Schoolboys don't miss Registration

When you're only 10 years old, you don't usually have a proper signature. After all, you don't really need one. You can't have a credit card, you can't take out a mortgage, and you can't write a cheque, if even you actually know what one of those soon-to-be-historical items is.

But from now on, kiddies, you'd better practice your signature. Go on, get a piece a paper and decide how it's going to look. Have a practice scribble.

After all, you might well need it - even though you're only ten, you might need to sign the Sex Offenders Register. Yes, really.

Two ten year olds were yesterday found gulity of 'attempted rape' and made to do exactly that. As he ordered them to sign the sex offenders register, the judge Mr Justice Saunders said:

"I am not quite sure how it applies to children of this age."

Well, exactly. It's a fucking mockery. Will these two ten year olds be refused permission to work with other children, do you think? Will they be banned from swimming lessons in case they try to shag their classmates? For fuck's sake.

And given that is meaningless to get them to sign the register, Your Honour, why the fuck are you ordering them to do so? Are you just a helpless puppet, giving instructions with which you don't agree? Or are you a supposedly wise and experience member of the judiciary?

And not just some minor league player in Colchester either - this case was heard at the Old Bailey, for fucks sake. Why subject three kids to the Old Bailey, and a full on Jury trial?

Is there any chance it was a fair trial? The judge doesn't think so. He said, during the trial:

"I don’t think anyone who has sat through this trial would think for a moment that the system that we employ is ideal ..  we have a witness who said one thing and has now said completely the opposite

... if you had an adult witness who said what this girl said the Crown would not be proceeding"

But he didn't tell the Jury that. Oh no. And he allowed the case to proceed? Oh yes. Speaking about the trial after the verdict was delivered, the poor, helpless judge added

"I will at some stage be sending my views about the procedure to those who are most concerned with it."

Whoa! That'll put the fear of god into a few people, won't it? The knowledge that you 'will at some stage' share your views with some people. When? Who?

The Jury, who were given a majority direction by this poor, helpless judge, was not told that the judge had admitted to having misgivings about allowing the case to go ahead.

Admitted to having misgivings? Well why did you go ahead, you twat? CF aint no legal expert, but it seems unlikely that you absolutely had to try this case, that you weren't allowed to share your misgivings until after you'd gone through with the whole damn thing.

If that were the case, what the fuck is the judge for, for Christ's sake?

.