Thread: Grown woman avoids jail after sexual contact with minor

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oids-jail.html

Yet another example of western cucked two tier legal systems for men and women. A 22 year old woman has been let off after having sex with a 14 year old boy. The judge actually said that the reason was 'there was a genuine connection' by the pair. I wonder if the 22 year old was a man, would the judge be saying there was a genuine connection between them? More than likely he would be framed as an abuser and would have been sent down. Yes she may have stopped after finding out his age, but still a 14 year old boy cannot consent to sex. Men have gone to prison for exactly this.

From the article (bold added):

Setencing (sic) her, Judge Sarah Mallett said: 'This was a relationship of mutual affection, there was no pressure applied or grooming of any sort.

The old girls club.

Originally Posted by Unboxxed

From the article (bold added):



The old girls club.

Whoever said women make fair and impartial judges? It's their judgment hitched to empowerment that brought about this brave new world where men take affirmative measures to avoid the hatchet (AKA gavel) held by those of reprobate minds and corrupt souls. Trust that? No never, there's no such thing as trusting the untrustworthy, there's only allowing ourselves to be gas-lit into believing a lie in spite of the truth.

I see the courthouse as a place where they arrogantly hand out suffering to atone for their own inadequacies and inequities. I avoid the justice system like a plague, only because it is a plague.


So what if we take the future away from them by not subrogating and submitting to reprobate social order, they don't deserve a future! Won't be the first civilization to vanish without a trace.

Originally Posted by ShogunRonin

The judge actually said that the reason was 'there was a genuine connection' by the pair.

Of course there was. They were fucking. Fucking creates emotional bonds. That's the whole point of making it illegal: a 14-year-old teenager is not ready for those kinds of emotional bonds, and shouldn't be making them with a 22-year-old adult.

But women believe that luurve is in and of itself not just good, but a good of such significance that it justifies anything else. Which leads to all kinds of bad outcomes: anything is ok, if you are doing it for love.

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

Of course there was. They were fucking. Fucking creates emotional bonds. That's the whole point of making it illegal: a 14-year-old teenager is not ready for those kinds of emotional bonds, and shouldn't be making them with a 22-year-old adult.

But women believe that luurve is in and of itself not just good, but a good of such significance that it justifies anything else. Which leads to all kinds of bad outcomes: anything is ok, if you are doing it for love.

Sex makes emotional bonds, that's certain, but promiscuity tears out the Velcro fibers in your heart, making pair bonding less and less likely, then withdrawal from women as your destiny arrives sooner than later.
You tend to see them all the same and nothing special, your mind goes "click" sooner, decades sooner, your learn to walk alone and lose all desire for female comforts as you've learned they're always abruptly severed as women try to emotionally tool you as if they were the master and you the clay.

You could sooner walk me into the flamed of hell before you'll get me in an emotional relationship with a woman. I see sexual relationshits of any kind as all whores and bastards, of which neither I want to participate on any level, I enjoy being over women with no desire for one. The price for one is hell to pay on your serenity, solidarity, and sanity.

Otherwise, I would treat them like whores only fucking them for pleasure making them utterly disposable, and that wouldn't be nice, but whoever said I was nice, that chump died ages ago!

I went to the article. Saw the fotos of the predator. OMG! Kill it! Kill it with fire!


I wonder if this court case can be used as a legal precedent in other cases?

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

I went to the article. Saw the fotos of the predator. OMG! Kill it! Kill it with fire!

22? Look at the lines on that face. She looks about 40! No wonder she went kiddie fiddlin'. Couldn't get a man. Lock her up. The DPP can appeal.

I wonder what she's got in the bag? It sure can't be makeup, and it looks full!

From the way she is wearing oversized clothing I would say she has body image issues and no doubt is quite vulnerable. The way she wears that makeup is like she is trying to hang on to her youth, and sleeping with a 14 year old boy is no doubt a manifestation of it. She wears that ring on her middle finger to tell the world she is single and ready to mingle. I would also say she has been in quite a fair few abusive relationships, which ultimately have messed with her head.

Like I always say - women are becoming increasingly BAD at selecting relationships, even worse than 10 years ago. Women even agree with this statement.

Originally Posted by ShogunRonin

From the way she is wearing oversized clothing I would say she has body image issues and no doubt is quite vulnerable. The way she wears that makeup is like she is trying to hang on to her youth, and sleeping with a 14 year old boy is no doubt a manifestation of it. She wears that ring on her middle finger to tell the world she is single and ready to mingle. I would also say she has been in quite a fair few abusive relationships, which ultimately have messed with her head.

Like I always say - women are becoming increasingly BAD at selecting relationships, even worse than 10 years ago. Women even agree with this statement.

It would be less of an issue if she pulled that turtleneck up about 12 inches and tucked it under a hat!

The choice of clothing is intentional and tactical.

Remember the case from the 1990s, where the two Menendez brothers shotgunned their parents to death to get to the inheritance quicker?

Their defense attorney insisted that one of them be allowed his hairpiece in court, and she dressed them in sweaters and not suits. Why? To make them look young, boyish, and vulnerable. At certain points in the trial, she even let them cry on her shoulder, and stroked them like she a mother comforting a young boy who skinned their knee on the play ground.

Putting her in a huge sweater is designed to make her small and vulnerable. If one were available or affordable, a make-up artist could have been brought in to make her look like she was 16.

Originally Posted by mgtower

I wonder what she's got in the bag? It sure can't be makeup, and it looks full!

Strap-on, dildo, gimp mask, handcuffs etc. etc.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

The choice of clothing is intentional and tactical.

Almost certainly true. I'm an insecure person and made a mistake. This is what the defense wants people to think but it's pure bullshit.

In my early 20's I worked in a girl's secondary school and the older girls were around my age - 19-20. Some of them would occasionally hit on me (and they were fine looking) - I assumed they were testing out their wares, so to speak.

But there are lines. I would pass the encounters off in a humorous way so as not to hurt their feelings but NEVER would I have taken any up on their offers.

This one had an 'experience' with a 14 year old. Paedophile pure and simple.

Seems pretty clear that the bint involved has an emotional maturity of a 14-year old too.

Originally Posted by Eddie Willers

Seems pretty clear that the bint involved has an emotional maturity of a 14-year old too.

Emotional Maturity?

I'm in my mid-fifties and so associate within a similar age group (40's - death).

In order to mature, one must know what's happening and question it. Arrive at the same destination if that's what you believe - but question it in order to know that this is what you believe.

Even though I would describe most around me as at least purple pill - they see the shit going on - yet they never seem to be able to make the breakthrough to rejecting it.

Emotions and programming seem to forbid this act.