Newsagents closed over claims girls as young as 12 offered alcohol for sex

Girls claimed Ten to Ten store on Hardman Street had reputation for offering booze in exchange for "sexual favours"
A city centre newsagents was closed down over allegations girls as young as 12 were plied with alcohol in exchange for sex.

The Ten to Ten store, in Hardman Street, was ordered to shut for three months by a judge at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court today.

Owner Ushan Wewawala sobbed after the closure order, which his solicitor Gary Bryan claimed would “finish his business”, was granted following an application by Merseyside Police. Angela Bellingham, representing the force, told the court: “There is an ongoing investigation relating to incidents recently reported, involving matters which came to light when a foster carer made a report to police that two 13-year-old females were being sexually exploited on the premises.”

Ms Bellingham said another 13-year-old girl “made disclosures” to a school safeguarding officer, and the court heard five girls in total are the subject of enquiries.


http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/newsagents-closed-over-claims-girls-11953219



This is what you lefties are letting into our country!!!

Obviously this man and his workers should be investigated for crimes against children, if guilty the punishment should fit the crime, not a paltry 6 years out in three like the animal who raped the 8 year old boy.

What should also be looked at now is the state of the care system.
Obviously these kids have troubled lives and they should be nurtured, so whats so badly wrong with the care system in this country that children can do as they please and go where they like unsupervised?

Not all the young girls who are raped by these paedophiles over the last couple of decades are in care, but they are all vulnerable, not only because of their age, but also because of their low self worth.....and that starts before these men have the chance to use and abuse them..

Why is society constantly letting down the kids of today?

Hmmm while I agree that these men were obviously wrong, without a shadow of a doubt....these girls were old enough to know what they were agreeing to? They wanted alcohol and had sex in return for it.

They are a small part to blame for their own actions....aren't they?

eddie wrote:Hmmm while I agree that these men were obviously wrong, without a shadow of a doubt....these girls were old enough to know what they were agreeing to? They wanted alcohol and had sex in return for it.

They are a small part to blame for their own actions....aren't they?

At 13 you cannot know the implications or negotiate the manipulations of men like this. You may think it's a lark, and then get drunk and before you know it....

The men are 100 percent to blame, IMO

Tommy Monk wrote:

Girls claimed Ten to Ten store on Hardman Street had reputation for offering booze in exchange for "sexual favours"
A city centre newsagents was closed down over allegations girls as young as 12 were plied with alcohol in exchange for sex.

The Ten to Ten store, in Hardman Street, was ordered to shut for three months by a judge at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court today.

Ms Bellingham said another 13-year-old girl “made disclosures” to a school safeguarding officer, and the court heard five girls in total are the subject of enquiries.

Take a closer look at all the carefully chosen terms here.

"Claims, reports, allegations, disclosures"

Words like FACTS and PROOF are conspicuous by their absence.

You set great store by FACTS and PROOF and this is the sort of case you would normally dismiss out of hand.

But it suits you to lower your ultra-strict standards on this occasion, don't it Tommy?  


It is being "investigated". If anything is proven, yes of course throw the book at him.

I get tnat the girls are young and naive but I think they knew exactly what they were doing - they went there to obtain drink and had no money.
The men still took advantage and nothing takes away from that fact but.......those girls still knew, by the sounds of it.

eddie wrote:Hmmm while I agree that these men were obviously wrong, without a shadow of a doubt....these girls were old enough to know what they were agreeing to? They wanted alcohol and had sex in return for it.

They are a small part to blame for their own actions....aren't they?

Girls as young as 12 and 13 ..especially girls from troubled homes and dysfunctional families are in no position to make sensible life choices.
Predators who target them and ply them with booze, cigs, sweets, attention.....are to blame.
Would I say the girls were in any way to blame, NO, I would not.

"You lefties" are letting sexual offenders into the country, now...
(Last time I looked, Britain still had a R/W conservative Tory guvm'nt)

That pointless, irrelevant and unsupported claim on Tommy Monk's part goes to show where his (empty) head is on this matter..

He obviously has no interest in the crime itself, nor the victims --  this is simply anothet pathetic example of that gormless little grub grasping at straws in his desperation to blame "lefties" and foreigners for anything and everything that is wrong with the world.

Grow a brain, Herr Monk..        

If guilty HANG the filthy bas****.

Another foruna eh.

This shop didn't get closed down for nothing... one of the scum bags has admitted it... but lying bastard says he thought the young girl was 19...



