The Jade Hatt story has shocked many since it hit the headlines – with much anger being expressed over what many feel was an overly lax sentence being handed down. But, what few have been as quick to question is the role of the unnamed boys father in all this and the indifference with which he chose to treat this.
In court it is reported that the father took the time to speak for the defendant; claiming that his son regarded the whole experience as a ‘notch on his belt’. This is of course, regardless of the fact that the boy himself is reported to have stated he knew it to be wrong at the time.
Now let’s take a moment to change the circumstances a little.
Imagine for one moment that the victim was a young girl of the same age, and that her mother had appeared in court to speak for the imaginary male abuser; claiming that her daughter regarded the encounter with a muscled, six foot Adonis as a notch on her belt.
Naturally there would be much outrage. With the attention likely moving as much in the direction of the irresponsible parent as it did the perpetrator of the crime itself. Social services would be called in, the girl would likely be taken into care, and in all possibility there may even be calls for the mother of the imaginary victim to face charges.
But, that is not so in this instance. Which for me is where I have difficulty understanding just who is at fault here.
Clearly a great deal of [clearly criminal] fault lies with Jade Hatt who should have been aware that having sex with a minor went far beyond the realms of social acceptability. But in the same token, fault also has to be placed at the fathers door who somewhat recklessly allowed his son to be put in that position. And not only that, but having allowed his son to be put in that position then chose to defend the abuser in court.
Personally I can’t help but wonder if the boy really did regard the whole incident as a ‘notch on his belt’. Or as is more likely the case, if the boys father regarded the incident as a notch on the boys belt. Slapping him on the back in congratulations for breaking his duck on the sofa with the babysitter whom he, the father, had been sleeping with himself.
Of course, the wrong message such attitudes do send. With the potential lesson being taught to the boy being one that I suspect the father would cringe at the thought of teaching to a daughter of the same age.
Sure it’s natural for a father to push his boys and protect his girls. But I think I can safely say that this whole incident crosses the boundary of what one might call acceptable in pushing ones son to succeed.
I remember as a child my father pushing me to ‘dare to be different’ and to ‘dare to be myself’ in a world where everybody is moulded in somebody else’s image, and where every child is trying desperately to keep up with the crowd. But not once did those midnight discussions over tea and munchies stretch to include daring to get my rocks off with his bit of stuff on the sofa.
Of course, there are no qualifications for being a parent. There is no course to be taken or magical font of knowledge to be tapped into upon spawning a child. Rather it happens and you just get on with it. But if there was ever an argument for accredited parental certification and compulsory sterilisation of unsuitable parents, this has to be it.
Luckily for the unnamed boy his mother is a great deal more responsible. But had this not been the case the lessons taught and the damage done would have been catastrophic. With the ultimate lesson from the boys father being get laid, spread your seed and to hell with the consequences. Or to put in four simple words, ‘get in there, lad’.
Hopefully, for the boys sake, the father will think extra hard about what lessons he teaches his son in future. Because without the correct moral guidance there can only be more trouble down the line as the immature mind runs with the wrong lessons and turns them into something far worse than the incident which sparked them.
After all, I highly doubt the boy was just laying there when Jade Hatt climbed astride him. And if the reports from court are anything to go by, it seems there were some comments made and provocation from the boy himself. Which he may or may not have made as a result of lessons taught him by his clearly chauvinistic and morally bankrupt father.
But such is the world we live in where young children are increasingly sexualised at far too early an age. And where young children, particularly boys, are often taught that if they haven’t started rutting by the age of sixteen there has to be something wrong with them. Or that they must be a homosexual for not wanting to sleep with any and all women that come their way.
Of course such lessons can never be a good thing. But if we as society can draw any lessons from this it is that we need to be careful what lessons we teach the next generation. And we need to be careful what attitudes we pass on to our children. Particularly in a country with the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe.
After all, quick people are to moan when a fifteen year old girl gets pregnant and ends up on State benefits. Or when a young boy goes too far in pushing some unwilling girl to sleep with him. But such being the case, it might be prudent to start asking what leads to such situations and what lessons have been taught by the parents and the media on TV and in music.
Because personally, I highly doubt that such behaviours are genetically preset. Rather that all such behaviours have a root cause. Which in most cases will start in childhood with the lessons taught and lack of moral guidance from what in most cases is a most unsuitable parent.