Children Aged Just 7 And 8 Accused Of Rape

The alleged victims were also children, police information shows, and the boys can never be charged or taken to court.

Two children, aged seven and eight, were suspected of rape by police last year, figures show.
Their alleged victims were both children themselves, according to the data released by Greater Manchester Police.
Neither of the boys can be charged or taken to court because they are under 10 years old - the age of criminal responsibility.
The seven-year-old was suspected of raping a girl under 13, while the eight-year-old was suspected of raping a girl under 16.
Both alleged incidents happened in the Greater Manchester area.
Detective Superintendent Jon Chadwick told the Manchester Evening News: "It can be upsetting for the victims of these crimes because the normal situation of a court case, most of the time, cannot happen."


http://news.sky.com/story/1400976/children-aged-just-7-and-8-accused-of-rape

RIDICULOUS...

THOSE idiot cops need to be educated on both human physiology and laws..

WHAT is it with that Manchester Police department that they keep on ending up in the news with such idiotic goings on ?

OR IS the whole world perverted in that looney toon corner of England..

Wait, wait, wait...doesn't that make both girls guilty of raping a child under 13?

There's something going on here. Who got who drunk?

I'm wondering, how a boy of seven is physically capable of rape? I know they get "erections" of a sort, but how would they know what to do and how would they get any pleasure?
I'm not male obviously, but I do have a son and he would hardly have even been interested in that sort of thing at that age!

eddie wrote:I'm wondering, how a boy of seven is physically capable of rape? I know they get "erections" of a sort, but how would they know what to do and how would they get any pleasure?
I'm not male obviously, but I do have a son and he would hardly have even been interested in that sort of thing at that age!

Easily possible.
Boys can be very aware of such things at that age, again it all depends what they would have been exposed to and that is more the point here on how they would know.

Rape means "penetration" did this happen, or were they playing "Doctors and Nurses"?

nicko wrote:Rape means "penetration"  did this happen,  or were they playing "Doctors and Nurses"?

If it was rape, it would men penetration, anything else would be sexual assault or sexual activity.
It is clear here the claim is rape

Brasidas wrote:

nicko wrote:Rape means "penetration"  did this happen,  or were they playing "Doctors and Nurses"?

If it was rape, it would men penetration, anything else would be sexual assault or sexual activity.
It is clear here the claim is rape

But nicko is right to ask.  Journalists will say anything to sensationalize their story.  

What actually took place here?  Why are these two stories presented together?  Are they separate incidents or part and parcel of the same incident?  Were they part of the same game or whatever?  Why, if the girls were the older participants--and presumably more mature and more responsible--are they not held to some degree of responsibility?

If the basis of the story is that no one can be held responsible, why jump to conclusions about responsibility? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

Were the girls medically checked to see if they were still virgins?

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

If it was rape, it would men penetration, anything else would be sexual assault or sexual activity.
It is clear here the claim is rape

But nicko is right to ask.  Journalists will say anything to sensationalize their story.  

What actually took place here?  Why are these two stories presented together?  Are they separate incidents or part and parcel of the same incident?  Were they part of the same game or whatever?  Why, if the girls were the older participants--and presumably more mature and more responsible--are they not held to some degree of responsibility?

If the basis of the story is that no one can be held responsible, why jump to conclusions about responsibility?  Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

Absurd reasoning where I nver said Nicko was wrong to ask.
These are reports from the Police, not really the media Quill which is your first error here.









Nearly 1,000 children were suspected of committing crimes in Greater Manchester last year, including two children as young as seven and eight who were accused of committing rape.


One seven-year-old boy was suspected of raping a girl under 13, while an eight-year-old was suspected of raping a girl under 16.
Figures released by Greater Manchester Police following a Freedom of Information request by Manchester Evening News also revealed a boy aged six was suspected of possessing cannabis, and a nine-year-old girl was accused of carrying a sharp object in school.
As many as 17 children were arson suspects – three of which were recorded as posing a threat to life - while ten allegedly stole bikes.
A worrying 119 children were accused of hate crimes, 88 of which had a racial or religious aspect to it.
As children under-10 are not deemed criminally responsible in the UK, the suspects could not be prosecuted, and the police argue crimes committed by children are often complex to tackle.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/two-children-accused-of-committing-rape-in-greater-manchester-last-year-among-1000-child-crime-suspects-9953581.html


Notice it says suspected

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But nicko is right to ask.  Journalists will say anything to sensationalize their story.  

What actually took place here?  Why are these two stories presented together?  Are they separate incidents or part and parcel of the same incident?  Were they part of the same game or whatever?  Why, if the girls were the older participants--and presumably more mature and more responsible--are they not held to some degree of responsibility?

If the basis of the story is that no one can be held responsible, why jump to conclusions about responsibility?  Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

Absurd reasoning where I nver said Nicko was wrong to ask.

So defensive.  I was giving credit to nicko, not taking anything from you.  Are you alright, Didge?  

Brasidas wrote:These are reports from the Police, not really the media Quill which is your first error here.

