Dutch Olympian who raped a 12-year-old girl ‘is not a paedophile’, official says
2 years ago by girlfreddy to c/world
A senior official with the Dutch Olympic committee has insisted that a convicted child rapist in its beach volleyball team is not a paedophile, in an email seen by the Guardian.
A concerned British man who has lived in the Netherlands for more than a decade, wrote to the Dutch Olympic committee and called the inclusion of Steven van de Velde in the team “a stain on the Dutch national side”. In a reply the Dutch Olympic committee spokesperson wrote: “Steven is NOT a peadophile [sic]; you really don’t think that de Dutch NOC would send someone to Paris who IS a real risk? No, he isn’t a risk.”
There has been mounting public anger at the presence of the beach volleyball player Van de Velde, who was convicted of raping a 12-year-old British girl in 2016. Earlier this week the International Olympic Committee faced calls for an investigation into how a convicted child rapist has been allowed to compete at Paris 2024. The IOC has said the selection of athletes for the Games was the responsibility of individual committees.
There has been mounting public anger at the presence of the beach volleyball player Van de Velde, who was convicted of raping a 12-year-old British girl in 2016. Earlier this week the International Olympic Committee faced calls for an investigation into how a convicted child rapist has been allowed to compete at Paris 2024. The IOC has said the selection of athletes for the Games was the responsibility of individual committees.
All of those things happened in the past, too. Probably even more than now.
I think the difference, now, is that it gets called out a lot more. In the past, it happened quietly and people went along or pretended to not notice. Now, people are calling it out and the shitty people have to openly defend it.
With regard to this specific issue, you don't even have to go looking for cases of young women being discouraged from reporting rape and sexual assault allegations against promising young athletes, because "think how you could hurt his future prospects" -- examples are so plentiful that you can't help but find them if you spend any time reviewing sports news. It's really only been in the last decade or so that anybody has seriously pushed back against the idea that Johnny Sportsball's ability to score points for the local team is more important than the safety and bodily autonomy of women.
You mean like the rapist Brock Allen Turner?
Yeah, definitely like the rapist Brock Allen Turner.
It’s definitely a double edged sword though. The hatred/bad actors are more visible through the broader lens brought on by social media, but also those who would not have found support or like minded people now have echo chambers with others they can join
History comes in waves. I fear for the next cycle.
Let's briefly set aside the fact that she was 12.
He was convicted of raping another person... period. That alone should disqualify him from representing his country at the Olympics.
Now back to your regular scheduled world wide publicity for Steven van de Velde, who repeatedly raped a 12 year old girl.
The Dutch wikipedia explains that according to research, 25% to 50% acts because of a sexual preference for minors.
The others only act because they see an easy opportunity to have sex, or worse, want to exploit them.
I guess that's what he bases his statement on?
Just a bunch of downplaying stuff with definitions and nonsense talk in my opinion.
Well actually, If you set aside her age it wouldn't be rape at all, since it's statutory rape. She technically consented and did things herself. But of course since she's a child she can't consent, she was manipulated by someone much older.
My point is her age is very important and should definitely not be set aside.
He was convicted in 2016, thats a pretty short sentence even for adult rape imo.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...
Under a treaty between the Netherlands and UK, Van de Velde was transferred to the Netherlands to serve his sentence. The sentence was at that time adjusted in line with Dutch law, and the charge of rape was substituted for that of fornication.[11] After serving a year of his original four year sentence, he was released from prison.[8]
So basically the Dutch think it's ok for a 19 year old to get a 12 year old drunk and rape her.
The victim would eventually go on to self-harm and once overdosed.
Some people are saying it ok because it was consensual, this doesn't make it sound very consensual to me.
Wtf.
Consensual? Kids cannot consent. Kids are confused, curious hormone bombs who are easily manipulated and tend to put a lot of trust in adults who sound like they know what they're doing. That's the entire point of why we place that responsibility on the adults, and not the kids who don't know what the fuck they're doing.
