• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Pair who plied two 14-year-old girls with alcohol and amphetamines before engaging in

Jabberwocky

Frumious Bandersnatch
Joined
Nov 3, 1999
Messages
84,999
Pair who plied two 14-year-old girls with alcohol and amphetamines before engaging in sex acts with them are spared jail 'because they consented'

Two men who plied a pair of 14-year-old girls with alcohol and amphetamines before having sex with them at a party have been spared jail because it was 'consensual'.

Lee Pollard and Mark Allen, both 26, were given suspended sentences after being convicted of sexual activity with two girls under the age of 16.

The trial at Exeter Crown Court heard how the girls had lied to their parents about having a sleepover and instead gone to a friend's sister's flat on the Dawlish seafront in Devon.

After a large amount of drinking and 'messing around in bikinis', Pollard and Allen turned up at midnight with cans of lager and amphetamines, when the party descended into an 'orgy'.

They also sent out for condoms before engaging in sex acts with both teenagers.

But the judge said the girls 'must accept a degree of responsibility' because the sex was 'consensual' and they were 'almost naked' when the men arrived.

Sentencing them, Judge Graham Cottle said: 'By the time you arrived they were, if not completely naked, then almost.

'And there followed consensual sexual activity between the two girls and the two of you.'

But you should never have been in that position. You should have turned around and walked out and not got involved in what turned into something of an orgy.

'You knew they were only 14. I have read their victim impact statements.

'They clearly are remorseful for what happened that night and feel ashamed of the way they behaved. It has had a great effect on their young lives.

'They must accept a degree, an I underline the word degree, of responsibility for how this evening worked out.

'It would be quite wrong to see these sentences as any sort of criticism of the girls or condoning of your actions.'

But one of the victim's mothers has been left 'horrified' at the judgement.

She said: 'I'm horrified to be honest.

'My daughter went out expecting to be in the company of females, she had no idea these men would turn up.

'I very much doubt she would have gone if she thought that was the case.

'She was not in a fit state to consent to anything and I'm appalled that the judge has deemed this to be possible.'

Pollard, of Torquay and Allen, of Chudleigh Knighton, were described as 'baseball cap and gold chain wearing chavvy types' by one of the victims' fathers.

They were given 15-month prison sentences, suspended for two years and were ordered to go on a sex offenders' rehabilitation course.

Allen will have to carry out 125 hours of unpaid community work.

Nicholas Fridd, defending Pollard said the matter was 'water under the bridge' due to the amount of time it had taken to come to court.

Rupert Taylor, defending Allen described him as a 'simple soul'.

But the victim's mother replied: 'What kind of 'simple soul' feeds drugs and alcohol to a child?

'The 'water under the bridge' has for us been two long years with this case looming.

'My still teenage daughter has found the whole thing extremely difficult to deal with and has suffered mental health problems as a result, which has impacted our whole family.

'I thought that a custodial sentence was a given, the judge at the trial said as much.

'Why he has chosen to lesser their punishment is beyond belief. My daughter found the trial extremely distressing.

'I can only hope that the judge's apparent disregard for that, and his opinion that children can have consensual sexual with adults, does not prevent other children from coming forward in the future.'


Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5208271/Devon-man-spared-jail-sex-teenagers-party.html
 
I'm not entirely sure how the U.K. justice system works, but I have a feeling this isn't a legally sound judgement and that it will be appealed. The judge is saying the minors "consented" but according to the law a 14-year-old cannot consent... otherwise the offences that Allen and Pollard were charged with wouldn't exist. Either they can consent or they cannot, it can't be both at once.
 
Yeah I kinda want whatever that judge is smoking, it must be some powerful shit.
 
You know.. I was reading the forum.. Saw this thread, saw the title... so I click on it and as its loading in that couple seconds something went through my head...

I thought to myself, it's interesting, we always hate on the people who give them alcohol and drugs and have sex with them. And quite rightly, adults (which I just assumed both of the perpetrators were since that's usually the case) have no business doing that consensual or not. And I agree they should face punishment for that. But, we always only focus on them. We never think at all that the girls have done anything particularly wrong at all. They are always innocent victims. Now one of the several reasons we should punish people who do this is that they quite well could be innocent victims what with only being 14. But it's still just an assumption.

We never really think about just how complicit and consensual and entirely consenting they might have been to all of it.

So I was a little surprised when it loaded and it immediately says they were supposedly consenting. I shouldn't have been surprised, because that's obviously what the perpetrators are going to say no matter what the truth is, it means nothing. But since I had only had a couple seconds to think and reacted over the course of the second after reading it.. In the moment it was a little surprising.

My point is how we are always so quick to make judgements we really don't know anything about. I don't think they should have just been let go. No matter how consenting the two girls were it doesn't make what them doing this ok. But there's something that bothers me about our assumption that the girls are always innocent victims and it always happened in the worst way we dream up in our head. Cause while it doesn't make it right what those men did, it's no more in service to the truth to let ourselves assume a lie either.

While I certainly think they should face consequences either way. How consenting the girls were should play a part in what those consequences are. And really, it's not something for us as the public to decide anyway.

At the end of the day my point is.. I was a 14 year old girl once and I was most certainly not innocence personified. And I don't like assumptions.
 
Tbh I would like to know how old all of the girls at the party were, that would be a huge factor in it. If they were all very young, those two had no business there at all.
 
The law in aus is changing to state an 11yo is a young adult and can be left unattended at home without child care. Yet in QLD a child less than 12 can not be left unattended at home.