Eddie... are you really saying that a child is to blame when they cannot legally consent to sex and the adult should never be trying to give them alcohol or trying to take advantage of them... plus where it is rape for an adult to have sex with an underage child...!?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"You lefties" are letting sexual offenders into the country, now...
(Last time I looked, Britain still had a R/W conservative Tory guvm'nt)

That pointless, irrelevant and unsupported claim on Tommy Monk's part goes to show where his (empty) head is on this matter..

He obviously has no interest in the crime itself, nor the victims --  this is simply anothet pathetic example of that gormless little grub grasping at straws in his desperation to blame "lefties" and foreigners for anything and everything that is wrong with the world.

Grow a brain, Herr Monk..        

ANOTHER NEEDLESS snide rude antagonistic attack on Tommy and IGNORING the topic..

Wolfie has now become one of the 'chosen few'.

eddie wrote:I get tnat the girls are young and naive but I think they knew exactly what they were doing - they went there to obtain drink and had no money.
The men still took advantage and nothing takes away from that fact but.......those girls still knew, by the sounds of it.

The little tripe hounds could or could not have known what they were doing but they did not break a law, eddie.
The dirty men are to blame.

Seems to me they had crap parents.

Tommy Monk wrote:

..... one of the scum bags has admitted it... but lying bastard says he thought the young girl was 19...

And you know this how?

Come on, how on earth do you know he was lying??    Have you met him? Were you present in the interview room,  when he was interviewed? What special powers do you have to KNOW for a fact that he was lying?

It's just a story in a paper!  You are making a subjective judgement by saying he was lying and by using words like "admitted",as in admitting a crime.

I know this because the bastard admitted it and a 19 year old would be able to buy their own booze legally... and 13 year old girls do not look 19 years old!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:


I know this because the bastard admitted it and a 19 year old would be able to buy their own booze legally... and 13 year old girls do not look 19 years old!!!

You have used the lowest age mentioned as your yardstick. What if there were several 15yo's in this group?
A journalist will automatically put the most sensational spin on a story.
You don't have to lap up the spin just because it suits your beliefs.
What if the girl in question was 15? A tall chunky, 15yo can look 20, easily!
Post pubertal girls can look older.
The police were satisfied with his explanation, and they know the law more than you

From the article...


"...Ms Bellingham said in his police interview Mr Nawalge admitted “doing it” with a girl in the shop on one occasion, telling police he believed she was 19.

Mr Nawalge also accepted the underage girls interviewed as part of the investigation had come into the shop, and claimed they demanded alcohol or they would make “sexual allegations” against him.

But the court heard Mr Nawalge had not mentioned this incident until after his arrest, meaning it was too late to obtain CCTV footage.

Ms Bellingham pointed out that Mr Nawalge admitted allowing one of the 13-year-old complainants to use the staff toilets in the store even after she had made the supposed threat, which she said “beggars belief”...."

Tommy Monk wrote:


From the article...


"...Ms Bellingham said in his police interview Mr Nawalge admitted “doing it” with a girl in the shop on one occasion, telling police he believed she was 19.

Mr Nawalge also accepted the underage girls interviewed as part of the investigation had come into the shop, and claimed they demanded alcohol or they would make “sexual allegations” against him.

But the court heard Mr Nawalge had not mentioned this incident until after his arrest, meaning it was too late to obtain CCTV footage.

Ms Bellingham pointed out that Mr Nawalge admitted allowing one of the 13-year-old complainants to use the staff toilets in the store even after she had made the supposed threat, which she said “beggars belief”...."

Show me where it was proved that sex was exchanged for alcohol. Simple request.

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I know this because the bastard admitted it and a 19 year old would be able to buy their own booze legally... and 13 year old girls do not look 19 years old!!!

You have used the lowest age mentioned as your yardstick. What if there were several 15yo's in this group?
A journalist will automatically put the most sensational spin on a story.
You don't have to lap up the spin just because it suits your beliefs.
What if the girl in question was 15? A tall chunky, 15yo can look 20, easily!
Post pubertal girls can look older.
The police were satisfied with his explanation, and they  know the law more than you

Jules, I cannot believe you are siding with the criminal against children, that is sick..

Have you read the article...!?



"...The Ten to Ten store, in Hardman Street, was ordered to shut for three months by a judge at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court today... the closure order was granted following an application by Merseyside Police.

Angela Bellingham, representing the force, told the court: “There is an ongoing investigation relating to incidents recently reported, involving matters which came to light when a foster carer made a report to police that two 13-year-old females were being sexually exploited on the premises.”

