Being “on the road again,” I’ve misplaced a Times legal report of a court decision of some relevance to the Lolita-innocence debate. From memory: Seems a 12-year old English girl, posing initially as a 20-year old, initiated email correspondence that led to carnal relations with a 40-year old paedophile. The latter lost his appeal against a jail-sentence in spite of the judges AGREEING that the girl was, as it were, the “prime mover” and fully consenting. The gist of the ruling was that UK law included the element of “protecting the under-aged even if they consented, aided and abetted the offences.” Few would argue with that principle.
As we know (though many non-readers don’t!) HH plans to tell the jury “I was not even her first lover.” Some claim that HH’s reports of Lol’s sordid past may be exaggerated — the old male defense ploy in all cases of rape — yet here in UK 2008 we have at least one real-life paedophile’s dream: the “randy consenting nymphet.”
BTW: the intriguing thought of a latter-day HH conducting his “grooming machinations” by email.
Stan Kelly-Bootle