Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

magica wrote:Have to say many 12 year olds bodies are developing still, so not like a 16 year olds body.  Many fellas could tell this, im sure theyre not that stupid.

Tommy Monk wrote:And a 12/13 year old girl will still be behaving like  a 12/13 year old... no matter how old she looked...

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that if a man meets a girl at a taxi rank at 4am, it's reasonable to assume that she's much older than 12.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that if a man meets a girl at a taxi rank at 4am, it's reasonable to assume that she's much older than 12.

It probably is reasonable.  But not if the issue is not open to question.  If she is underaged, end of...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It probably is reasonable.  But not if the issue is not open to question.  If she is underaged, end of...

Well he was lied to wasn't he? Girls shouldn't tell men they're older than they are.

magica wrote:Have to say many 12 year olds bodies are developing still, so not like a 16 year olds body.  Many fellas could tell this, im sure theyre not that stupid.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:So in other words, its not a fact that it was consent, the judge cannot not even claim that, even outside of the law. As again she would have toprove the child was of sound mind of which she did not prove.
So again the judge was wrong on two counts to make such an assumption based off a 12 year old
So her claim it was factual consent is also piss poor Rags.

Like I say, please send my views even more to the Judge, because her claim to factual consent is even weaker as a claim 

Thanks for the debate, am sure many will raise eyebrows at your views

Catch you later

Did you not read what I quoted? The judge made it quite clear that she was talking about consent in a factual sense, not a legal sense. The girl agreed to sex, which is a fact.

Now you're introducing mental health issues - that's the fourth red herring.

Raised eyebrows are not my problem.

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:Have to say many 12 year olds bodies are developing still, so not like a 16 year olds body.  Many fellas could tell this, im sure theyre not that stupid.

Well he obviously wasn't thinking with his head was he?
The bottom line is men cant just feel free to shag young girls whenever they can  wherever they like...and if they do there will be consequences.

Many youngsters look older than they are, many kids act irresponsibly. Obviously the girl acted stupidly (children often do)  and why she acts like this and her home life should be looked into, no responsible parent allows a 12 year old child the sort of freedom this girl had.

The judge should be brought to book for allowing this man to walk free.
And in answer to Rags before...yes, I think he should be jailed. Actions should always have consequences, especially when children are the victims.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Did you not read what I quoted? The judge made it quite clear that she was talking about consent in a factual sense, not a legal sense. The girl agreed to sex, which is a fact.

Now you're introducing mental health issues - that's the fourth red herring.

Raised eyebrows are not my problem.

Why do you think the law is set at under 13?

What is the reason behind this?

Like I said, the judge is making a poor and unfounded claim to consent, as the victim is 12 and if drinking, would also greatly further prove it could not be consent. As this would further inhibit decisions.

Take your time

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well he obviously wasn't thinking with his head was he?
The bottom line is men cant just feel free to shag young girls whenever they can  wherever they like...and if they do there will be consequences.

Many youngsters look older than they are, many kids act irresponsibly. Obviously the girl acted stupidly (children often do)  and why she acts like this and her home life should be looked into, no responsible parent allows a 12 year old child the sort of freedom this girl had.

The judge should be brought to book for allowing this man to walk free.
And in answer to Rags before...yes, I think he should be jailed. Actions should always have consequences, especially when children are the victims.

Men are free to shag 16-year old girls though, and this man thought she was 16. Women are also free to shag 16-year boys if they both agree.

She had a brain, she wasn't just passive, and he was misinformed about her age. Why did they lie to him?

There's no point in jailing him. He didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:Have to say many 12 year olds bodies are developing still, so not like a 16 year olds body.  Many fellas could tell this, im sure theyre not that stupid.

Well he obviously wasn't thinking with his head was he?
The bottom line is men cant just feel free to shag young girls whenever they can  wherever they like...and if they do there will be consequences.

Many youngsters look older than they are, many kids act irresponsibly. Obviously the girl acted stupidly (children often do)  and why she acts like this and her home life should be looked into, no responsible parent allows a 12 year old child the sort of freedom this girl had.

The judge should be brought to book for allowing this man to walk free.
And in answer to Rags before...yes, I think he should be jailed. Actions should always have consequences, especially when children are the victims.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Why do you think the law is set at under 13?

What is the reason behind this?

Like I said, the judge is making a poor and unfounded claim to consent, as the victim is 12 and if drinking, would also greatly further prove it could not be consent. As this would further inhibit decisions.