Nearly 1,000 children were suspected of committing crimes in Greater Manchester last year, including two children as young as seven and eight who were accused of committing rape.


One seven-year-old boy was suspected of raping a girl under 13, while an eight-year-old was suspected of raping a girl under 16.
Figures released by Greater Manchester Police following a Freedom of Information request by Manchester Evening News also revealed a boy aged six was suspected of possessing cannabis, and a nine-year-old girl was accused of carrying a sharp object in school.
As many as 17 children were arson suspects – three of which were recorded as posing a threat to life - while ten allegedly stole bikes.
A worrying 119 children were accused of hate crimes, 88 of which had a racial or religious aspect to it.
As children under-10 are not deemed criminally responsible in the UK, the suspects could not be prosecuted, and the police argue crimes committed by children are often complex to tackle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/two-children-accused-of-committing-rape-in-greater-manchester-last-year-among-1000-child-crime-suspects-9953581.html

Notice it says suspected

So, no newspapers or media were involved in your post?  I take it then that this whole story is based upon your personal conversations with the Manchester Police.

Prithee, answer the questions if you are the real and actual source.  We'll leave the discussion of plagiarism for a later time.  http://news.sky.com/story/1400976/children-aged-just-7-and-8-accused-of-rape

Not defensive just showing your view point was absurd when I never claimed anything of Nicko Quilll.
So now your view is this is all made up.
Seriously I know you are bored and looking for a row, but not going to give you the pleasure mate.
Your argument is silly, if you think the Police reports are false, then the onus is on you to disprove them

Good luck

Brasidas wrote:Not defensive just showing your view point was absurd when I never claimed anything of Nicko Quilll.
So now your view is this is all made up.
Seriously I know you are bored and looking for a row, but not going to give you the pleasure mate.
Your argument is silly, if you think the Police reports are false, then the onus is on you to disprove them

Good luck

Since you have changed the subject of this thread--at least, in your posts--I take it you concede my points.  There are a few things missing from this story, admittedly originally given out by the Manchester Police.

First, we need more facts: as nicko has pointed out, there are precious few details about what took place, and what the MP consider to be rape.

Second, the latter question should shed some light on why the MP are ignoring the obvious...that the older children are not being held to a higher standard of responsibility.

It's not just chronologically older children that bothers me, but post-pubescent girls as against children who are nowhere near puberty.  Whatever it's called, this is an event of a sexual nature.  As eds sagely points out, boys of this age don't even know what that thing is for...except peeing.  It isn't until puberty that it comes to you.  And lo, who are the ones who have reached puberty?

As you can see, I am at least entertaining an alternative theory about what's involved here.  I think the MP are stonewalling to avoid this alternative answer, in an effort to preserve/promote their own sensibilities.  I think a frank and open exchange of information is what is called for here; I also think efforts are being made to avoid this.

That's as much as I can say right now.  There are questions.

Have not conceded any points Quill

The onus is on you to disprove the Police reports and have made no other views here other than it is possible for a boy of such an age to rape.
If you want to continue to refute the claims of a suspected rape by the way, is up to you Quill, when I have made no such assertions, other than it is possible to happen, hence why all your points are quite irrelevant to anything I have said.
Boys at that age can certainly get erections, are you trying to deny that based on how we ourselves have grown up?
I certainly understood back then what it was used for.
What you have to prove is whether a boy is not going to be sexually aroused at that age?


Try again

Will have to catch up on this tomorrow, as off out.
Have a good evening Quill

Brasidas wrote:Have not conceded any points Quill

Well, you did seem to have strayed. Glad you are back on point.

Brasidas wrote:The onus is on you to disprove the Police reports and have made no other views here other than it is possible for a boy of such an age to rape.

Well, the Manchester Police have all of the information. So, as I said, I can do no more than raise questions. The facts that the MP have given out seem to be contradictory, and that raises questions. They have given out the ages of the children, and they seem to be criticizing something (???) for their inability to bring charges due to the boys being under 10. But they are ignoring that some of the children are older. It would seem to me that rather than cursing and venting frustration, one might look to those who are expected to be more responsible.

Brasidas wrote:If you want to continue to refute the claims of a suspected rape by the way, is up to you Quill, when I have made no such assertions, other than it is possible to happen, hence why all your points are quite irrelevant to anything I have said.

There you go, straying again. Let's get back on point.

Brasidas wrote:Boys at that age can certainly get erections, are you trying to deny that based on how we ourselves have grown up?
I certainly understood back then what it was used for.
What you have to prove is whether a boy is not going to be sexually aroused at that age?

I thought I made myself quite clear. The MP seemed to express exasperation for not being able to make something criminal out of this. Not only do I share their frustration, but I think they are overlooking a clear path to the answer. In this country, we structure sexual abuse laws according age, on the assumption that the older, the more experienced.

Thus, the laws here use age to build a progression into a system of responsibility. (I don't know what the age cut-offs are, but they build in the expectation that a 17-year old might be more responsible than a 13-year old...and so forth.) It's all built upon the assumption that the older, the more censurable.

