ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 1 Users Online   
   
                 04/18/2014 05:09 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Current Events
Woman Sues Walmart, Claims Shampoo Tangled Hair So Much She Had to Cut It
Missing Boy Found Playing Happily With Stuffed Animals in "Bear Claw" Toy Machine
Man Who Harrassed Neighbors Ordered to Hold "I Am a Bully" Sign
Police Officer Delivers Own Baby in Squad Car
Utah Woman Arrested After Seven Dead Babies Found in Garage
Woman Sentenced to 3 Years for Severing Penis in China
Man Angry Over 22-Cent Sales Tax Pulls .22 Caliber Submachine Gun
Shootings at Jewish Community Center and Retirement Home Kill Three
Man Who Peed in Co-worker´s Coffee Fined $5,001
Woman Throws Shoe at Hillary Clinton During Las Vegas Speech
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
04/18/2014 04:07 AM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Miley Cyrus Wears Only Underwear on Stage After Missed Costume Change'
04/18/2014 04:06 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Rapper Cuts Off Penis, Jumps Off Building in Apparent Suicide Attempt'
04/18/2014 04:06 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Woman Sues Walmart, Claims Shampoo Tangled Hair So Much She Had to Cut It'
04/18/2014 04:04 AM
ixuzus receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Court Rules Simulated Sex Isn´t a Sexual Act'
04/18/2014 04:03 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Woman Attacks Mother With Vibrator'
04/18/2014 04:02 AM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Man Jailed for Being Too Loud During Sex Says He Can´t Help Being "Too Good"'
04/18/2014 01:29 AM
Esperanza receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Woman Severs Chinese Man´s Penis'
04/18/2014 01:25 AM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Senator Sues Over Health Care Exemptions for Congress'
04/18/2014 01:24 AM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'NSA Spying on 100,000 Computers Worldwide, Report Says'
04/18/2014 01:21 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Adam Levine Introduces Women´s Clothing Line at Kmart'
  5.888 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
06/26/2007 09:25 AM ID: 63250 Permalink   

Rapist Get 2 Years - 10 Year Old Was Wearing Provocative Underwear

 

Judge Julian Hall gave Keith Fenn a mere 2 year prison sentence after declaring the "young woman" "didn't look 10" and was wearing a provocative underwear - a frilly bra and thong. The judge referred to the girl as being "...sexually precocious."

"She liked to dress provocatively. She was 10. She’d been in care since she was four. Did she look 10? Certainly not. She looked 16." said Judge Hall before sentencing the rapist to 2 years, which, with time served will be lessened to 4 months.

Fenn, 25, admitted to having sex with the young girl twice and his accomplice, Darren Wright, 34, walked free after receiving a sentence of 9 months. A charity campaigner for Kidscape called the sentences beyond pathetic.

 
  Source: www.thesun.co.uk  
    WebReporter: JulesLady Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  37 Comments
  
  I cant wait  
 
To ge tthe hell out of this shit hole of a country.
 
  by: Gogevandire   06/26/2007 09:35 AM     
  I suspect the judge has peodophilic tendencies  
 
this isn't the first time he has given a way too lenient sentence to a pedo. makes me wonder if he doesn't swing that way a little himself.
 
  by: sparky_fox   06/26/2007 09:41 AM     
  #Gogevandire  
 
Head south..Mexico will welcome you. Or follow the google directions to get to england.. head east and SWIM!
 
  by: CaveHermit   06/26/2007 09:42 AM     
  Oh dear  
 
What the hell was a 10-year-old doing wearing a 'frilly' bra and thong?! A thong fgs?! Where the hell were the carers?

More to the point, how were the men able to get close to said 10-year-old? What concieveable situation would put sick predatory males within a mile radius of a wanna-be tart?!

Utterly beyond explanation, all of it.

They should have got 10-years each as well, preferably in a cage, if they are going to act like animals, out of control of their urges then they should be damned well treated like animals.
 
  by: Maxx20     06/26/2007 09:46 AM     
  @Cave  
 
This was in England, and thats where I am now.

