Paedo-filing cabinet

Via Iain Dale, I find this interesting story in The Scum. At first glance, the story is, indeed, a shocking one (and The Scum decides to emphasise the shock value by placing a cute teddy-bear on the 3D reconstruction of the bed!).

A PAEDO seduced a girl of 12 — then lived in her bedroom for THREE MONTHS without her mother finding out.

Scott Jennings, 22, cut a giant hole in the bottom of the youngster’s divan bed then used it as a secret den to evade detection if somebody came into the room.

He systematically abused the girl. And when she went to school in the morning, Jennings slipped out of the house to find food.

Note that, in this introduction, Jennings is introduced as the sole perpetrator here. Then read on. [Emphasis mine.]

Jennings, of Ashton-under-Lyne, Gtr Manchester, befriended the girl on a bus last year.

He began chatting her up, persuaded her to give him her mobile phone number and then arranged a date.

When they met, Jennings said he had nowhere to live and confided that he was wanted by police for a minor dishonesty offence.

He told the girl he needed somewhere to hide and was taken into her home unnoticed. The pair then cut a hole in the bottom section of her bed enabling him to hide in it whenever her mum came in.

Manchester Crown Court heard the girl then swore her ten-year-old sister to secrecy about Jennings.

His lair was found after the 12-year-old ran away with him leaving a note telling her mum not to worry.

Now, note that there is an element of collusion here: the girl seems to have very definitely helped him voluntarily.

Last night Det Con Dave Donlan said: “It is a quite extraordinary case. It is absolutely unbelievable — but it is as it sounds. It came as a complete shock to all concerned.

“This is an absolutely unbelievable case that has had a huge impact on the victim and her family.

As regular readers will know, your humble Devil is a big fan of Simon Raven; in his most autobiographical book, Fielding Gray, Raven dicourses—through the mouth of one of his characters—on the sexual predilections of young boys in a boys' school.

'But what they can't or won't realise,' Peter said, almost angrily for him, 'is that it's not what two boys do together in private which does the permanent damage, but the hysterical row which goes on if they get caught.'

'I'm not quite with you.'

'Well then. Two boys disappear into the bushes. once, twice, twenty times. They get a lot of pleasure from one another, but other things being equal it does not become a permanent taste, because they grow up and go out into a wider world which offers richer diversions. All right?'

'All right.'

'But supposing they're found out. Drama, tears, denunciation, letters to parents, threats of expulsion, endless inquisition: when, how often, with whom, where, how … And by the time that little lot's over, what would have been just a casual experience, not much more than an accident, has become … momentous, obsessive. It has been brnaded onto the very core of memory and feeling. It has become something which is always with you, like a wound which will be there and keep reopening for the rest of your life. A trauma, I think that the phsychologists call it. But the wound was not inflicted, in most cases, by the original incident, only by the savage insistance … by the vengefulness … of those who chanced to find the secret out…'

Now, I'm aware that many people might feel that I am on very dodgy ground here, but do you get the gist of what I'm getting at?

In this case, there seems to have been very little coercion (as far as I can tell from the article) by Jennings. Yes, legally (and, we would say) morally, the girl is far too young to decide for herself; however, our age of consent laws are, to an extent, fairly arbitrary and, moreover, dictated by factors other than the maturity of one person or another.

Within the continent of Europe, the age of consent differs: whilst many places—such as Britain—define the age of consent as 16, it is 15 in Greece, France and Denmark, for instance. In Estonia, Hungary, Iceland it is 14; and in Italy it is 14, or 13 if the particpants' age difference is less than 3 years; in Spain it is 13 (and it was 12 until only a few years ago).

Now, it is perfectly possible to argue that Scott Jennings did indeed take advantage of the girl; it is perfectly possible to argue that he used his more mature intellect to seduce and psychologically take advantage of the 12 year old; one can condemn this behaviour, of course.

However, whilst he is probably an unpleasant man, he does not seem to have forced her physically and he does not seem to have compelled her to act in any way. She voluntarily met him; she voluntarily gave him her mobile number; she voluntarily invited him into her house and helped to conceal him; and she voluntarily ran away with him. And there is little indication that any sexual activity was not entirely voluntary too (which, I would guess, explains the leniency of Jennings' punishment).

And, assuming that I agree with Raven's discourse above, what do you think will have caused the girl more trauma: the acts themselves or the months of questioning, the court appearances (even if only by video link) and the general witchhunt?

Note, please, that I am not condoning the seduction of twelve year olds (although it apparently seems to happen every day in the UK), but I am questioning how beneficial—for the victim—is our response to such actions, in cases such as this.