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

HoratioTarr wrote:What the hell was a 16 year old doing out alone at 4am?

HoratioTarr wrote:What the hell was a 16 year old doing out alone at 4am?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You claimed a 12 year old can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

Thus that means you are justifying and approving of child rape

If he didn't know she was 12, he couldn't know that she couldn't legally consent. He wasn't a mind reader and he couldn't have known that she was 12.

Are you going to accuse the judge of approving of child rape too? Be careful - that could be libellous.

Perhaps the best solution would be to prosecute girls (and boys) who have sex when they're underage. Then perhaps they wouldn't go around agreeing to have sex with adults, or even initiating it.  

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I see you completely ignored my question about the boys who killed Jamie Bulger.

Mainly as it was dumbly based hypothetically, off a different age to what they were.

Zero relevance

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Mainly as it was dumbly based hypothetically, off a different age to what they were.

Zero relevance

It's very relevant as it pertains to the age of responsibility. You introduced enough red herrings, to which I replied, so maybe you could be civil enough to answer my question.

If they had been 9, would you have said they couldn't have committed a crime by killing Jamie Bulger?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If he didn't know she was 12, he couldn't know that she couldn't legally consent. He wasn't a mind reader and he couldn't have known that she was 12.

Are you going to accuse the judge of approving of child rape too? Be careful - that could be libellous.

Perhaps the best solution would be to prosecute girls (and boys) who have sex when they're underage. Then perhaps they wouldn't go around agreeing to have sex with adults, or even initiating it.  

Point 1)
Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Point 2) Yes

Point 3) So you want to prosecute under 13's who are victims of rape now,
Gets worse by the minute your views.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's very relevant as it pertains to the age of responsibility. You introduced enough red herrings, to which I replied, so maybe you could be civil enough to answer my question.

If they had been 9, would you have said they couldn't have committed a crime by killing Jamie Bulger?

They were not 9, so zero relevance to the debate.

As she is 12 and under 13

She cannot give consent

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Point 1)
Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Point 2) Yes

Point 3) So you want to prosecute under 13's who are victims of rape now,
Gets worse by the minute your views.

Pay attention Didge. I already told you that there's no suggestion that he was ignorant of the law. That's the third red herring you've introduced.

You just pretty libelled the judge - good luck with that.

I didn't mention victims of rape.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Pay attention Didge. I already told you that there's no suggestion that he was ignorant of the law. That's the third red herring you've introduced.

You just pretty libelled the judge - good luck with that.

I didn't mention victims of rape.

I dont pay or heed any attention to someone who argues in defense of child rape, by claiming 12 year olds can consent to sex

Again, ignorance is not a defense as you keep claiming based off him not knowing she was 12

You just said underage girls should be prosecuted for having sex.

That means any girls under 13 who have sex and are thus raped under the law, would have you prosecute them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I dont pay or heed any attention to someone who argues in defense of child rape, by claiming 12 year olds can consent to sex

Again, ignorance is not a defense as you keep claiming based off him not knowing she was 12

You just said underage girls should be prosecuted for having sex.

That means any girls under 13 who have sex and are thus raped under the law, would have you prosecute them.

One wonders why you're going to so much trouble to reply to me.

You don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the facts - ie, that she was 12. It's a different thing - you need to apply to some logic.

Are you going to libel the judge again? You've gone very quiet about that. After all, you were very keen on the issue of libel in the KH case - perhaps you think it doesn't apply to you.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

One wonders why you're going to so much trouble to reply to me.

You don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the facts - ie, that she was 12. It's a different thing - you need to apply to some logic.

Are you going to libel the judge again? You've gone very quiet about that. After all, you were very keen on the issue of libel in the KH case - perhaps you think it doesn't apply to you.

I understand the law perfectly

Under 13's cannot give consent to sex

Yes happy to say and reason that the judge approves of child rape

Please forward her my post if you like, you have my consent to do so.

So you argued in defense of child rape and that the victims should be prosecuted.

Its there in black and white for all to see.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I understand the law perfectly

Under 13's cannot give consent to sex

Yes happy to say and reason that the judge approves of child rape

Please forward her my post if you like, you have my consent to do so.

So you argued in defense of child rape and that the victims should be prosecuted.

Its there in black and white for all to see.

I said you don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law and the facts of the case.

There's no suggestion that the man didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a 12-year old, so your claim about ignorance of the law is irrelevant. Do you not understand that?