Take your time

The drinking would not further prove it could not be consent at all. She was clearly coherent and knew what she was doing. You're just making things up now.

She should be pulled up for drinking - nobody forced her to do it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well he obviously wasn't thinking with his head was he?
The bottom line is men cant just feel free to shag young girls whenever they can  wherever they like...and if they do there will be consequences.

Many youngsters look older than they are, many kids act irresponsibly. Obviously the girl acted stupidly (children often do)  and why she acts like this and her home life should be looked into, no responsible parent allows a 12 year old child the sort of freedom this girl had.

The judge should be brought to book for allowing this man to walk free.
And in answer to Rags before...yes, I think he should be jailed. Actions should always have consequences, especially when children are the victims.

Men are free to shag 16-year old girls though, and this man thought she was 16. Women are also free to shag 16-year boys if they both agree.

She had a brain, she wasn't just passive, and he was misinformed about her age. Why did they lie to him?

There's no point in jailing him. He didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Men are free to shag 16-year old girls though, and this man thought she was 16. Women are also free to shag 16-year boys if they both agree.

She had a brain, she wasn't just passive, and he was misinformed about her age. Why did they lie to him?

There's no point in jailing him. He didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

She is 12, which means she is not mentally mature enough to make such decisions and why its classed as rape. You are again making poor views onto a child, who cannot make many other choices, like voting, drinking, driving a car etc, because again a child is not mentally mature enough. There is a reason the law is set on ages, for this reason. Hence she will be a very naive and vulnerable child easily exploited. Even, more as she had been drinking.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The drinking would not further prove it could not be consent at all. She was clearly coherent and knew what she was doing. You're just making things up now.

She should be pulled up for drinking - nobody forced her to do it.

Yes it would because someone of that age cannot handle drink even less than an adult and this will further make her vulnerable to exploitation.

So you are victim blaming again, excusing child rape and think girls under age who have had sex should be prosecuted


You never answered my questions

Try again

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well he obviously wasn't thinking with his head was he?
The bottom line is men cant just feel free to shag young girls whenever they can  wherever they like...and if they do there will be consequences.

Many youngsters look older than they are, many kids act irresponsibly. Obviously the girl acted stupidly (children often do)  and why she acts like this and her home life should be looked into, no responsible parent allows a 12 year old child the sort of freedom this girl had.

The judge should be brought to book for allowing this man to walk free.
And in answer to Rags before...yes, I think he should be jailed. Actions should always have consequences, especially when children are the victims.

I agree the judge is wrong, as I said before, this is like opening the door for anyone to  say oh I thought s h e was older. Peaophiles will be queuing up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


She is 12, which means she is not mentally mature enough to make such decisions and why its classed as rape. You are again making poor views onto a child, who cannot make many other choices, like voting, drinking, driving a car etc, because again a child is not mentally mature enough. There is a reason the law is set on ages, for this reason. Hence she will be a very naive and vulnerable child easily exploited. Even, more as she had been drinking.

She knew enough to go out drinking all night, and to get a cab. She also knew enough to direct the police to a missing girl. I don't believe she didn't know what she was doing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yes it would because someone of that age cannot handle drink even less than an adult and this will further make her vulnerable to exploitation.

So you are victim blaming again, excusing child rape and think girls under age who have had sex should be prosecuted


You never answered my questions

Try again

You didn't answer my question about Jamie Bulger. You can't try again because you didn't make a first attempt. Perhaps you could try now.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You didn't answer my question about Jamie Bulger. You can't try again because you didn't make a first attempt. Perhaps you could try now.

Because this is not about Jamie Bulger

This is about child rape

Try again

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She knew enough to go out drinking all night, and to get a cab. She also knew enough to direct the police to a missing girl. I don't believe she didn't know what she was doing.

Again why is there a law on the sale of alcohol set far higher than her age?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well he obviously wasn't thinking with his head was he?
The bottom line is men cant just feel free to shag young girls whenever they can  wherever they like...and if they do there will be consequences.

Many youngsters look older than they are, many kids act irresponsibly. Obviously the girl acted stupidly (children often do)  and why she acts like this and her home life should be looked into, no responsible parent allows a 12 year old child the sort of freedom this girl had.

The judge should be brought to book for allowing this man to walk free.
And in answer to Rags before...yes, I think he should be jailed. Actions should always have consequences, especially when children are the victims.

