The Ten Year Old Sex Offender, Olumide Fadayomi And A System Addicted To Sex

TWO boys are accused of trying to rape an 8-year-old. The boys, aged 10 and 11, become Britain’s youngest sex offenders. And in this Brave New World, the media reacts:

The Mail asks:

“WHY WERE CHILDREN FORCED TO GO THROUGH RAPE TRIAL?”

Is it because we live in an age obsessed with children and sex and it makes for good telly?

Sir Ken Macdonald, writing in The Times, says “we are making demons of our children”. What we see is a show “that has no place in an intelligent society” – “Very young children do not belong in adult criminal courts. They rarely belong in criminal courts at all.”

But we get to feel. The Sun reminds us that the victim’s teddy is called Mr Happy. No, not Mr Shag. Mr Happy. The media is vital to remind us that we are idiots who need telling that a small child likes a teddy and is not sexually active.

The Girl Aged 8 Lied About Rape For Sweets, Apparently

So. Why do we need this case? Is it because we can get details like this, important enough for the Mail to publish them twice on one page:

Boy A and Boy B were also questioned. Boy A blamed Boy B. ‘He kissed her and then entered her,’ he said. Boy B initially refused to say anything before claiming that the girl herself had asked to see his friend’s ‘willy’ and to put it inside her.
There were now three different scenarios but not a scrap of independent evidence to support the girl’s story. There were no injuries to her genital area and, it would transpire, no forensic evidence linking the boys to the girl or her clothing, which was examined for DNA.

Is it so that Mail readers can respond with comments like:

I find it almost impossible to reconcile the word “sex” with 8 and 10 year olds.
In the “good old days” we were “boys” and “girls” and we knew no more than that.

Ah, those good old days when abortion was illegal, child rape was unheard of and everyone in the war looked after the kids with tender touches and cuddles.

Or is it because when rape is alleged than the wheels of process begin to turn, and cannot be stopped? Spare a thought for Olumide Fadayomi, 27, falsely accused of rape by a woman – yep, she cannot be named under pain of law – with a history of lying about being raped.

Says Judge Patrick Robertshaw at Sheffield Crown Court:

“The evidence did not, and was never going to, prove rape. The prime overriding consideration in the CPS’s decision had been merely that the complainant wished the case to go ahead.

“It was little short of a craven abdication of responsibility for making an independent and fair-minded assessment of the case.

“It is quite astonishing these decisions are made by those who simply do not have experience of what happens in Crown Court because they never come into Crown Court.

“They sit behind desks and make decisions that result in this sort of trial taking place.”

After the young girls’ rape trial, Alison Saunders, chief crown prosecutor, told The Daily Mail:

“The allegations made by the young girl were very serious. She gave a very good and very long, strong and detailed account. There were no inconsistencies until the cross-examination.”

But the girl was not raped. Something went wrong.

Back to the Old Bailey, and in the Mirror for some bitter irony:

But there was criticism from children’s charities over the way the case had been dealt with. Legal experts said the boys may not have understood proceedings.

Nor understood how to rape. The boys do not know much.

TimesOnline reports both boys “behaved impeccably” in court, but “looked uncomfortable and sought reassurance from their mothers as graphic sexual details were discussed in clinical ways”.

Adults and children. Oh Brave New World…