If you're sued for libel, I do hope you won't plead "ignorance".

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:What the hell was a 16 year old doing out alone at 4am?

You mean a 12-year old. Good question, although I think she was with a friend - who was 13.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I said you don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law and the facts of the case.

There's no suggestion that the man didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a 12-year old, so your claim about ignorance of the law is irrelevant. Do you not understand that?

If you're sued for libel, I do hope you won't plead "ignorance".

You are claiming that his ignorance of her being 12 is a defense.

Its not a defense, as pointed out by both Quill and I

I will argue and reason my case if sued

Happy to go to court over that and I would win, as by law, a 12 year old cannot consent

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean a 12-year old. Good question, although I think she was with a friend - who was 13.

Sorry, yes, a 12 year old.   But even a 16 year old shouldn't be doing that.   Why aren't her parents being prosecuted too?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You are claiming that his ignorance of her being 12 is a defense.

Its not a defense, as pointed out by both Quill and I

I will argue and reason my case if sued

Happy to go to court over that and I would win, as by law, a 12 year old cannot consent

Yes. Ignorance of the law is a completely different issue. That would be like him knowing that she was 12 but not knowing that having sex with her was illegal.

You would not win because the judge has not given any indication that she approves of child rape - she merely accepted that the guy believed the girl was over 16.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. Ignorance of the law is a completely different issue. That would be like him knowing that she was 12 but not knowing that having sex with her was illegal.

You would not win because the judge has not given any indication that she approves of child rape - she merely accepted that the guy believed the girl was over 16.

But its still the same thing, his argument from ignorance of her age is invalid, the point, you cannot even grasp.

She has by claiming the girl gave consent and argued badly, that she was near 13 as her defense of this.

"Scott said: “Although the factual absence of consent is not an ingredient of the offence, it is a material factor for the purposes of sentencing. Here the victim willingly participated in the sexual intercourse and there was, in fact, consent.


“So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older"

I would win loads of money Rags as she is not of sound age to be a willing partner to sex, as she is 12

So bring it on Rags, the law would be on my side, she made a judgement not based on the law itself.

Cannot wait to see Quill tear you apart also on your poor defense here

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


But its still the same thing, his argument from ignorance of her age is invalid, the point, you cannot even grasp.

She has by claiming the girl gave consent and argued badly, that she was near 13 as her defense of this.

"Scott said: “Although the factual absence of consent is not an ingredient of the offence, it is a material factor for the purposes of sentencing. Here the victim willingly participated in the sexual intercourse and there was, in fact, consent.


“So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older"

I would win loads of money Rags as she is not of sound age to be a willing partner to sex, as she is 12

So bring it on Rags, the law would be on my side, she made a judgement not based on the law itself.

Cannot wait to see Quill tear you apart also on your poor defense here

Unless there are reasons that the judge illegally gave him a discharge, you're on a hiding to nothing here Didge, and you have libelled her. I agree with the judge, both on her opinion and on her sentencing (or lack of it). The girl was willing, and the guy didn't know her true age.

Quill is not relevant to this. Stand on your own two feet and stop looking for support from others.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Unless there are reasons that the judge illegally gave him a discharge, you're on a hiding to nothing here Didge, and you have libelled her. I agree with the judge, both on her opinion and on her sentencing (or lack of it). The girl was willing, and the guy didn't know her true age.

Quill is not relevant to this. Stand on your own two feet and stop looking for support from others.

You said I would be done for libel.
As seen I would not and this decision can also be challenged.
Son on both counts you are wrong again

I have stood on my own two feet and watched you defend prosecuting children raped and justify child rape. 
When Quill comes on though, he will have a field day with you and I cannot wait 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You said I would be done for libel.
As seen I would not and this decision can also be challenged.
Son on both counts you are wrong again

I have stood on my own two feet and watched you defend prosecuting children raped and justify child rape. 
When Quill comes on though, he will have a field day with you and I cannot wait 

Well the judge is unlikely to be reading this forum, but did you not say or imply that she approved of child rape? That's pretty libellous, and you cannot justify it.

Why are you so in awe of Quill? He's just a poster.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well the judge is unlikely to be reading this forum, but did you not say or imply that she approved of child rape? That's pretty libellous, and you cannot justify it.

Why are you so in awe of Quill? He's just a poster.

I just did justify it, as she went against the law

A 12 year old cannot give consent, that means she is justifying child rape and clearly approves.