If I swim east I end up in Scandanavia or Germany, I think.
 
  by: Gogevandire   06/26/2007 09:46 AM     
  @Maxx20  
 
I am sorry, I am from the school of thinking of it doesnt matter what the girl wears, she doesnt deserve to be raped. So I disagree that it should even be counted as a factor, or cared about.
A thong or frilly bra is just cloth all the same. To the person who would rape a child, it makes little difference what they are wearing, they want the child not the clothes.

This was also hardly a case of mistaken identy, I doubt any 10yo could look sexually mature enough, or sound\act mature enough to pass as a 16 yo girl.
I have heard of cases of 14\15 yo girls passing themselves off as 16 and the guy not being able to tell the difference (short of asking for photo ID, and 16 is the legal age in England), so the law that takes that into account is required, however a 10yo? No that could not fly.

This judge lets pedo rapists off early every time he tries one, I dont know if you can pick your judge in England but I know the one all the rapists will be picking in England if they can.

This judge needs to be removed immedietly, he is meant to assign sentace in line with regular law, the will of the people and case law precidence. He has not followed any of those princibles, and therefor should be removed.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   06/26/2007 09:57 AM     
  Where to Go  
 
I dont know where you are going to go mate, the world is full of sick Judges, America, England, Australia and God knows where else. Remember the $65,0000,000 pants Judge.
They shouldn't be allowed to make a Judgment in a case, only oversee the trial.
When the Jury brings back a guilty verdict, on for example rape, put the info into a computer. If the computer says rape 10 yrs, 10 yrs it is, end of story
 
  by: BlackWidow   06/26/2007 10:00 AM     
  @BlackWidow  
 
Thats the way they do it in china. They replaced all judges with software that works they way you wished.
 
  by: kraut   06/26/2007 10:18 AM     
  ...  
 
It was Statutory rape. He had sex with her on 2 occasions so one can assume it was consensual sex. If it was consensual AND she looked 16 and he didn't know otherwise it's a fair sentence.

I suppose it rests on did she _really_ look 16, which we can't say.
 
  by: vgslag   06/26/2007 10:33 AM     
  Anyone Read The Source?  
 
It goes on with this ......

"....He caused fury earlier this year by freeing another paedophile, telling him to buy his six-year-old victim a new bicycle...."

Six years old ........ SIX YEARS OLD !!!

And the inhuman perverted pedophile rapist buys the kid a bike, and goes free to find another one.
 
  by: Discarded Vet   06/26/2007 11:11 AM     
  ridiculous  
 
so by the same token, if a woman of legal age looks like she's underage, you should get charged for statutory rape. the pendulum swings both ways if you're going to rely on the perception of age, rather than the actual age of your partner. completely stupid.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     06/26/2007 11:42 AM     
  @ ManilaRyce  
 
What a concept!

I like the way you think :)
 
  by: Discarded Vet   06/26/2007 11:54 AM     
  @ManilaRyce  
 
There shoudl be some allowance for if the sex was consensual and how old she looks.

When I was 18 I nearly had sex with a 15 year old girl. She looked 18, told me she was 18 and was in a pub when I met her.

Luckily I found out before it happened but are you saying I'm a danger to women as I nearly raped someone?
 
  by: vgslag   06/26/2007 12:29 PM     
  @VG  
 
Legaly, yes, you would have been a rapist, but moraly, no, you wouldnt have been.
 
  by: Gogevandire   06/26/2007 12:48 PM     
  @ssxxx...  
 
I agree, the judge is wrong and the men are very sick individuals.

My point about the clothing was that her carers or guardians were clearly failing to either care of guard. On top of the sentence handed down to the men (10 years would have been appropriate) there should be a separate enquiry into her care. i.e. How did she meet the men? Where the hell was the responsible adult who could have prevented it all?
 
  by: Maxx20     06/26/2007 01:22 PM     
  Judge Hall  
 
is most probably a paedophile some years ago a few judges were found to be connected to a ring of them, time they took this rat into court to be tried him self for this.
 
  by: captainJane     06/26/2007 03:04 PM     
  Oh, My, Lord  
 
What the hell is wrong with this judge? Is he a raging pedophile?

