The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Pageant Judge Was Lesbian Predator; Sexually Assaulted Pre-Teen Girl

Posted on | August 6, 2014 | 17 Comments

Lesbian pedophile Charlotte Holl, 25, was convicted of “grooming” and “sexually assaulting” a girl under the age of 13. The British news accounts of her sentencing hearing are strangely vague:

A female beauty pageant judge groomed and sexually assaulted a young girl, plying her with cigarettes and alcohol.
Charlotte Holl, 25, sent 1,200 texts and social media messages to her victim — who is under 13-years-old — and dreamed of living with her in Florida, Ipswich Crown Court heard.
Holl, of Newmarket, Suffolk, touched the girl’s inner leg over her clothes, kissed her and put her arm around her waist.
But Holl has been spared jail — and was given an 18-month jail sentence suspended for two years after she admitted four sexual assaults on a girl and being an adult who met a girl following grooming.

This is obviously confusing: Was the touching and kissing the “four sexual assaults”? Also, how many beauty pageants did she judge? But don’t worry, she promises it won’t happen again:

Duncan O’Donnell, defending, said she had been ‘vulnerable and immature’.
He said smitten Holl was ‘ashamed’ of her actions.
Mr O’Donnell told Ipswich Crown Court: ‘Throughout these proceedings she has indicated she has been horrified by what she did.
‘She acknowledged in (police) interview what she did.
‘These are offences that are never going to happen again.
He added: ‘She has pleaded guilty and indicated her full horror over what she has done.
‘While the custody threshold has been passed in the circumstances of this offending behaviour it is a custodial sentence that falls within the bracket that could be suspended.’

Hey, suspended sentence! All she did was “groom” a pre-teen girl and plan to take her pubescent lesbian crush to Florida:

[Judge Rupert Overbury] told her: ‘It’s plain to me, as it was to the probation service, you certainly did have the intention of going further than kissing.’
Judge Overbury said Holl had carried out the attacks for her own ‘sexual satisfaction’.
Messages between the two indicated Holl was thinking of living with the girl and taking her to Florida, the court heard.

Oh, these silly judges! When will society listen to feminists and stop “forcing heteronormative assumptions” on young girls?

 

Category: Crime, Feminism, Gays, Great Britain, Sex

Comments

17 Responses to “Pageant Judge Was Lesbian Predator; Sexually Assaulted Pre-Teen Girl”

  1. Jeanette Victoria
    August 6th, 2014 @ 12:21 pm

    Shouldn’t this be called FreeKateing?

  2. Anon Y. Mous
    August 6th, 2014 @ 12:45 pm

    Some of the reporting regarding the “grooming” seem to be in conflict:

    A female beauty pageant judge who groomed a young girl with cigarettes and booze and sexually assaulted her has been spared jail.

    And:

    But Holl, 25, from Newmarket in Suffolk, was given an 18-month jail sentence suspended for two years yesterday, after she admitted four sexual assaults on a girl and being an adult who met a girl following grooming.

    On the one hand, the grooming was giving her cigs and booze. On the other, the grooming took place prior to them meeting in person.

    I understand what “grooming” means in common parlance, but as a legal matter, I wonder what the elements of the crime are.

  3. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 6th, 2014 @ 12:57 pm

    Florida: Lesbian child predators’ sanctuary?

  4. Pageant Judge Was Lesbian Predator; Sexually Assaulted Pre-Teen Girl | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
    August 6th, 2014 @ 1:11 pm

    […] Pageant Judge Was Lesbian Predator; Sexually Assaulted Pre-Teen Girl. […]

  5. robertstacymccain
    August 6th, 2014 @ 1:12 pm

    It’s England. They have evidently passed some recent law that specifically criminalizes this kind of “grooming” activity in pursuit of underage kids.

  6. Slam1263
    August 6th, 2014 @ 1:14 pm

    One thing the never forecast for the 21st Century.
    That the women would be as bad as the men.

  7. Anon Y. Mous
    August 6th, 2014 @ 1:25 pm

    I got that. And, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be such a law. Maybe there should and maybe there shouldn’t, depending upon what the law actually is.

    But, it occurs to me that the law would have to be based on intent. Someone just being nice to a child shouldn’t be treated like a criminal; someone trying to seduce a child should be. How do you craft a law that can tell the difference?

  8. robertstacymccain
    August 6th, 2014 @ 2:47 pm

    Indeed, and I understand your point about the potential that such laws could be used to criminalize harmless behavior. But until we have a clear case where the laws were abused that way, nobody would dare propose any change. It’s like the “stings” where pedophiles are tricked into showing up for a meeting with a child who is, in fact, an undercover cop. On the one hand, it seems like entrapment and it’s hard to imagine how it’s a crime to try to do something illegal with somebody who does not actually exist. On the other hand, the perps who get caught in those sting operations are undeniably dangerous creeps, so who cares about their “rights”?

  9. DeadMessenger
    August 6th, 2014 @ 2:47 pm

    You’re way off base.

    Florida is a sanctuary for all varieties of freaks, predators, criminals, village idiots and the like.

    I’m not one of them, though, and stop looking at me with your cow eyes.

  10. DeadMessenger
    August 6th, 2014 @ 2:53 pm

    I get what you’re saying about dangerous creeps and not caring about their rights, but I was on a jury once where the participants agreed that the “reasonable doubt” criteria had not been met, but still wanted to vote the perp guilty.

    I was the lone dissenter for awhile. Others asked me why we shouldn’t put a dangerous creep in jail and what should be done about him then. My position was that LE could have done some actual detective and investigatory work. In this particular case, that’s what they could have, and should have, done, but instead they just wanted to jump the gun, probably to get some quick glory.

  11. DeadMessenger
    August 6th, 2014 @ 2:55 pm

    Sorry to reply to my own reply, but the editor stopped working.

    Anyway, sometimes the authorities could take more care in their investigations (like having one, for instance.) Which is why even dangerous creeps should have rights. (I say, at the risk of sounding like a bleeding heart liberal.)

  12. DeadMessenger
    August 6th, 2014 @ 2:59 pm

    In the Yale Milgram electric shock experiment, the women were more brutal than the men.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

  13. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 6th, 2014 @ 3:15 pm

    Florida: A preserve of pan-perversity!

  14. Kauf Buch
    August 6th, 2014 @ 3:16 pm

    Isn’t it heteronormative to have ONLY FEMALES judging such pageants?!

    WHY NOT have judges who are HEALTHY MEN (who perhaps just coincidentally find young young girls very very ahem ahem “attractive” wink wink)?!?

    REMEMBER: Don’t be JUDGMENTAL!!! :O

    /s
    (sadly necessary these days)

  15. Käthe
    August 6th, 2014 @ 8:59 pm

    Of course one mustn’t wonder aloud why a woman doing everything she can to look boyish would want anything to do with judging a froo-froo little girl pageant in the first place.

  16. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 6th, 2014 @ 9:12 pm

    It’s England: They boil everything and the law makes no sense what so ever…

  17. TroubleAtTheMine
    August 7th, 2014 @ 7:23 am

    Unbelievable