Men are free to shag 16-year old girls though, and this man thought she was 16. Women are also free to shag 16-year boys if they both agree.

She had a brain, she wasn't just passive, and he was misinformed about her age. Why did they lie to him?

There's no point in jailing him. He didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Because this is not about Jamie Bulger

This is about child rape

Try again

It's about a specific case actually. You've already introduced at least four red herrings.

Look, the point is that the judge believed that he believed she was 16 - because she or her mate said she was, and because several other people thought she was too. It's quite simple really. He was prosecuted - what more do you want?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Again why is there a law on the sale of alcohol set far higher than her age?

Why aren't underage people prosecuted for buying alcohol? They should be IMO.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Men are free to shag 16-year old girls though, and this man thought she was 16. Women are also free to shag 16-year boys if they both agree.

She had a brain, she wasn't just passive, and he was misinformed about her age. Why did they lie to him?

There's no point in jailing him. He didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

Women are not free to shag 12 year old boys though....even if the boy lies and is willing.

The whole point is the girl was underage...not by a few months but by FOUR years....she may have looked older, she may have lied, but the fact is she is a child and he is an adult.
What if she had been younger than 12 Rags.....had she been 11 or 10 and lying about her age and willing, would you still think he was innocent of rape? Where do you draw the line?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's about a specific case actually. You've already introduced at least four red herrings.

Look, the point is that the judge believed that he believed she was 16 - because she or her mate said she was, and because several other people thought she was too. It's quite simple really. He was prosecuted - what more do you want?

1) Misdirection again

2) Still not answered and I know why.

3) Does not matter what the judge believed, she went against the law which is set for a reason because girls and boys of that age cannot mentally consent to sex. They are not mature enough. Hence the judge was completely wrong to claim factual consent on a 12 year old. It was wrong on every level

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


1) Misdirection again

2) Still not answered and I know why.

3) Does not matter what the judge believed, she went against the law which is set for a reason because girls and boys of that age cannot mentally consent to sex. They are not mature enough. Hence the judge was completely wrong to claim factual consent on a 12 year old. It was wrong on every level

She didn't go against the law, she gave him the most lenient sentence she was allowed to do. You don't know what factual consent is do you?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She didn't go against the law, she gave him the most lenient sentence she was allowed to do. You don't know what factual consent is do you?

The law is set at under 13.
She made up a false claim, that the girl could give consent, when she mentally cannot at such an age, even more so when drinking.
I am not going on about the sentence again, but how she came to her conclusions

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The law is set at under 13.
She made up a false claim, that the girl could give consent, when she mentally cannot at such an age, even more so when drinking.
I am not going on about the sentence again, but how she came to her conclusions

Tell me how she went against the law Didge. She knows the sentencing guidelines better than you do. She said the girl consented in fact, not in law - which is correct.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tell me how she went against the law Didge. She knows the sentencing guidelines better than you do. She said the girl consented in fact, not in law - which is correct.

Really, is that why she discharged him, even though he was guilty of rape?
Again she came to this conclusion through a false premise that the girl could give actual consent.
That was sheer bullshit and she done this to  allow her to then be able to release the guilty party from any sentence.
In fact or law, she is wrong, as a girl of that age, is not of sound mind to consent to sex.
Hence why the law is set at under 13 on this.
So her view on factual consent was sheer bullshit

This statutory offence has a very wide scope; from the most serious circumstances of violent rape at one end of the spectrum, to, at the other, sexual intercourse in circumstances wholly absent of force and where as a matter of fact, but not law, there is consent.

There are therefore wide variations of culpability or blameworthiness caught by this statutory provision and consequently a wide variation in the appropriate sentence which can be applied.

Thorin wrote:


Again why is there a law on the sale of alcohol set far higher than her age?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really, is that why she discharged him, even though he was guilty of rape?
Again she came to this conclusion through a false premise that the girl could give actual consent.
That was sheer bullshit and she done this to  allow her to then be able to release the guilty party from any sentence.
In fact or law, she is wrong, as a girl of that age, is not of sound mind to consent to sex.
Hence why the law is set at under 13 on this.
So her view on factual consent was sheer bullshit

She was allowed to discharge him. I see I'm going to have to quote the relevant part of the judgement to you again. Pay attention this time.

This statutory offence has a very wide scope; from the most serious circumstances of violent rape at one end of the spectrum, to, at the other, sexual intercourse in circumstances wholly absent of force and where as a matter of fact, but not law, there is consent.