Seriously, someone needs to remove this bastard from office. He is making a mokery out of the justice system.
 
  by: Jediman3     06/26/2007 03:27 PM     
  @ssxxxssssss  
 
Whereas I agree with you that provocative clothing doesn't justify rape, I do believe it needs to be considered in all legal cases (e.g. sexual harassment). The tragedy of this type of ruling will result unrestrained men going after weaker and easily manipulated kids. A couple of months in jail for a moment of unrestrained lust on an innocent - it is well worth it to them. So yeah, they need to have a full sentence on them. But in addition to this, I believe the parents of the child need to be giving an account of their guardianship as well. Many of today's parents are guilty of sexualizing their own kids these days. What they may find blindly cute someone else may find provocative, and let's face it, do the kids deserve the consequences of their parent's errors in this matter?
Clothes do matter. Whatever is shown, expect to be looked at. At work, at church, in the schoolyard.
 
  by: escalus84   06/26/2007 04:53 PM     
  @escalus84  
 
I agree that if you show it off, prepare for it to be looked at. But the line is drawn when you infringe on another persons rights to not be harmed.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   06/26/2007 05:20 PM     
  Having recoevered from  
 
My initial shock, the logistics have occured to me, and they dont pan out.

You deceide to have sex before seeing someone take their clothes off, not afterwards.
 
  by: Gogevandire   06/26/2007 05:28 PM     
  Crazy  
 
Having recoevered from
My initial shock, the logistics have occured to me, and they dont pan out.
Your right there!

And these kiddie pervs must have undressed her in the first place to see the knickers at all.

As a child i used to pinch my Moms bra and stuff it with socks and try to walk in her shoes.kids do these things maybe this is what she did,she is only ten.
 
  by: captainJane     06/26/2007 06:33 PM     
  Even if she did look 16  
 
(which I doubt), why does that mean its ok to rape her?
 
  by: Eidron   06/26/2007 09:50 PM     
  i agree with ssxxxssssss and Eidron  
 
even if she was 16 and wearing sexy lingerie, it's not like she is screaming to be raped.
So a woman/ girl should never wear sexy lingerie even for herself so she does not get raped? why are men allowed to walk half naked then? at least no one can see the lingerie unless she undresses herself or allows the person to undress her.
 
  by: DarkAngelJG     06/26/2007 11:07 PM     
  how can this man stil be a judge??  
 
i 100% agree id say he is definatley a pedo and also should have been fird on the spot ! __ check this guys computer !
 
  by: dayseye   06/26/2007 11:28 PM     
  Truly sickening  
 
no comment
 
  by: chaoticvengeance     06/27/2007 12:49 AM     
  Lack of Information  
 
Judging by the comments it sounds like everyone has a different story in their own mind (probably mine as well). The judge referred to the girl as precocious, which may mean any undergarments may have been visibly apparent, even in the courtroom (but again, who knows). The rape charge does not necessarily mean this man forced himself on the kid, it may have been consensual (but it is looked at as rape because a child of her age is not mature enough to give consent for a sexual act.) Once again, it does not justify the adult's act, but the girl may have attempted to seduce ("Oh! Not an innocent little girl!" the crowds say) because she has been trained to do so by our sexually charged society. There have been some very young girls who try this crap. There are also mothers who use their daughters to entrapt those who they feel have paedophilic tendencies, even to the point of lying about their kid's age. The story "Oh, she looked 16" is so bogus. If they look young, research their age. End rant.
 
  by: escalus84   06/27/2007 01:29 AM     
  Easy way to find out her age  
 
ID please! No ID no sex that simple.

And even if he thought she was 16, hell even if she was...what the hell is wrong with a 25 year old that he has to look for someone 9 years younger for a relationship?