Ms Bellingham said another 13-year-old girl “made disclosures” to a school safeguarding officer, and the court heard five girls in total are the subject of enquiries.

She described accusations that staff at the store invited young girls into a store-room and asked for sex acts, before offering them crisps, alcohol and chocolate.

The court heard the girls, who are all in the care system, and claimed they would travel to the city centre from Wirral to the shop.

Ms Bellingham said: “One of the girls told police she claimed to travel to Liverpool specifically to attend the premises because she had heard that the owner would give free alcohol to underage children in exchange for performing a sex act”.

Ms Bellingham told the court: “In other words here we have a business premises used to prey upon and entice young girls into sexual activity.”..."

Major wrote:

Jules wrote:

You have used the lowest age mentioned as your yardstick. What if there were several 15yo's in this group?
A journalist will automatically put the most sensational spin on a story.
You don't have to lap up the spin just because it suits your beliefs.
What if the girl in question was 15? A tall chunky, 15yo can look 20, easily!
Post pubertal girls can look older.
The police were satisfied with his explanation, and they  know the law more than you

Jules, I cannot believe you are siding with the criminal against children, that is sick..

Put your hysterical melodramatics away, of course I am not "siding" with criminals. I am dissecting the story piece by piece

And I thank you not to call me "sick". People can start calling each other names, but it's best not to go down that path eh?

Tommy Monk wrote:
Have you read the article...!?
investigation
disclosures
accusations

I have highlighted the words that jumped out at me, and proof is not among them.
You say the man was a liar, but it could well be that the girl was also a manipulative, blackmailing liar too. Objectively speaking, how do you know for sure who is speaking the truth?

If he broke the law in any way, he will get due punishment, no fear .... but you jump the gun and try to pass your opinions as fact -  when you do not allow other members to pass their own opinions as the truth.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me cut to the chase and explain why I have addressed you in this thread, Tommy.
As a newbie I once posted an opinion in a thread. It was based on the things I saw  around the community, just like all opinions on forums are based.

Your reaction was to follow me around, haranguing me for "links and proof", even though it was next to impossible to get 'proof' on what I said.  Ironically you offered no links or proof yourself when you challenged me with a counter-argument. IE you were as bad as me  - but you severely criticised me for failing to give you links and proof.
.
It's disingenuous (another of your words) if you insist on a high standard of debate from others, while applying such low standards  for yourself.

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Have you read the article...!?
investigation
disclosures
accusations

I have highlighted the words that jumped out at me, and proof is not among them.
You say the man was a liar, but it could well be that the girl was also a manipulative, blackmailing liar too. Objectively speaking, how do you know for sure who is speaking the truth?

If he broke the law in any way, he will get due punishment, no fear .... but you jump the gun and try to pass your opinions as fact -  when you do not allow other members to pass their own opinions as the truth.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me cut to the chase and explain why I have addressed you in this thread, Tommy.
As a newbie I once posted an opinion in a thread. It was based on the things I saw  around the community, just like all opinions on forums are based.

Your reaction was to follow me around, haranguing me for "links and proof", even though it was next to impossible to get 'proof' on what I said.  Ironically you offered no links or proof yourself when you challenged me with a counter-argument. IE you were as bad as me  - but you severely criticised me for failing to give you links and proof.
.
It's disingenuous (another of your words) if you insist on a high standard of debate from others, while applying such low standards  for yourself.

There is enough credible evidence in this case to bring about the closure of this shop... as well as an impending criminal prosecution...


One of the shop workers has already admitted using the shop as a place to have sex with one of the children...




Now... what are you talking about exactly in your rant about me demanding evidence from you before...!?


What was the subject of this exchange you claim...?

Ah yes, "rant and waffle" are also words you like to use.
Sorry Tommy, I am not a neanderthal whose only method of communication is  monosyllabic grunts or parroting out one-line political soundbites.

I actually speak in sentences. Just because someone takes the time and trouble to give you a fullsome explanation, it does not mean they are waffling or ranting.  
Over&out.

Jules wrote:Ah yes, "rant and waffle" are also words you like to use.



Sorry Tommy, I am not a neanderthal whose only method of communication is  monosyllabic grunts or parroting out one-line political soundbites.

I never said you were any of these things...!

Are you suggesting that myself or others are...?

And if so... aren't you really just 'parroting out a one-line political soundbite'...!?