Further down in this thread. https://lemmy.ca/post/25818425/10643476
Also https://www.gbnews.com/...
De Telegraaf newspaper played down the conviction, insisting that “they had consensual sex” and that “sex with a 12-year-old girl is labelled as rape” in Britain, while in the Netherlands “punishment in this area is much milder”.
I agree with you.
So basically the Dutch think it's ok for a 19 year old to get a 12 year old drunk and rape her.
No, he was put in prison for it. You can criticise the length of the sentence if you want, but phra as ING it like they let him off Scott free is misleading.
Is everyone here talking about Steven Van de Velde the child rapist and peadophile? I heard he only served 13 months for repeated raping a child who he encouraged to get the morning after pill. She self harms herself now due to the guilt. Is it that Steven Van de Velde, the child rapist you are talking about?
I believe we are indeed talking about Steven van de Velde, convicted child rapist and paedophile.
Being a rapist doesn't even need a qualifier, you're a piece of shit regardless.
Van de Velde, who is now 29, was sentenced to four years in prison in 2016 after pleading guilty to raping the girl in Milton Keynes. He had flown to England to meet her in 2014 with full knowledge of her age, having met her on Facebook. He served 12 months in a British prison, before being transferred to his home country where he was released after a further month.
This does sound just a tiny bit pedoey.
Yeah. It would be extremely questionable but still a little believable if the situation was “we met at a club that was supposed to be 21 and up and I thought she just looked young.” The reality is he traveled to another country to rape someone he knew was a child.
I’m sorry, but in what world does this not make him a pedophile?
He went to a location to have sex with a 12-year old. There are loads of people in ass-pounding prison right now for those exact acts as pedos.
He’s a pedo and a rapist. This is some asinine Brock Turner level nonsense. The Dutch should be ashamed to have even accepted him back home let alone send him to the Olympics.
Most men who commit these crimes aren't sexually attracted to children/adolescents. It's the power trip behind it and the feeling of control. Unfortunately, they end up targeting children because they are so vulnerable.
Pedophilia is rather rare and can be treated easily but society and the media have done so much damage that people who are truly pedophiles are afraid to seek help.
Brock Allen Turner and this guy are sociopaths. Entitled, narcissistic shits who think they can have or do whatever they want.
Unrelated to the main post but your comment brings up a point I think is important for society to understand. "pedophiles are afraid to seek help." Pedophilia is a mental disorder and doesn't inherently mean someone is a criminal, or ever will become one. But because it is such a violent and life destroying term to be labeled as a pedo those who have this mental disorder and are struggling to not offend will never seek the mental help they desperately need, this in turn leads to children being harmed.
Everyone is responsible for their actions, and pedophiles who rape or hurt kids are also responsible for their actions, but society as a whole contributes to more children being harmed by the way we represent and treat the mental disorder.
Interesting. Surprising you’d rape someone you’re not sexually attracted to. Quite sick in any case.
Definitely sick. The main point is that they really don't care about the identity of their victims - just that they can satisfy their own desires. This guy would probably just as likely rape a passed out 50-something woman if he thought he could get away with it.
People do that indeed, unfortunately.
Yeah, in what world is he not a pedophile (don’t @ me about ephebophilia)? I thought the rub would be that he was 14 months older than her or something. He was 19 and traveled to another country to have sex with a preteen.
Well his Wikipedia page is the stuff of horror
In August 2014 van de Velde, then 19 years old, raped a 12-year-old girl he had met on Facebook who lived in Milton Keynes, England. He travelled to her home and, when her mother was out, gave her alcohol and then raped her several times at her home as well as near Furzton Lake which was nearby. The victim would eventually go on to self-harm and once overdosed. Van de Velde returned to the Netherlands after the rape, although he was eventually extradited to the United Kingdom and arrested in January 2016
After his release in 2017, van de Velde complained about "all the nonsense" reporting on his crime in the media, claiming that the term pedophile did not apply to him, without expanding further. At the same time he stated not yet having read any of the reporting he was criticizing. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) condemned his comments at the time, stating that his "lack of remorse and self-pity is breathtaking".
