Tuesday, June 28, 2016

What Happened at the Hull Crown Court in East Yorkshire? - UPDATED

At first, this article by Gaby Bissett at appeared to be about yet another ridiculous, destructive prosecution of consenting adults for having sex.

A man who fathered two children with his niece after the pair started a sexual relationship has been jailed for four-and-a-half years.
"Started a sexual relationship" prompts me to ask why are we wasting resources prosecuting and imprisoning consenting adults for having relationships???
A court heard that the 'appalling and sad case' was revealed after a social services investigation.
The pair had been having a consensual sexual relationship, leading to the birth of two children.
"The pair had been having a consensual sexual relationship" prompts me to say that only thing appalling and sad is that anyone is interfering.
Speaking at Hull Crown Court, East Yorkshire, Nigel Clive, prosecuting, said: 'The situation, in short, is this - Hull social services were invited to intervene as a result of the birth of two children.'
He said DNA tests proved the link between the children and their parents, who appeared in the dock together.
Well I'd think DNA tests would prove a link between children and parents. People who make children together do tend provide their DNA, after all.
Judge Jeremy Richardson QC said: 'The reality is, they were having an intimate, consensual sexual relationship with each other.'
An "intimate, consensual sexual relationship" shouldn't be a crime.

David Godfrey, representing the niece, said she had already 'suffered' after losing her children to social services.
Why were the children taken? It appears so far in the article the only harm here is what is being done by the authorities.

But hold on...

The uncle admitted sexual activity with a child family member, knowing the relationship, and sex with an adult relative, knowing the relationship.
WAAAAAAIT!!! If that means, at it appears to, an underage person, then why does the rest of the article talk about "consensual sexual relationship?" Why wasn't the article started with that??? Why isn't that mentioned anywhere else in the article? Did the court not comment on it???

There is no indication that anyone else is involved, so the implication is that the man started with his niece when she was young enough to be considered a "child" under the law. Or... can the wording "child family member" mean someone of a younger generation of the family who is an adult? But wouldn't that be a redundant charge to the second charge? More information should have been provided.

While his niece admitted two offences of sex with an adult relative, knowing the relationship.
This is so contorted. Nobody should be charged with a crime for consensual sex (to be redundant) with another adult, but if he groomed her, then this is especially absurd. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE???

You know what would have been helpful? The ages of the prosecuted, the ages of their children, and how long ago the prosecutors think everything started. That information could be provided without revealing identities.

The man was jailed for four-and-a-half years and must sign the sex offenders register for life. His niece was sentenced to a community order with 12 months supervision.
The judge told her she was 'as much sinned against as sinning'. 

What the heck??? What was the point of prosecuting her at all? Give her her children back! And speaking of the children, there's no mention in this article that they have birth defects or genetic diseases. Most children born to consanguineous relationships are healthy.

Then there's the coverage by
Siobhan Fenton at, which gives no indication whatsoever that this was anything but consensual sex (to be redundant) between adults.

If this was a case of a grown man preying on a minor female, then his sentence was way too short, and she should have not been prosecuted at all. If this was really a consensual relationship, then neither should have been prosecuted. What a mess!!!

UPDATE: Someone dear to us brought up this point...
Wow that's close to home in so many ways not just geographically. I'm glad to say I was nowhere near a child when my relationship started. It's very difficult to have an opinion either way in this matter. There's just not enough information. For all we know the relationship started when he was 18 and she maybe 15. Technically adult and technically child but not an unknown combination of ages. Do "reporters" not even bother doing research anymore?
That's a very good point I forgot to consider. In some places, and 18-year-old (and even a 17-year-old)  male can be charged with statutory rape for "consensual" (she can't legally consent) sex with a 17-year-old girl. If he'd forced himself on her there would be additional charges.

Assuming the age of consent is 16 where this was, it is possible she was  15 and he was, say 18.
— — —

1 comment:

  1. and the sad part is that relativly close by they could legally marry if they both were over 18 and legal if she was over 16 ie Norway.


To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.