I actually speak in sentences. Just because someone  takes the time and trouble to give you a fullsome explanation, it does not mean they are waffling or ranting.  
Over&out.

Problem is... you haven't given a 'fullsome explanation'...

You posted up this gripe...



"...Let me cut to the chase and explain why I have addressed you in this thread, Tommy.
As a newbie I once posted an opinion in a thread. It was based on the things I saw around the community, just like all opinions on forums are based.

Your reaction was to follow me around, haranguing me for "links and proof", even though it was next to impossible to get 'proof' on what I said. Ironically you offered no links or proof yourself when you challenged me with a counter-argument. IE you were as bad as me - but you severely criticised me for failing to give you links and proof.

It's disingenuous (another of your words) if you insist on a high standard of debate from others, while applying such low standards for yourself..."



And I've asked you to give a 'fullsome explanation' as to exactly what topic/debate/exchange it is that you are referring to...!?


I would be more than happy to apologise to you if I have been unfair/unkind to you before... but I need to know the context/details of your complaint to have any chance of being able to see what you are getting at...

Tommy Monk wrote:


This shop didn't get closed down for nothing... one of the scum bags has admitted it... but lying bastard says he thought the young girl was 19...



Eddie... are you really saying that a child is to blame when they cannot legally consent to sex and the adult should never be trying to give them alcohol or trying to take advantage of them... plus where it is rape for an adult to have sex with an underage child...!?

No I'm not saying that. Perhaps that's not what I'm getting at.
The story is sketchy. Did they go there to buy drink and then get offered drink, for sex?
It's not grooming, or rape, the girls could've said no... I'm not getting why they're particularly blameless if that's the case. I guess you could argue that they were too young to make a correct and sensisble decision and the men took advantage if that, and that's very true.


That sort of thing used to happen to me loads when I was 15 and growing up in London. Grown men would often offer up shit like that. I just told them to fuck off. I knew what was going on....I was trying to buy drink or weed or whatever, I knew the score.

Perhaps what I'm saying is....it's the fault of the men, but these girls will not learn from it.

Or maybe I'm talking bollocks. The story is too sketchy really.

Don't you think a lot depends on the guidance the girl has had long before she reaches 12 or 13?
These kids were in care, they have most likely had no decent role models, no one to tell them they were worth more than a few swigs of alcohol and a packet of fags.

Syl wrote:Don't you think a lot depends on the guidance the girl has had long before she reaches 12 or 13?
These kids were in care, they have most likely had no decent role models, no one to tell them they were worth more than a few swigs of alcohol and a packet of fags.

Very true. Yes that's a good point. I must've missed that part....I do skim.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmm while I agree that these men were obviously wrong, without a shadow of a doubt....these girls were old enough to know what they were agreeing to? They wanted alcohol and had sex in return for it.

They are a small part to blame for their own actions....aren't they?

At 13 you cannot know the implications or negotiate the manipulations of men like this.   You may think it's a lark, and then get drunk and before you know it....

The men are 100 percent to blame, IMO

I was watching the Jon Benet Ramsey documentary earlier tonight and the weirdo who claimed to have killed her was actually thousands of miles
away when it happened but he gave a false confession and when investigated it came out that he was a paedo who had been married twice
and he had married his first wife when she was only 13!
13! 13! 13!
It isn't that long ago really but I thought that kind of thing ended when the first world war did?
Obviously I was wrong so what's the minimum age to getting married in the USA now?

A child cannot legally give consent... it is statutory rape for an adult to take advantage of a child...


And the offering of booze to try to enable this is definitely grooming...


Plus... a licencee is in a position of trust... must abide by the age restrictions and do proper checks just to sell the booze to people... which makes this whole case so much worse!


Letting a few 17 year olds buy the odd packet of fags or couple beers every now and then, or selling to someone of legal age when you know they are buying it for a couple of their underage friends is one thing... and bad enough...


But what appears to have been going on here is something else entirely!

Tommy Monk wrote:A child cannot legally give consent... it is statutory rape for an adult to take advantage of a child...


And the offering of booze to try to enable this is definitely grooming...


Plus... a licencee is in a position of trust... must abide by the age restrictions and do proper checks just to sell the booze to people... which makes this whole case so much worse!


Letting a few 17 year olds buy the odd packet of fags or couple beers every now and then, or selling to someone of legal age when you know they are buying it for a couple of their underage friends is one thing... and bad enough...


But what appears to have been going on here is something else entirely!

Are you American or British TM?

Can't you tell...?