Okay, WHEW. I was getting worried that NL was going to let a pedophile rapist represent their country but it turns out they are merely letting a rapist of 12 year olds represent their country which, as we all know, is way better.
Somehow, I think the more important part is the child rape conviction. If the Dutch Olympic Committee would rather Steven van de Velde be known as a convicted child rapist rather then a paedophile, then I think the Guardian could accommodate that.
He raped a 12 year old. So yes he is. Put him in the registry.
He is on the UK Sex Offenders' registry.
Well, he bumps an inflated ball just so well while standing in sand.
Van de Velde has consistently remained transparent about the case which he refers to as the most significant misstep of his life.
Raping a 12 year-old child is a misstep, people; relax! Yesterday I accidentally stepped in some dog poo; we're exactly the same!!!
This dude has no place in the Olympics. The Dutch standing behind him is disgraceful.
I actually wholeheartedly believe in reintegration of convicted criminals in society. I also, maybe even more wholeheartedly, believe that pedophiles need to be open about it so that they can get the help to cope with their urges, and we should not be judgemental about it and stigmatize them ahead of time - the majority of SA offenders who attack minors are not pedophiles. You won't prevent a pedophile from assaulting a minor by yelling at him for his preferences alone.
Now, that being said, fuck this guy. A misstep? If this happened in 2016 he should still be serving his sentence and definitely not be back on the Olympic team.
Ok, I looked it up: it happened in 2014, so he was 20 then. The age of consent in the Netherlands is surprisingly high (16), so you cannot even claim due diligence or anything. (I am from Germany and over here it is 14, and I have known a couple of 14-18+ relationships, and I could have seen a case where a German 18 year old guy has sexual relations with a British 15 year old and gets in trouble because of this.) He was sentenced to 4 years and served 1. One year for raping a 12 year old girl when he was 20. Wtf? The judges should be ashamed. And as for the Olympic team, shame on them too. This guy should not be representing your country.
Dunno if I'd call 16 "surprisingly high", here in America, at least, it's 18. To the extent anyone thinks we should change it (it's not a common point of discussion, except that there's legal inconsistency between ages of consent for sex, smoking, drinking, driving, owning firearms, etc.), they think it should be 21. We also have Romeo and Juliet laws, which protect relationships between minors and people of very close ages (such as between 17 yrs and 18 yrs) from the same level of punishment as an adult assaulting a minor.
It's 14 in Germany? Yuck.
The age of consent in America is not 18 everywhere. It is set by each state and ranges from 16-18. From Wikipedia:
While the unrestricted age of consent is between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the laws have widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.[104] The ages of consent were raised across the U.S. during the late 19th century and the early 20th century.[105][106] By 1920, 26 states had an age of consent at 16, 21 states had an age of consent at 18, and one state (Georgia) had an age of consent at 14.[104] Small adjustments to these laws occurred after 1920. The last two states to raise their age of general consent from under 16 to 16 or higher were Georgia, which raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 in 1995,[107] and Hawaii, which changed it from 14 to 16 in 2001.[108]
Why shouldn't it be 14. With 14 you're old enough to stand trial so you're old enough to decide who you want to fuck. There's staggered protections, though:
- No exploitation of lack of sense of sexual self-determination of under 16yolds if the perpetrator is over 21. Over 16 that sense is presumed to be present, and under 21yolds aren't themselves considered mature enough to know what they're doing. Also from 18-21 either juvenile or adult criminal law may apply, depends on the defendant.
- No sex against money or money-valued things (prostitution, sugar daddying) until 18, also no sex with persons in a position of authority, trust, care, etc (teacher, boss, whatnot). Also, no porn.