@Quill, because he knows the law better than most, and will no doubt cringe at your replies, they were that bad Rags

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I just did justify it, as she went against the law

A 12 year old cannot give consent, that means she is justifying child rape and clearly approves.

@Quill, because he knows the law better than most, and will no doubt cringe at your replies, they were that bad Rags

She hasn't gone against the law at all. He pleaded guilty, and she was entitled to give him a discharge, given the facts of the case.

I don't care if Quill cringes or not. You might be frightened of him for some bizarre reason, but I'm not replying to him, and he's nothing to do with my posts.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She hasn't gone against the law at all. He pleaded guilty, and she was entitled to give him a discharge, given the facts of the case.

I don't care if Quill cringes or not. You might be frightened of him for some bizarre reason, but I'm not replying to him, and he's nothing to do with my posts.

She has gone against the law by ruling a 12 year can consent.
I am not arguing over the discharge, but her claim on consent.
So again, please send my views to the judge, as no doubt the Judge would know she would have no case.
The law is on my side and I can rightly cast her decision as wrong and in defense of child rape.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


She has gone against the law by ruling a 12 year can consent.
I am not arguing over the discharge, but her claim on consent.
So again, please send my views to the judge, as no doubt the Judge would know she would have no case.
The law is on my side and I can rightly cast her decision as wrong and in defense of child rape.

That wasn't her ruling, she said the girl consented and was an active participant, which is true. She made it clear that a person under the age of 13 cannot consent in law.  

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That wasn't her ruling, she said the girl consented and was an active participant, which is true. She made it clear that a person under the age of 13 cannot consent in law.  

Its not true, because the law states otherwise, that any child under 13 cannot give consent.
This girl was 12, and thus cannot give consent, for the thousandth time.
So both you and the judge approve and justify child rape and even worse in your case, you want to prosecute the victims of child rape.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its not true, because the law states otherwise, that any child under 13 cannot give consent.
This girl was 12, and thus cannot give consent, for the thousandth time.
So both you and the judge approve and justify child rape and even worse in your case, you want to prosecute the victims of child rape.

She clearly wasn't talking about legal consent, she was talking about factual consent. You really need to pay more attention. You've definitely libelled the judge - let's hope she doesn't read this forum.  

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She clearly wasn't talking about legal consent, she was talking about factual consent. You really need to pay more attention. You've definitely libelled the judge - let's hope she doesn't read this forum.  

Gibberish.
She argued off the legal bases as well and that she was shy a few months of 13, so again you are wrong.
Lets hope she does Rags

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.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Gibberish.
She argued off the legal bases as well and that she was shy a few months of 13, so again you are wrong.
Lets hope she does Rags

Really Didge, I have to help you out with everything. You should do your own research, but here you go:

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.

I also note that the girl had been drinking vodka. Even a 12-year old knows that she shouldn't be drinking. I suppose they'll go after the people who served her as well. So much trouble caused.

“So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older.
“The statutory offence for girls aged over 13 to 16 years provides for a defence based on reasonable grounds of belief by the accused that the victim was above the age of consent. 
“It is clear from the agreed facts presented to me that the Crown would have been unlikely to, or unable to, exclude such a defence and they do not dispute this. Accordingly, it is very unlikely the Crown could prove a crime had the victim been over 13 years of age.”

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Really Didge, I have to help you out with everything. You should do your own research, but here you go:



I also note that the girl had been drinking vodka. Even a 12-year old knows that she shouldn't be drinking. I suppose they'll go after the people who served her as well. So much trouble caused.

And really Rags, I have to show why again you are wrong. So now you are victim blaiming due to the alcohol, as well as approving of child rape, and prosecuting victims of child rape

“So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older.
“The statutory offence for girls aged over 13 to 16 years provides for a defence based on reasonable grounds of belief by the accused that the victim was above the age of consent. 
“It is clear from the agreed facts presented to me that the Crown would have been unlikely to, or unable to, exclude such a defence and they do not dispute this. Accordingly, it is very unlikely the Crown could prove a crime had the victim been over 13 years of age.”

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

Syl wrote:I think the judge made the wrong decision.

The 21 year old male had sex with a 12 year old female.....that's statutory rape.
I don't care how old the girl looked...she was a child. What if she had been 11, or 10. or 9?? Some very young girls can make themselves appear older....does that make it OK for men to have sex with them if the children are willing?

