to be true he did the wrong thing and should be punished to the full extent.

Captain RAAF10:27 am 16 Jun 10

Umm…looks to me like daddy’s little girl (who just happens to have a liking for c#*%) got busted and now in order to salvage some semblance of dignity the family are crying ‘abuse’.

Not all 13 year old girls are sweet and innocent, in fact from what my 12 year old daughter tells me a lot of them are dirty whores who like nothing more than to conduct the very same activities outlined in that article.

Sorry people, the world has changed and a lot less of our young girls are all sugar and spice and everything nice.

As soon as I read that the ‘victims’ went back again and again, accepted colourful dildo’s and were sending pictures of their naked boobies to this bloke, they lost all credibility. The mere mention of boobs, sex and boy’s doodles send my 12 year old daughter into shock, and that, peoples, is what should constitute a notmal reaction from a girl of that age, not what these girls were up to.

Well, the defendant is currently going unnanmed in the media due to a blip in the ACT laws.
Maybe the CT is trying to highlight this?
The writing of this piece does nothing to achieve that outcome, though…

For those who are actually involved with Scouting it isn’t uncommon knowledge of who this person is, but for those not, Mr Unnamed, but was fairly active in a leadership role (up until he got charged), and was in a position of power thanks to his involvement with the .
He was over 18 at the time most of the offences occurred, but due to some occurring when he was 17, he is protected by the ACT’s child protection laws.
Why this wasn’t broken down into two seperate cases, one on the child-protected incidences I don’t know, I’m no lawyer.

EG:
Story published 16 Jun, 2010…
…The 23-year-old, who has pleaded not guilty… (So born 1987)
…Prosecutor Chris Todd said that in September 2004, the man and 13-year-old ”AB” went to a mutual friend’s birthday party….allegedly went into the bedroom in which the girl was sleeping, then went with her to another room and had sex. (So, was 17yrs old at the time this occurred)
…The next year, when the girl was 14, the man allegedly drove her from her school to a Scout hall where they had sex. (So, now legally an adult.)
The court heard that the man met his second alleged victim, “CD”, in 2006 during a Scouting activity in which he played an organisational role. (So, now 18 or 19)

CD said in pre-recorded video evidence that the man later contacted her to ”catch up” and that in January 2007 (So, when 19-20yo)he arranged to meet her at her local shops after work.
He allegedly drove the then 15-year-old to a nearby oval and asked her to perform oral sex. “He asked me… as he was pulling his pants down”…
“I said that no, I didn’t really want to… but he kept encouraging me to do it and wouldn’t take no for an answer. In the end I …gave in … and proceeded to give him oral sex.”

A third alleged victim, ”EF”, said in her pre-recorded video evidence that the man befriended her during a Scouting activity in 2007 (So when 19-20yo) and supported her through an emotional period.
The teenager told the court she was 15 when he gave her a purple vibrator in the car park of her local Scout hall and suggested it would help relieve her stress. At his request, she photographed her naked breasts and sent him the image via mobile phone.
…a 2007 search of his home found images of children engaged in sexual acts. (So while 20)

This isn’t the kind of person you want to have walking around, given that as an adult he used his position of influence to get amongst a crowd of young girls, as an adult didn’t accept that No Means No, and as an adult has since had two further victims beyond his ‘childhood’ crimes.
They also caught him (as an adult) with child pronography.
This person, due to a slight overlap with childhood on one of his cases, is being given the full benefits of the children’s court system, in that he’s not undergoing any of the kind of public scrutiny normally focussed on accused adult sex offenders in this town.

Interestingly, despite this, thanks to our child-protection laws, the Canberra Times has previously published Mr Non-Disclosure’s name, and still do on their website under a different headline. I have previously point this out to them, to no action from the CT Online Editor.
(The ABC Online Editor once gave me a nice apology when I pointed out that they had disclosed his name, Jb may have a copy of it somewhere…)
Its also up on the Court List today, if you’re interested or know who to look for.

georgesgenitals10:17 am 16 Jun 10

But as a reader is this the level of detail you want?

No.

The Crimes seems to delight in reporting pedophilia cases in fine detail, usually on the front page. I think it gives them some kind of perverse thrill. In any case I became sexually active when I was 13 and in almost all cases it was with people in their late teens and 20s. That was in the 1970s before this “new morality” took hold. I’m not trying to defend pedophilia at all, but I am what is nowadays called “a victim” and it didn’t harm me at all, in fact I loved every minute of it.

LurkerGal said :

As someone who has held at least 2 of the victims while they cried and screamed after this happened, I didn’t want to read it.

Isnt this about as stupid as someone who has a family member die publically, coming on here to berate media and riot-act posters for providing too much detail? I mean, you know the seriousness of the crime, why go and read it? Especially with a lead-up and a poll asking how much detail is okay.

LurkerGal said :

Also, it IS serious. 11 year old girl and 20 year old man? Especially one in a position of “power”? That’s freaking serious.

Did we read the same article? You get 20/11 and I get 17/13, or is the CT stretching ages now to make stories appear more sensational?

Also, while these types of stories are horrible for all those involved, I would like to point out the few keywords from OP, namely ‘trial’ and ‘alleged’. The guy on trial should at least be able to go before the courts, before everyone forms an opinion on one newspaper article.. then again, this IS the riot act, so since when has that ever happened?

Woody Mann-Caruso9:55 am 16 Jun 10

I’ll take ‘required her to perform a sex act’ over the f*cking colour of the vibrator, thanks.

(coming out of retirement to post).

As someone who has held at least 2 of the victims while they cried and screamed after this happened, I didn’t want to read it. Their families didn’t want to read it. They have all been through so much, seeing it on the front page of the Canberra times is not productive for anyone.

But you will be pleased to know that much was actually not reported (because so much was far far worse).

Also, it IS serious. 11 year old girl and 20 year old man? Especially one in a position of “power”? That’s freaking serious.

Sorry, for the emotive post. This is close to home.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.