Fury as child rapist is allowed to compete in the Olympic Games

[dan_999uk]

 

Quote

 

The IOC is facing calls for an investigation into how a convicted child rapist has been allowed to compete at Paris 2024, on the eve of the opening of the Games.

Amid growing public outrage at the presence of the Netherlands beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, who was convicted of raping a British 12-year-old girl in 2016, groups have warned that sporting bodies are sending a dangerous message to rapists and causing “collateral damage” to victims of sexual abuse.

Ciara Bergman, the CEO of Rape Crisis England & Wales said the “irresponsible” inclusion of Van de Velde at the Olympics created an “enormous sense of impunity”, adding: “If you can rape a child and still compete in the Olympics, despite all athletes signing a declaration promising to be a role model, that is just shocking,” she said.

The inclusion of Van de Velde in the Dutch team would have a “serious impact”, she added: “There is always an impact on the individual victim survivor, but every act of violence against women and girls is a crime against society. It has a collateral and collective impact on all other women and girls.”

 

 

[ECCOnoob]

A tricky one which will no doubt get the frothy-mouthed 'string em up' brigade on their high horses. 

 

Fact is the guy was convicted, sentenced, serve his time and released. We don't do lock them up and throw away the key. It's punishment AND rehabilitation. 

 

If this was an ordinary bloke in the street after being released from prison, it would be their entitlement to return back into society and work in whatever capacity best they can. 

 

Just because he is a high-profile athlete, why should it be any different. It may well be sending out a 'distasteful message' according to the campaign groups, but what exactly do they expect to do. Why should he face double or triple punishment just because..

 

We are not talking some 50-year-old man getting into bed with some toddler here.  It was a 7-year age gap at the time of the incident.  

 

He of course was wrong for knowingly pursuing his actions on someone he knew was underage.  That is not in dispute and of course that is the reason why he was sentenced and sent to jail.   But then again there was four months of communications between victim and accused. The victim even knew his age during those communications so doubtful that she was a wholly innocent party in the affair either. He certainly didn't fly over and rock up at their house on some whim. Something must have been agreed.  Add on that technically nobody under the age of 13 is supposed to  have a Facebook account under the terms of rules, how did that happen......  Be interesting to see what the other side of the conversation would have been.  

 

Just theories here if this conversation was about a 17-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl.  In the eyes of the law, the circumstances, the punishment and the crime is exactly the same.  Would it be justified for the career and life of the 17-year-old after they were punished and rehabilitated to be deliberately ruined for the rest of time?    Would said organisations and campaign groups be getting the same level of anger over such a circumstance.....hmmm. 

[Jim Hardie]

2 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

A tricky one which will no doubt get the frothy-mouthed 'string em up' brigade on their high horses. 

 

Fact is the guy was convicted, sentenced, serve his time and released. We don't do lock them up and throw away the key. It's punishment AND rehabilitation. 

 

If this was an ordinary bloke in the street after being released from prison, it would be their entitlement to return back into society and work in whatever capacity best they can. 

 

Just because he is a high-profile athlete, why should it be any different. It may well be sending out a 'distasteful message' according to the campaign groups, but what exactly do they expect to do. Why should he face double or triple punishment just because..

 

We are not talking some 50-year-old man getting into bed with some toddler here.  It was a 7-year age gap at the time of the incident.  

 

He of course was wrong for knowingly pursuing his actions on someone he knew was underage.  That is not in dispute and of course that is the reason why he was sentenced and sent to jail.   But then again there was four months of communications between victim and accused. The victim even knew his age during those communications so doubtful that she was a wholly innocent party in the affair either. He certainly didn't fly over and rock up at their house on some whim. Something must have been agreed.  Add on that technically nobody under the age of 13 is supposed to  have a Facebook account under the terms of rules, how did that happen......  Be interesting to see what the other side of the conversation would have been.  

 

Just theories here if this conversation was about a 17-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl.  In the eyes of the law, the circumstances, the punishment and the crime is exactly the same.  Would it be justified for the career and life of the 17-year-old after they were punished and rehabilitated to be deliberately ruined for the rest of time?    Would said organisations and campaign groups be getting the same level of anger over such a circumstance.....hmmm. 

Served his time?
Sentenced to four years and did 13 months.

[ECCOnoob]

2 minutes ago, Jim Hardie said:

Served his time?
Sentenced to four years and did 13 months.

....and?  

 

That was the decision of the authorities and it was their decision to make to release him. 

 

Whether people think that was enough time served is an entirely different issue. Doesn't detract from the points I'm making.

[cressida]

Crikey,  he must think his sentence was worth it - horrid thought

[Al Bundy]

29 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

A tricky one which will no doubt get the frothy-mouthed 'string em up' brigade on their high horses. 

 

Fact is the guy was convicted, sentenced, serve his time and released. We don't do lock them up and throw away the key. It's punishment AND rehabilitation. 

 

If this was an ordinary bloke in the street after being released from prison, it would be their entitlement to return back into society and work in whatever capacity best they can. 

 

Just because he is a high-profile athlete, why should it be any different. It may well be sending out a 'distasteful message' according to the campaign groups, but what exactly do they expect to do. Why should he face double or triple punishment just because..

 

We are not talking some 50-year-old man getting into bed with some toddler here.  It was a 7-year age gap at the time of the incident.  

 

He of course was wrong for knowingly pursuing his actions on someone he knew was underage.  That is not in dispute and of course that is the reason why he was sentenced and sent to jail.   But then again there was four months of communications between victim and accused. The victim even knew his age during those communications so doubtful that she was a wholly innocent party in the affair either. He certainly didn't fly over and rock up at their house on some whim. Something must have been agreed.  Add on that technically nobody under the age of 13 is supposed to  have a Facebook account under the terms of rules, how did that happen......  Be interesting to see what the other side of the conversation would have been.  

