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.
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.
But apparently not a pedophile. Not sure how that works, I’m also unclear on why it’s even relevant.
If he’d murdered someone would that be better or worse?
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.
She technically consented
He got her drunk… Not only she was too young to consent, he made her drunk this invalidating any chance for valid consent even if she was much older.
They talked for a long time through messaging before hand and talked about having sex. Either way, she couldn’t consent she was just a child. Disgusting.
Presumably did his time, but you have to let criminals who have completed their sentence rejoin society.
A child rapist is another story