- No recruitment into prostitution under 21years old (side note that's where a good chunk of the "human trafficking" statistic in Germany comes from. I'm not saying the law is bad all I'm saying we shouldn't confuse chaining women to radiators with driving through the Romanian countryside asking gals whether they want to make lots of money).
Technically 13/14 relationships are illegal, but courts apply Radbruch's formula to throw those cases out.
You're old enough to stand trial
Generally, you don't get charged as an adult until you're 18 in America, so, not applicable.
I'm having difficulty parsing this first dotted point... Here, we don't generally prosecute minors who have relationships with each other, as while the law (and culture) does discourage that, it's primarily there to protect minors from sexual exploration by adults; hence our "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which protect relationships between minors and adults of similar age (such as for people born within 2 years of each other, but this varies by state).
The rest of this seems nonsensical to me, even America's laws around adulthood (16, 18, 21) are more clear-cut. I think there's a very fundamental difference in how law is conceptualized here, so I can't really understand how or why you would have a law saying 14 years is old enough for sex, but 18 for porn, but 21 for prostitution, as a premise.
It's 14 in Germany? Yuck.
Why tough. It's not like you are a child mentally by age 17 years 11 months 29 days and then BOOM birthday happens and your mind becomes mature all of the sudden.
We assume that kids grow to adults in their teenage years. And we grant them our trust and support them to make decisions for themselves, more and more so.
To me, trying to criminalize sex for teenagers has about the same effect as outlawing abortion. It will still happen, it will just be much less safe.
I want my daughter to be able to come to me about questions and if she decides she's ready to engage on sexual acts, and be able to do it at home where she's safe and comfortable and not in a car or outside or a public toilet. I don't want her to risk getting an STI because she is afraid of buying condoms or asking questions. Her feeling that she is "committing a crime" will not make her safe.
I also want to point out: rape, incest etc are obviously still illegal. And let's be clear here - sexual assault in minors is awful, but/because it is assault. There is explicitly no consent there. These cases very often happen by grown ass adults that the children know - family members or close family friends. I doubt that a 14 year old will willingly agree to have sex with her dad or uncle - no matter whether this is legal or illegal.
I think this comment has gotten the most responses out of any I've made in the time I've been on this platform. It's also the comment with the most negative reaction.
I'm sorry, I understand there are significant cultural differences between Europe and America, but my conscience demands that I dig in my heels with this one: The age of consent must be at least 18 (with much lighter penalties for minors, and exceptions for near-age relationships, the aforementioned "Romeo & Juliet Laws), if not a little higher, as high as 21. I do agree that American law is distressingly inconsistent, and there are some states (notably southern/Republican-controlled states) where the age of consent and marriage is disgustingly low. I comdemn them as well.
My foot is down. 18. No lower. In fact, for every negative reply from some European defending this morally repugnant practice, I'm adding another year!
Technically he was 19. Also under Dutch law the term rape would imply the use of force, which was either not the case or not considered proven hence why the sentence ended up being lowered.
Still awful. Just trying to get the fact straight so people can judge for themselves.
That's what I assumed. Probably the 12 year old "agreed" to everything.
I'll be frank here, I remember being a teen in Germany. And let me tell you these were some horny times for some classmates. But at no point, also not looking back, would I have said any of these girls or boys who were sexually active at 14, 13 or even 12, have done so out of pressure or against their will. And judging from what I know of them today, all of them are in secure, healthy relationships and live happy, successful, and fulfilling lives. I'll also point out that we have sex ed from early on (I remember in elementary), so at the age of consent everyone of us has put a condom on a banana in class at least once. Everyone knows where babies come from, we learn how cycles work, what different kinds of contraceptives there are. Also, just because the age of consent is 14 doesn't mean you are required to lose your virginity at or by age 14.
Now, you still have to draw the line somewhere. I personally don't think it should be 18 because it's just unrealistic to assume that teenagers won't have sex. Or that they will only have sex with other teenagers. "Gap laws" seem sensible to me. But that's just my opinion, and it is very influenced by the open culture and a societal distinction between kids and youngsters.