Another thing. I have a near teen and I buy her intimates so I know what she is wearing WHO bought this girl these undergarments? They should be charged as well for buying or not noticing she had them.

The judge? POS plain and simple.
 
  by: TaraB     06/27/2007 03:40 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
My parents are 20 years apart in age, they have had a happy marrage for 27 years now. For you to insinuate that there is something wrong with my father is downright insulting. Age is a number, thats all, if 2 people click they click. As long as both parties are legal, happy, and not forced there is nothing wrong.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   06/27/2007 05:46 AM     
  Statutory Rape  
 
is still rape. It doesn't matter if the underage victim "consents". They do not have the legal standing to consent. It doesn't matter if she was prancing around in the street nude. At 10 years of age she is not capable of making decent decisions regarding her own safety or health. Part of the issue resides on the perp in this case. As a sexually active adult, I have a responsibility to protect myself from STDs as well as keeping myself out of sketchy situations. If your new conquest is 3 foot 6 inches tall it might not be a bad idea to double check that ID.
 
  by: tomblik     06/27/2007 07:51 AM     
  @tomblik  
 
You are entirely wrong. It is not rape at all. Its a means of population control and for the government to cut back on aid to teenage mothers. Rape is the act of forcing yourself on an unwilling participant of vaginal intercourse.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     06/27/2007 06:11 PM     
  Not quite..  
 
Regardless of your personal view, tomblik is entirely right from a legal point of view.
 
  by: StarShadow     06/27/2007 06:19 PM     
  @ssxx  
 
"For you to insinuate that there is something wrong with my father is downright insulting."

Is your father sleeping with minors? If not then it has nothing to do with the age difference between your parents.


"Age is a number, thats all, if 2 people click they click. As long as both parties are legal, happy, and not forced there is nothing wrong."

As you said as long as they are LEGAL. A simple way for anyone to make sure is asking for ID be it a license, passport or state issued ID. The young man in this story is 25 and his victim is 10, even if she was the 16 he says he thought she was he could have taken the time to verify it and he didn't.

Legal and consenting adults getting together is not the same as what happened here and how it could have been prevented.
 
  by: TaraB     06/27/2007 06:40 PM     
  ...  
 
I went looking for a more reliable news source than the Sun and found this on the bbc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

It explains some of the vaguarities. One being that 'Lawyers for the defendants stressed that the sex had been consensual, and was only termed 'rape' because of the framework of law. ' and 'doctors who examined the girl believed she was in her mid-teens' which go some way to help explain the Judge's decision, although that first comment does amuse me - it's only Rape as that's what the law defines it as... genius statement :)
 
  by: Heresy   06/28/2007 01:28 AM     
  Given  
 
The extra source, perhaps the law should extend to requiring ID-ing before sex? If the girl was dressed like that and it was consentual (i.e. not forced upon her as rape or sexual assault suggests) she was clearly after it.

It should logically become the responsibility of the male to demand ID confirmation, if he doesn't, it's easier to identify that he's done something wrong and award a more appropriate sentence (i.e. the 10 years appropriate in this case).

I still think the carers should be charged with dereliction of duty as well.
 
  by: Maxx20     06/28/2007 09:37 AM     
  @Maxx  
 
Id advise everyone to ID a girl before sex, and use a video phone to record her saying she consents.
 
  by: GogeVandire   06/28/2007 09:43 AM     
  @goge  
 
This case proves however that even with a consent, video or none, it's still statutory rape bacause of the wording of the law.

ID-ing is probably the best way forward, even if the idea of an overtly beurocratic state which requires documents for every action you may choose does worry me slightly.
 
  by: Maxx20     06/28/2007 05:39 PM     
  @Maxx  
 
The video is so when she sobers up in the morning and deceides you actualy raped her, you dont go to jail for it.

Courts in the UK are told that the woman must always be believed if she cries rape.
 
  by: Gogevandire   06/29/2007 09:43 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com