A 14yo thinks they are invincible. Yet they are not adult. They are kids. They could not consent.

This is wrong. A lesson for the kids. No lesson for the adults. Typical.
 
Tbh I would like to know how old all of the girls at the party were, that would be a huge factor in it. If they were all very young, those two had no business there at all.

Good point. But I'm not a huge fan of the armchair judge for this kinda thing (heh, just occurred to me that an armchair judge isn't that removed in experience from an actual judge).


But that's probably because I have a lot more faith in the judicial system than most. And because I don't like making judgements without all the facts and with this kinda thing, especially involving children, the judges lawyers and people involved are the only ones with all the facts.
 
Very true, while I don't share your faith in the justice system I can agree they are the only ones with all the info
 
Very true, while I don't share your faith in the justice system I can agree they are the only ones with all the info

It's probably something worth qualifying. It's not that I think no corruption exists in the judicial system. It's more that I think people imagine much more corruption than actually exists. I've seen so many examples of people insisting to me about some instance of corruption only to look into it and find its more that they don't understand how the law works and that there's actually no justification to assume corruption at all outside of their not liking the outcome.

I'm sure corruption exists, and just like how there are many times people see corruption where there is none there are probably many examples of corruption nobody but the victim of it knows about at all. But I don't believe it's nearly as bad as most people do and I don't assume it without some real evidence. And I haven't seen almost any examples of real corruption. I'm more assuming that there is corruption than that I'm assuming there's not. A reasonable assumption but still an assumption.

When it's not that they don't understand how the legal system works it's that they don't understand the case itself.

So... Yeah I do think the judicial system in most of the western English speaking democracies is one of the generally less corrupt and even least corrupt of the three branches. And even if I don't believe there's that much corruption there are still other problems that aren't corruption but innate to the design of the system. Its not perfect.
 
My thing is I've watched a murderer go free. That kinda kills your faith
 
Speak for yourself. Watching a murderer go free doesn't kill my faith. Seeing an innocent person go away for murder does far more damage.

And I believe the latter would be far far more frequent as a result of any action to truly prevent the former.

The world isn't perfect. The justice system is no exception.

Better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent one go to jail.
 
I'm from illinois they have a history of executing innocent man. So I've seen both, and I'm talking I've personally watched a very sick man get away with murder
 
Could you link me to some kinda source on that? I'm honestly very hesitant to even ask cause i think it's highly likely I'll have a different interpretation. But I'm curious because last time I checked, which granted was some time ago. There was no solid evidence that anywhere in the US had ever wrongly executed anyone.

There are several real close calls, and several more that are ar least plausible. But I've yet to find a solid case where someone's been executed and definitely absolutely didn't do what they were executed for. Just close calls and possibilities. Which is still pretty bad but I'm curious more for curiosities sake. I already long ago stopped supporting the death penalty in practice. It seemed obvious to me that if we hadn't already and just didn't know that it was only a matter of time.

But my faith in the justice system is, as I said, faith that it gets it right far more often than not at least with making sure not to find the innocent guilty. That doesn't justify the mistakes, but it does keep me from making assumptions without evidence.
 
This is why I won't have kids because I would have killed those mother fuckers and be in jail now
 
Unfortunately unless I've missed something neither of those cases are instances of an innocent person being executed. Not in the way I was obviously talking about. They are both pretty horrible, but not what I was asking.

I was asking if there is any proven case of someone being executed, as in executed in the death penalty system. Who turned out to be innocent. In the United States.

Though I have a hard time believing you didn't know that to start with.

I'm not asking for proof that Illinois police are corrupt. I can totally buy that without proof. I never said I had much faith in the cops.

But this question came out of my point about faith in the judicial system and fundamentally the cops stem from executive power not judicial power.
 
Look up Carlos deluna, he was a Texas man executed for murder. And my point was there were 5 men sentenced to death who were innocent, one died waiting to be executed, another was saved by literally days.
 
I will look it up. But before I do. What I asked was perfectly clear, as was what I said my reasons were. I'm interested for interests sake. I already agree we shouldn't have the death penalty. So trying to distort things to argue that rather than answering my specific question is a waste of time cause I already agree.

All I was wondering was if there was a known case of someone who was executed in the US who we now know was innocent. That was the question.

Not if they died before they could be executed. Not if they were shit by the cops before they could go to trial. Not if they would have been wrong executed if no one has stopped it. All I asked was if someone who is now known to be innocent was executed in the United States..

I can appreciate that such a question might imply that I'm arguing that we shouldn't change things or we should keep the death penalty or whatever. But I already said I'm not. I'm interested for interests sake. So giving me cases that don't meet that criteria out of some belief that you want to convince me of some belief is a waste of both out time cause odds are I'm already convinced.

I'll look it up now. But I'm gonna be pissed if it turns out to be another case where it's not what i asked.

I look into it cause I'm curious. Since I already said what I believe and why I'm interested, it's irritating to take the time to find out only to find you would have already known it wasn't what I asked. I can understand that youre probably trying to make a point about the corruption of the system or the sad state of affairs or whatever but I'm already on board with that so seeing more proof of it isnt particularly interesting.

It's a purely academic question. I looked into it once and came away believing there were no instances of what were now known to be wrongful executions in the US. I was curious if that was wrong or no longer the case. That's the scope of my curiosity so anything outside of it is just a waste of both our time. Yours because I'm assuming you're trying to make a point that I likely already agree with so. Mine because it's not the reason I was interested.
 
Top