It seems to me the answer lies in that direction. But, the MP seem content to pound sand. They could do better.

What did you fail to understand by my points Quill?
I am making no reference to the criminal aspect on this or at any point have I done so, where again you seem to be making one of which I have never made. You are debating at cross purposes as per usual because you wish to sway this debate into something I am not even debating.

I am not debating laws, nor am I whether something should be a criminal act. If you want to raise questions on nothing more than a child of 7 being suspected of rape, note that word suspected, that is your choosing and none of which I have made any claim this child accused is either guilty or not guilty.

Not sure how many times I need to point this out to you buddy.
If you want to debate over when a child should be charged you are debating the wrong aspect with me.

My view has always been that a boy can certainly feel sexually aroused and understand sex at such a young age. I made the point very clear what would be very wrong is what this child may have been exposed too, that is the telling part here of if this is possible and why it may indeed may happen.


So the only poster who has strayed is you are my friend, see actually what I am pointing out to you has nothing to do with your claims, being as you took issue it seems over nothing I have even said. Nicko asked a valid point, I gave him an answer where it must have been penetration sex that the boy was suspected of committing, anything else would have been sexual assault or sexual activity.


Now I am out to dinner and really am beginning to find this quite tedious mate, being as I have made no claims to anything you keep posting about. You either agree or do not agree that a boy of this age is capable of rape, of which is the only thing I am debating. On whether there should be criminality on to a child at this age is something you brought into this I never did.
If you persist down a road of nothing I m even saying, then you will find this debate over, because clearly you re wishing to draw me into something I have never made any views onto, which you wish to talk about or ever did. Hey ho, ball is in your court mate, where again my only view here, is such a child is capable of committing such an act.

All the best and until tomorrow.

Here is what the Superintendent said:

Sky wrote:Detective Superintendent Jon Chadwick told the Manchester Evening News: "It can be upsetting for the victims of these crimes because the normal situation of a court case, most of the time, cannot happen."

He added: "It is always upsetting when very young children are involved in crime and that is why there is a communal responsibility for all agencies to respond, not just to the needs of the victim, but also the offender.

"A child does not just go out and commit a crime; there are a whole host of influences that can lead to an incident occurring."

It appears that (1) something is upsetting to Superintendent Chadwick; (2) it is crucial that a young child is involved; and (3) he appears to be saying that the criminal justice system is inadequate to deal with this. We can infer some other things, namely that one of the girls is between 13- and 16-years old; and the other is under 13-years old. The boys are 7- and 8-years old, they tell us. The boys appear to be the youngest in the bunch.

My comment is that it appears Mr. Chadwick has not even begun to analyze the situation.  (And why is that?)  He does not identify who is the victim.  He does not identify which is the offender.  He really does not identify the nature of the offense, which is precisely what prompted nicko's question.  And I agree with nicko.  What is the offense?  Is it penetration by force?  Is it having sex with someone younger?  Is it that under-aged minors are engaging in sexual activity?  Is it perhaps improper supervision by parents?

Until Superintendent Chadwick identifies who he sees as the victim, and thence who is the offender, we don't really know what is the criminal activity in question.  Now, the journalist who wrote the Sky article appears to speak as if the 7- and 8-year old boys are the offenders ("Neither of the boys can be charged..."), but as you point out, what the journalist says is of no consequence.  It's what the police say, and they don't say much.

So, we are left with no facts, lots of questions, and only the framing of the story by the journalist, whom both of us distrust.  As I said before, we are not given much to go on.

So....did the boys commit rape or not?
I'm confused!

eddie wrote:So....did the boys commit rape or not?
I'm confused!

How on earth is anyone going to find out whether they did?
My view is it is certainly possible, as I have already explained.

eddie wrote:So....did the boys commit rape or not?
I'm confused!

Statutorily, it's impossible.  Apparently, over there is is not a crime if one is young enough.

That is the problem with sex crimes...they are a creature of statutes.  That is because it is not the act (sex) that is outlawed, but the conditions under which it occurs (involuntarily).  For example, if one hits another over the head with a lead pipe, it is the act that is outlawed, no questions asked; however, with sex it is not the act, but the conditions: a man and woman may have consensual sex and it is not illegal, but if it is nonconsensual, it is illegal.

The statutes change from venue to venue.  Apparently, in Manchester if we go simply by minority status (age), then the boys could be the victims (which is one of my points) but they may not be charged.

An additional condition to consider is, if only a female can be raped then the law is sexist and constitutes a denial of equal protection of the law.   Again, because we don't outlaw sex outrightly, but only involuntary and underaged sex (because it is by law involuntary), the conditions must be spelled out by statutory law.

These are all the reasons why we no longer speak of 'rape', but 'sexual assault'.  There is an whole array of laws which address the conditions.  I would like to know more about the statutory law over there before stating an opinion.  Superintendent Chadwick, of course, is tacitly lobbying to change the situation.