And in this case, he is from a country where the age of consent was set to 16. In Britain it is also 16. So even if I can somehow imagine that it was "mutual", 19 and 12 is in no way even close to legal in neither country. I don't really know how this case has made it to court. As I said, I know quite a bunch of people who had sex before the age of consent, but they usually kept that, well, out of the courtroom.
He was sentenced to 4 years and served 1
Any details on the why? I wasn't keeping an eye on the issue. Seems oddly light
That seems to be a mistranslation. I'm not excusing anything, but the word he used in Dutch is more serious than just a mistake or a misstep. I'm not sure how to translate it, but it's not a euphemism.
A "misstep" happens once. You learn from it, and avoid doing it again. He did it 3 times. He wenr to bed, woke up, and said "lets do it again". Thats not a "misstep" anymore.
Yesterday I accidentally stepped in some dog poo; we're exactly the same!!!
Classic poopiphile behavior.
This dude has no place in the Olympics
The Olympics has nothing to do with this.
Either this guy participates in society or he doesnt and remains locked up.
Meanwhile a female equestrian was banned for hitting a horse.
Maybe she should’ve fucked it, that would be fine it seems? 🤣
Let's not compare that, I'm happy she was banned. I know you don't want to say it was ok, but the comparison could be used to pardon her behaviour.
cruelty to animals have no place in 21st century and she should have been banned - for her, that is her punishment.
for him, some would argue that he already went through his punishment. he is probably still piece of shit, i don't know the details of the case.
People like you do not understand how to compare stuff.
gotta love how the terfs defending trans women being excluded from the olympics are still saying that a guy who sa'ed a 12 year old girl is just misunderstood. maybe it's not actually about protecting children.
A rapist.
If I'm not completely mistaken, they do psychological assessment on inmates here in Europe. Since they insist he's not a pedophile then the assessment probably came to that conclusion. No underlying attraction to children, "just" a rapist who chose a child as his victim.
Ah, so he's just an indiscrimate rapist. That's sooooo much better!
/s
Equal Opportunity
/s
Just a child sex enthusiast, I guess?
There is no excuse or explanation that makes rape and sexual abuse to anyone, particularly children in any way OK.
The point of this is understanding the abuser, how they think and operate to the end that knowing can combat their abuse of others.
To that end, the nuance they are trying to point out is that rapists, while also 90% of the time picking victims they know, aren't sexualizing children, they are raping, the harm and truama is the point, they are sadistically attacking, they aren't sexualizing.
A pedophile is sexualizing children, it's a paraphillia outside of human sexuality. There are people who sexualize objects, actions, things that aren't a part of inborn human sexuality, that's what this is except rather than harmless it's incredible, inhuman harm.
Rapists can wait a long time to find an opportunity to rape their victim, or have detailed plans with lots of preparation, but the underlying motivation of the abuse is rape, attack, harm, not sex or sexuality.
A pedophile will also often have very longterm prep to gain the opportunity to sexually abuse, job choices, religious choices, seeking community positions, and may spend a lot of time grooming their victim for abuse, for them the motivation is sexual. They sexualize children and that's the motivation of the abuse
It's all rape, it's all child abuse, it's all traumatic and life damaging, and should carry MUCH harsher sentencing, it should be up there with murdered 1. But in an effort to understand what is happening and how to detect it, prevent it, or expose it, the researched data is important. There are a lot of adults who were themselves victims of abuse whom spend a lot of time researching these topics to combat them. It's worthwhile.
I've had to explain this so many times. The majority of molesters are not pedophiles and the majority of pedophiles are not molesters. Pedophilia is a disorder, one that people suffer from at that. There is a (almost certainly) sizable group of pedophiles who have never actually done anything wrong but are caught in the crossfire of anger and therefore can't seek help/treatment.
Very important.
For Germans there is
https://kein-taeter-werden.de/
I'm sure there are other similar services in other countries.