The onus should be on the man to either keep it in his pants before he knows more about her, or face the consequences.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:I think the judge made the wrong decision.

The 21 year old male had sex with a 12 year old female.....that's statutory rape.
I don't care how old the girl looked...she was a child. What if she had been 11, or 10. or 9?? Some very young girls can make themselves appear older....does that make it OK for men to have sex with them if the children are willing?

The onus should be on the man to either keep it in his pants before he knows more about her, or face the consequences.

He was 19 at the time. Everyone who encountered the girl said she seemed much older, including some police officers. It's also up to girls to not go around pretending to be older than they are.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He was 19 at the time. Everyone who encountered the girl said she seemed much older, including some police officers. It's also up to girls to not go around pretending to be older than they are.

Some kids are stupid...it comes with being young, ultimately its up to the adult to take responsibility.
No doubt she did look older, many kids do, there are sites and videos on the internet teaching kids how to look older, that still doesn't give an adult male the right to have sex with a child.
What if she had gotten pregnant, caught AIDS, would he still be the innocent party...I doubt it.

The judge was wrong, and it also gives out the signal that men can meet and shag young kids with gay abandon of being let off if it ever goes to  court as long as the child LOOKS older.

magica wrote:Does it matter her age, she was raped.  He should never have walked away from court.

Also 12 yr olds can look abit older but not 16, even that picture above you can tell by her body she's not 16.  

Im amazed the woman judge let him go, it sends a message, its ok to rape now is it? Next man up for rape will think he can walk too and this girl is a junior!

Also why did the parents let her stay out til 4

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:



Some kids are stupid...it comes with being young, ultimately its up to the adult to take responsibility.
No doubt she did look older, many kids do, there are sites and videos on the internet teaching kids how to look older, that still doesn't give an adult male the right to have sex with a child.
What if she had gotten pregnant, caught AIDS, would he still be the innocent party...I doubt it.

The judge was wrong, and it also gives out the signal that men can meet and shag young kids with gay abandon of being let off if it ever goes to  court as long as the child LOOKS older.

He didn't know she was only 12 though, and his story is backed up by others who thought she was much older.

She's no more likely to catch HIV than any other female.

He was prosecuted and he pleaded guilty. What did you want to happen? For him to be chucked in prison for having a one night stand with someone he really believed was over 16? What would that achieve?

I think the Judge made the right decision. As for for men meeting and shagging young kids, well isn't it about time the young kids were told not to go out meeting men and having sex with them?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't know she was only 12 though, and his story is backed up by others who thought she was much older.

She's no more likely to catch HIV than any other female.

He was prosecuted and he pleaded guilty. What did you want to happen? For him to be chucked in prison for having a one night stand with someone he really believed was over 16? What would that achieve?

I think the Judge made the right decision. As for for men meeting and shagging young kids, well isn't it about time the young kids were told not to go out meeting men and having sex with them?

SHE is a child...HE is an adult, that sums it up to me.

I don't care that she looked older....so what, does that give every man the right to have sex with a child because she looks older?
It was up to HIM to be sure she was above the age of consent...its a given that some kids are stupid, but its not against the law to be stupid, it IS against the law to rape kids.

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:Does it matter her age, she was raped.  He should never have walked away from court.

Also 12 yr olds can look abit older but not 16, even that picture above you can tell by her body she's not 16.  

Im amazed the woman judge let him go, it sends a message, its ok to rape now is it? Next man up for rape will think he can walk too and this girl is a junior!

Also why did the parents let her stay out til 4

Yes, her age matters. If she been 16 it wouldn't have gone to court obviously. Several people didn't think she was 12, not even the police who spoke to her that evening.

That is not a picture of the girl. The Judge that she looked over 16 too.

magica wrote:Also rape is rape no matter what their age is.

magica wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, her age matters. If she been 16 it wouldn't have gone to court obviously. Several people didn't think she was 12, not even the police who spoke to her that evening.

That is not a picture of the girl. The Judge that she looked over 16 too.

Many girls look older for their age, does it mean they should all be raped.  This judge needs to hang her head in shame.

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:

Many girls look older for their age, does it mean they should all be raped.  This judge needs to hang her head in shame.

Many girls don't go around meeting men at taxi ranks and going back to have sex with them either.

magica wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Many girls don't go around meeting men at taxi ranks and going back to have sex with them either.

No they don't and where were her parents?  She obviously has been able to do what she likes then.