 

Just theories here if this conversation was about a 17-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl.  In the eyes of the law, the circumstances, the punishment and the crime is exactly the same.  Would it be justified for the career and life of the 17-year-old after they were punished and rehabilitated to be deliberately ruined for the rest of time?    Would said organisations and campaign groups be getting the same level of anger over such a circumstance.....hmmm. 

Cracking post, agree with every word.

[Alextopman]

28 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

A tricky one which will no doubt get the frothy-mouthed 'string em up' brigade on their high horses. 

 

Fact is the guy was convicted, sentenced, serve his time and released. We don't do lock them up and throw away the key. It's punishment AND rehabilitation. 

 

If this was an ordinary bloke in the street after being released from prison, it would be their entitlement to return back into society and work in whatever capacity best they can. 

 

Just because he is a high-profile athlete, why should it be any different. It may well be sending out a 'distasteful message' according to the campaign groups, but what exactly do they expect to do. Why should he face double or triple punishment just because..

 

We are not talking some 50-year-old man getting into bed with some toddler here.  It was a 7-year age gap at the time of the incident.  

 

He of course was wrong for knowingly pursuing his actions on someone he knew was underage.  That is not in dispute and of course that is the reason why he was sentenced and sent to jail.   But then again there was four months of communications between victim and accused. The victim even knew his age during those communications so doubtful that she was a wholly innocent party in the affair either. He certainly didn't fly over and rock up at their house on some whim. Something must have been agreed.  Add on that technically nobody under the age of 13 is supposed to  have a Facebook account under the terms of rules, how did that happen......  Be interesting to see what the other side of the conversation would have been.  

 

Just theories here if this conversation was about a 17-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl.  In the eyes of the law, the circumstances, the punishment and the crime is exactly the same.  Would it be justified for the career and life of the 17-year-old after they were punished and rehabilitated to be deliberately ruined for the rest of time?    Would said organisations and campaign groups be getting the same level of anger over such a circumstance.....hmmm. 

 

I don't see how the age gap comes into it as any kind of defence.

7 years or 70 years he groomed a 12 year old girl on Facebook and flew to another Country to rape her.

He has since shown little or no remorse for his crime, quite the opposite from interviews I have read.

[ECCOnoob]

30 minutes ago, Alextopman said:

 

I don't see how the age gap comes into it as any kind of defence.

7 years or 70 years he groomed a 12 year old girl on Facebook and flew to another Country to rape her.

He has since shown little or no remorse for his crime, quite the opposite from interviews I have read.

 

Hmmmm.  So this 12 year old girl 'totally, innocent' and 'totally unaware of what she was doing' posted pictures in a public internet forum clearly provocative enough to attract attention from a 19-year-old male in a different country, she proceeded to engage in dialogue with him for 4 months across three different platforms despite knowing his age, she arranged with him to attend her address which she disclosed to him, she was there when he attended despite her mother not being in the house, she spent the evening with him before the first act of sex which she participated in without force and she allowed him to return to her house the next day....

 

I'm not buying this one sidedness here.  This is statutory rape. This was not forced. This was not drugged. Age is the only factor here.

 

His punishment is for the underage sex. That is what his sentence was for. That is what he's now served. 

 

In my opinion, there is a huge distance between something like this present case and a serial paedophile who is sexually assaulting with young toddlers and has a hard drive full of images. 

 

Like I said, if the culprit was 17 years old and the victim 15 years old, the eyes of the law are just the same, but do we think we'll be having this mass outrage if that was those circumstances.

 

[The_DADDY]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

A tricky one which will no doubt get the frothy-mouthed 'string em up' brigade on their high horses. 

 

Fact is the guy was convicted, sentenced, serve his time and released. We don't do lock them up and throw away the key. It's punishment AND rehabilitation. 

 

If this was an ordinary bloke in the street after being released from prison, it would be their entitlement to return back into society and work in whatever capacity best they can. 

 

Just because he is a high-profile athlete, why should it be any different. It may well be sending out a 'distasteful message' according to the campaign groups, but what exactly do they expect to do. Why should he face double or triple punishment just because..

 

We are not talking some 50-year-old man getting into bed with some toddler here.  It was a 7-year age gap at the time of the incident.  

 

He of course was wrong for knowingly pursuing his actions on someone he knew was underage.  That is not in dispute and of course that is the reason why he was sentenced and sent to jail.   But then again there was four months of communications between victim and accused. The victim even knew his age during those communications so doubtful that she was a wholly innocent party in the affair either. He certainly didn't fly over and rock up at their house on some whim. Something must have been agreed.  Add on that technically nobody under the age of 13 is supposed to  have a Facebook account under the terms of rules, how did that happen......  Be interesting to see what the other side of the conversation would have been.  

 

Just theories here if this conversation was about a 17-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl.  In the eyes of the law, the circumstances, the punishment and the crime is exactly the same.  Would it be justified for the career and life of the 17-year-old after they were punished and rehabilitated to be deliberately ruined for the rest of time?    Would said organisations and campaign groups be getting the same level of anger over such a circumstance.....hmmm. 

My bold.

He raped a 12 year old girl. What the hells wrong with you?

 

Underlined. 

Victim blaming now eh? 

[RJRB]

6 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

My bold.

He raped a 12 year old girl. What the hells wrong with you?

 

Underlined. 

Victim blaming now eh? 

Where does victim blaming come into it ?