There are therefore wide variations of culpability or blameworthiness caught by this statutory provision and consequently a wide variation in the appropriate sentence which can be applied.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Women are not free to shag 12 year old boys though....even if the boy lies and is willing.

The whole point is the girl was underage...not by a few months but by FOUR years....she may have looked older, she may have lied, but the fact is she is a child and he is an adult.
What if she had been younger than 12 Rags.....had she been 11 or 10 and lying about her age and willing, would you still think he was innocent of rape? Where do you draw the line?

12-year boys generally don't look 16 - 12-year old girls can look 16.

I doubt that a 10-year old would pass for 16 actually.

magica wrote:

Shops are supposed to ask for proof of age, as are pubs, clubs etc. So THEY are to blame.

magica wrote:




Shops are supposed to ask for proof of age, as are pubs, clubs etc. So THEY are to blame.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She was allowed to discharge him. I see I'm going to have to quote the relevant part of the judgement to you again. Pay attention this time.

You can quote what you like.
The view to claim a 12 year old can give consent is pure gibberish.
So if the above is her words, its not law, but her opinion.
Show me the law on this?

In your own time

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You can quote what you like.
The view to claim a 12 year old can give consent is pure gibberish.
So if the above is her words, its not law, but her opinion.
Show me the law on this?

In your own time

It's her opinion that the girl agreed to sex, yes. Read it again.

magica wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why aren't underage people prosecuted for buying alcohol? They should be IMO. [/quote


Shops are supposed to ask for proof of age, as are pubs, clubs etc. So THEY are to blame.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's her opinion that the girl agreed to sex, yes. Read it again.

So as I thought, you could not produce the law and the judge made this up, that she consented.

A girl of 12 is not of a mental age to consent to sex, hence why it is set at 13
The judge went against this and as seen moved the goal posts on the law to allow him to get off.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

12-year boys generally don't look 16 - 12-year old girls can look 16.

I doubt that a 10-year old would pass for 16 actually.

They might if a man was looking for  quick and willing shag.
Which is why this judge is wrong imo....she has set the bar low for other sexual opportunists.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So as I thought, you could not produce the law and the judge made this up, that she consented.

A girl of 12 is not of a mental age to consent to sex, hence why it is set at 13
The judge went against this and as seen moved the goal posts on the law to allow him to get off.

The judge didn't make anything up - read it again. When you've understood it, come back. Until then, you're talking nonsense.

The judge was entitled to give him an absolute discharge so she didn't move any goal posts.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

They might if a man was looking for  quick and willing shag.
Which is why this judge is wrong imo....she has set the bar low for other sexual opportunists.

No she hasn't. She made it clear that these were exceptional circumstances.

My question is - why do you want to ruin this young man's life because he made a mistake?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The judge didn't make anything up - read it again. When you've understood it, come back. Until then, you're talking nonsense.

The judge was entitled to give him an absolute discharge so she didn't move any goal posts.

Yes she did, as the law is set at under 18
Like I said, now you are out on a limb, because the judge clearly moved the goalposts on the law here
The judge should be sacked and this is not the first time she has done something, inexcusable.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Yes she did, as the law is set at under 18
Like I said, now you are out on a limb, because the judge clearly moved the goalposts on the law here
The judge should be sacked and this is not the first time she has done something, inexcusable.

Under 18? Now you're moving the goal posts.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No she hasn't. She made it clear that these were exceptional circumstances.

My question is - why do you want to ruin this young man's life because he made a mistake?

He should have though about that by using his brain and not his cock to think that night.
Ignorance is not an excuse.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Under 18? Now you're moving the goal posts.

Typo, but glad you now concede the point

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

They might if a man was looking for  quick and willing shag.
Which is why this judge is wrong imo....she has set the bar low for other sexual opportunists.

No she hasn't. She made it clear that these were exceptional circumstances.

My question is - why do you want to ruin this young man's life because he made a mistake?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Typo, but glad you now concede the point

I didn't concede anything - I caught you out moving the goal posts - again.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No she hasn't. She made it clear that these were exceptional circumstances.

My question is - why do you want to ruin this young man's life because he made a mistake?

Well you could say that about anyone who has broken the law.....like I said before, actions have consequences, or they should do.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

He should have though about that by using his brain and not his cock to think that night.
Ignorance is not an excuse.

He did - he was told the girl was 16 and he believed that. She lied, or her friend lied. Why are you condoning these girls lying and going out drinking underage?