Ummm, ackshally, he's an ephebophile, being attracted to young women, not children...
Just kidding, he's a fucking paedo.
Probably one of those weirdos who knows the specific term for paedophiles who are into teens rather than younger children and tries to use it as if it's a meaningful distinction.
Okay, I'll bite. How is that not a meaningful distinction? Do you really think attraction to a 15 year old and attraction to a 5 year old is the exact same thing? It's just like the distinction between murder and manslaughter. They're both bad but they are not the same.
I didn't say it was the exact same, but to the victims the difference isn't very meaningful, much like victims of murder and manslaughter are still dead whether we make a distinction or not. It's meaningful for prosecution purposes - at least in the case if manslaughter and murder because it's taking intent into account. It's also a bit easier to accidentally kill someone than it is to accidentally have sex with a minor.
the specific term for paedophiles who are into teens rather than younger children
I think that's called "Drake".
Hebephile? Rapist for sure.
A reformed person. He served his time and was released because he proved he changed. The corrections system in many countries is ment to "correct" bad behavior not simply punish it.
This is a fair point I am willing to entertain. But does he need to be on the olympic team? he can go on with his life and practice his beloved sport, but representing his country is a privilege he probably should have lost.
Why should he have lost that?
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) condemned his comments at the time, stating that his “lack of remorse and self-pity is breathtaking”.
I think that part might just give you a clue.
A reformed person. He served his time and was released because he proved he changed.
The fuck are you talking about? He served a year in the UK for raping a 12-year-old multiple times, then got sent back the the Netherlands via a treaty, they didn't imprison him, and he called it a lot of nonsense.
So it was not a pedophilic rape, just a normal one? For funsies?
You know what they say, “boys will be boys”
Utterly disgusting.
More like
Jongens blijven jongens
and unfortunately not
verkrachters blijven verkrachters
"you really don’t think that de Dutch NOC would send someone to Paris who IS a real risk? No, he isn’t a risk.”
Given how often powerful groups cover up and protect pedos in their ranks, yeah I do think they would send someone who's a risk. It's not surprising, just disappointing
They're saying rapists aren't a real risk, only pedophiles, that's disturbing to me.
Indeed, you are right and I should be this precise as well. There are paedophiles actively working with therapists and other professionals to handle their nature, which is to be applauded.
Rapists, on the other hand, have actually acted, independent of their nature. So this Steven van de Velde is a convicted child rapist and that’s bad enough. Whether he is a paedophile or not is not really a thing feom here on.
So, NOC: STEVEN VAN DE VELDE IS A CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST - AND IT WAS INTENTIONAL. He should NOT be on a sports team AT ALL.
Great point!
Oh, somebody already wrote that.
We don't know it he's a pedophile (strictly speaking that's not a crime), but he surely is a child rapist which is the problem.
Trump is already considering him for a position on his cabinet.
Pedo Airlines.
Van de Velde, who is now 29, was sentenced to four years in prison in 2016 after pleading guilty to raping the girl in Milton Keynes. He had flown to England to meet her in 2014 with full knowledge of her age, having met her on Facebook. He served 12 months in a British prison, before being transferred to his home country where he was released after a further month.
So he was 19 at the time of rape. Sick fuck.
The whole situation aside... what is up with the email skills of the Dutch Olympic Committee? This email is legit worded like a text message or a Lemmy comment
"Steven is NOT a peadophile; you really don’t think that de Dutch NOC would send someone to Paris who IS a real risk? No, he isn’t a risk.”
IOC officials seem to be a special breed of stupidity and naivety.
They are utterly useless. I remember a while back they were really reluctant to ban Russia from the Olympics because they said the Olympics were not political. In the end Russia got banned for the Olympics not because of all the crimes they committed on the world stage, but because they cheated, which is of course way worse.
The word is corrupt
Right now, this is a bad look for Netherlands.
I'll never get over the power of language. Here we have a man that raped a child and the controversy is over how to label the rapist.
