I was reading a story earlier this week about Helen Goddard, a 26 year old music teacher, who was convicted and jailed for a measly 15 months for having a lesbian affair with her 15 year old pupil. What surprised me about this case was that Judge John Antony Pitts said such a sentence was inevitable because her offence was so serious, yet under the same breath he refused a prosecution request to ban Goddard from contacting her victim because, according to Judge Pitts, this would be “draconian and cruel” to the girl. This begs the question- what part of serious does Judge Pitts not understand? Judge Pitts described the relationship as exploitive, manipulative, devious, and harmful, so how in Gods name is it possibly in the teenagers best interest for the relationship to continue on any level.
On top of this, Judge Pitts refused another prosecution request to ban Goddard from ever being alone with underage girls- which you would of thought would have been a given!
It is common knowledge that any premature sexual encounter is harmful, and it goes without saying that a premature lesbian affair is very likely to cause more harm and confuse her immature mind. Being a Judge you would of thought that Judge Pitts would of known this, and would of sought to protect the teenager.
The Judge said he had taken in consideration of what had been said by Goddard’s barrister, who said that the victim was obviously in “love” with Goddard. However, maybe he should also took into account that quite often a sexually abused child would form an inappropriate affection for and a sense of loyalty towards the abuser. Unfortunately that is a sad fact of life.
What the child needed was protection from her abuser, not for Goddard to be allowed to carry on the abuse.
Moving on, on a BBC Radio show called Iconclasts, a Cambridge Law Professor John Spencer appeared and proposed that the age of consent should be lowered to 13 (maybe we should be questioning his true motives as to why he wants the legal limit reduced?!)
He claims that the current law is too heavy handed and is unenforceable….. cutting this short, he claims that because we live in an ultra- Liberal society, where sexual promiscuity is celebrated, and some 13 year olds are sexually active, we should alter the law to fit today’s morally defunct society.
However, what he fails to realise is that the reason that so many underage teenagers are sexually active is because A) our young are not taught morals and values anymore and B) the Law is not being enforced.
At the end of the day, with our Liberal and neo-Marxist government, many legal restraints on paedophiles taking advantage of young and vulnerable teenagers have been taken away, and the Age of Consent is really the last restraint standing. And if we were to remove that, we will only worsen an already disastrous situation where pregnancy , abortions and sexually transmitted diseases plague our 13-16 year olds.
The National Front would seek to raise the age of consent, would ensure that paedophiles and child abusers like Helen Goddard are handed a punishment that fits the crime, and that true British morals and values are taught in our schools.
The Local NF unit are starting a campaign in the local area to raise awareness in October, if you can help out please contact Mike by emailing Swindon@yahoo.co.uk or call/text 07890- 802-883
Links of Interest:
PARENTS TOLD: AVOID MORALITY IN SEX LESSONS
FOUR YEAR OLDS COULD BE TAUGHT SEX EDUCATION UNDER PLANS TO CUT TEENAGE PREGNANCY RATE
GERMANY AND EU TO LEAGALISE PAEDOPHILIA
TEACHERS WHO HAVE CONSENSUAL SEX WITH PUPILS SHOULD NOT FACE PROSECUTION, SAYS UNION
3 comments:
I'm not saying that your opinions are incorrect. However, you would have thought that someone who feels so strongly about a subject that they need to blog about it would, at the very least, check his or her grammar.
I agree strongly with the first commenter: I would have thought the same thing. Poor grammar disfigures writing.
You are one sad human being.
Post a Comment