No holy book in history has ever exercised more influence and control over society than the dictionary.
On one hand, the Olympic Games are a sporting event and past criminal convictions should not automatically disqualify someone from competing
But on the other hand, he raped a twelve year old girl. That's irredeemable.
I know there are laws where you can't travel to certain countries with criminal convictions. Like if you have a DUI you can't go to Canada. Surely a child rape conviction should keep you out of France.
Yea you can't easily keep convicted EU citizens out of another EU country.
Gotta take the good with the bad I guess?
Yea that's for sure, they are slowly improving on that on many fronts though. Going back to the original border situation is not really an option anyway.
Considering beach volleyball is 2v2, and the ONLY person in that team who has ZERO say in this is his unfortunate partner who would be the only other person in the limelight sharing that title, how about no?
How about yes, maybe the poor team mate would then step down to not share the limelight with a child rapist (since lets face it they are already going to be bearing that). In any case if 50% of your team are convicted rapists then I think it is fair that the team is called "The Dutch Rapists" I mean we call stuff with 30% animal in it "meat"
how about no?
I would rather not go to the Olympics than to pair up with a convicted child rapist
And if this partner had some moral fiber, maybe that would have been enough to get the completely spineless committee to find another volleyball player that, through some luck or maybe witchcraft, happened to not to get a 12 year old drunk in order to rape her repeatedly
Looking at the Dutch IOC website it looks like "internationalaffairs@nocnsf.nl" is their email address if you had anything you might like to say to them
If there's a reason why he's "not a pedophile" as they claim, let's hear their reasoning. Miscarriages of justice do occur, but there's no outcry that this dude got a raw deal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'll trust the verdict of the court, indicating that Steve van de Velde is a pedophile.
Be prepared for the "ephebophile" argument, which, if Wikipedia is to be believed anyway, is actually for ages 15-19, but it won't stop those who have twisted their minds into a knot to explain this away.
Or the "if there's grass on the field, play ball" argument (which is kind of ironic given the popularity of shaving it all off again.) which covers anyone who shows any sign of adolescent hair growth.
Or "she was asking for it / totally wanted it / shouldn't have been acting that way / shouldn't have been dressed like that".
Because those are all the soundest of arguments.
But the unspoken reason will be: "He's rich and famous and therefore he can do what the hell he wants with no consequences. F--k you."
How Roman Polanski of him
Don't know if this is the case here, but the word pedophile refers to someone who is sexually attracted to children, and rapists don't necessarily have to be attracted to their victims. There can be other motivations at play. So yeah, it's possible that someone raping a child is not actually a pedophile. Doesn't make it any less disgusting of course, and I have no clue why anyone thought "but he's not a pedo" would be a reasonable argument here
I have enough reasons not to touch youtube unless I absolutely have to. I don't see that reason here.
That girl would be 20 by now. Probably out trying to study or looking for a job, and has to see his face broadcast on the largest stage in the world...
Can you explain the word "nonce" for me, please?
It's British slang for a pedophile that stands for "Not on normal courtyard exercise". Meaning if they are in prison, they are not sent to exercise with the others as they are at high risk of being beat up.
Not on normal courtyard/community exercise
That's almost certainly a backronym. There aren't enough records of its use to say for certain, but nonce probably shares an etymology with "nancy" as in nancy boy, or possibly with "ponce" as in perfumed ponce.
Nonce - a person who commits a crime involving sex, especially sex with a child.
To use it in a sentence - Steven Van de Velde is a nonce.
Our justice system might not be perfect, but it is the best option we have.
So if they convict someone, it is pretty much the truth until proven otherwise.
Some official doing damage control doesn't get a say in this.
There is no appropriate age for what he has done, not sure why you'd even chime in...I hope you don't follow up by victim-blaming
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Just boycott the Olympics.
That's what I've done /shrug
So Dutchland... Netherlanders? Whatever, the Dingdongs don't think that it's rape because - oh nevermind, their justifications are total horseshit, they just want the guy able to maybe win a gold medal to participate because they think this Olympics are a way to strike their national ego.
Just to be clear: Dutch people agree that rapists of 12 year old girls (such as the convicted child rapist van de Velde, who raped a 12 year old girl) should be punished and not go on to represent their country at the Olympics. There may however be old farts and creeps in positions of power that try to make excuses for convicted child rapist Van de Velde who believe a technicality over an unprovable state of mind matter when it comes to the damage caused by having a convicted child rapist represent your country both to the victim of convicted child rapist Van de Velde and to the reputation of the Netherlands.
TLDR: Convicted child rapist Van de Velde should be kicked off his team and the Member of the committee that thought it was relevant whether he is paedophile or not should resign. Both are a disgrace to the country and should not be used as representatives.
Jeez, don't trust the Dutch to watch your kids I guess.
Dutch=Netherlands Danish=Denmark
he uses instagram reels he is attracted to the twin towers falling.
- She was 12
- He flew from his home in the Netherlands to England (~209miles) to meet this girl
- She was 12, he was 19
- He raped her
- He plead guilty (not found guilty)
- She was 12
- Sentenced to four years in prison
- Only served 1 year, 1 month
No, he in fact was not punished for it. He still owes society 2 years, 11 months.
Conflating the raping of a 12-year-old girl that he admitted to raping with other felons is insulting to the other felons.
No, he in fact was not punished for it. He still owes society 2 years, 11 months.
This is not how the justice system works in progressive countries. It's not the goal to lock people up. One of the main goals is to avoid reoffending behaviour. And this is not avoided by locking people up as long as possible.
What also likely played a role in his shortened sentence is the fact that he was so young. At 19, people change really fast. So the judge and the psychiatrist may have believed him that he understood his lesson after 1 year and 1 month.
I’m sure the now 22-year-old that he admitted to raping 10 years ago feels relief knowing he’s learned his lesson and gets to back to being a superstar because he was just a kid who grew out of his phase of raping 12-year-olds.
I do agree with you that most people can learn from their mistakes, and should be given multiple chances for redemption. But I draw the line at rape, especially of children; it’s personal. I will respect your opinion, despite not agreeing with it, if you will respect mine, while not agreeing with it. 😊
Okay but if I draw the line at all crime? Why should I get to draw that line over you? That's why we just have to treat all criminals as rehabilitatable because the task of democratically drawing that line and being able to trace the required nuance is literally fucking impossible.
But when you give fame and wealth to known child rapists like van de Velde, trump, or others who regularly appears in epstein's flight logs, they can use that fame and wealth to attract more victims and cover up their actions.
There's a difference between having a livelihood and being granted access to the power that nationwide recognition gives you.
13 months for repeated raping a 12 year old whom he was in contact with for months and knew her age. Yea, definitely did his time for this one. Did you know the victim self harms now? Meanwhile your boy Steven Van de Velde is going to the Olympics. Seems legit.
There’s lots of things in society you are excluded from doing, when being a convicted criminal. Even more when it’s a “rape of a child” conviction.
One the things you should be excluded from is the olympics.
13 months in jail for getting a 12 year old drunk and raping her repeatedly doesn't sound like proper punishment... Specially not when he has shown no remorse for his actions
After his release in 2017, van de Velde complained about "all the nonsense" reporting on his crime in the media, claiming that the term pedophile did not apply to him, without expanding further. At the same time he stated not yet having read any of the reporting he was criticizing. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) condemned his comments at the time, stating that his "lack of remorse and self-pity is breathtaking".
You know how many rapists keep raping after their paltry sentence? Heaps of them.
Yeah. It totally depends on their behaviour after their sentence, and their attitude towards their crime. Since this person did not reoffend for about nine years, I would think he has improved. And he apparently was deemed safe for society upon release, otherwise he would not have been released early, and possibly not been released at all.
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
The world has going immensely nuts;
I’m seriously worried for the future.
save