Talk

Advanced search

Have I read this 'story' right?? Please tell me I haven't.

(272 Posts)
stretch Wed 13-Jul-11 13:56:20

here

My first ever thread on Feminism, but I have no words... shock

stretch Wed 13-Jul-11 14:00:47

Sorry,
2 12 year old girls 'wanted to have sex' so although the men had admitted to various counts of rape, their sentences were slashed.

Why?

Jux Wed 13-Jul-11 14:02:04

I have none either

stretch Wed 13-Jul-11 14:04:23

"They argued the crown court judge in Reading had not taken sufficient account of the fact the men believed the girls were 16 or that they all gave full confessions."

Isn't this what the tories were planning to implement? Plead guilty and you get off scott free with lighter sentences?
So they are doing it then and to minors!!

TheAtomicBroomstick Wed 13-Jul-11 14:07:34

My question is how the hell they were fooled into thinking that the two girls were 16? It's just not possible. FFS, even if they didn't know, they should be sentenced fully anyway to make sure no one else does this.

Yes, it's what young people want to do. But yes, the law say 16, and it is there for a reason.

If they were 15, maybe I could believe that footballers could have been fooled. But not 12. Just not 12.

TheAtomicBroomstick Wed 13-Jul-11 14:08:08

And 2 years seems like a light sentance to, anyway.

TheAtomicBroomstick Wed 13-Jul-11 14:10:06

And am I the only one who feels the need to demand an investigation into this Judge? Supporting pedophilia is obviously not a good sign.

witchwithallthetrimmings Wed 13-Jul-11 14:10:26

Bit of bad reporting imo. The appeal was succesful because there was no grounds for believing that the men knew the girls were under 16 not because the girls `wanted to have sex'.

stretch Wed 13-Jul-11 14:12:52

I thought it was statutory rape? So no excuses at all.

No 12 year old I know looks 16, they look an 'older' 12 perhaps, more 'mature' but you can tell they are under 13. (even the ones that have bigger breasts/hips etc..)

How is this an excuse? It was on their facebook page? Well, facebook is for 13 and older, so of course they would lie and say they were older! confused

TheAtomicBroomstick Wed 13-Jul-11 14:13:19

The grounds for believing that is that the girls were 12. I've never mistaken a 12 year old for 16. It's very clear and obvious. Even a they are over developed for their age, it's quite obvious.

That is horrific. Quite horrific. I thought that under 13 it was rape regardless of "consent" because they weren't old enough to give it. So why has the Judge ignored that law?? This makes me so fucking angry. The misogynistic bully boy club strikes again.

TheAtomicBroomstick Wed 13-Jul-11 14:18:02

I thought under 13 was considered much more severe because it is considered pre-pubescent and therefore more damaging to the child because in most cases those sorts of desires have not yet awoken, and it is therefore a totally unnatural to the child. And I thought 16 was the cut off for consent becuase it is not only the age at which a person is deemed emotionally mature enough to decide for themselves, but also because it is physically damaging any younger than that?

stretch Wed 13-Jul-11 14:18:07

"Their legal teams claimed prosecutors would not have had a case if the men had not confessed because the first girl's testimony was unreliable while the second did not mention any sexual activity with Amos in her statement to police."

<It should be a moot point, the girls were waaay underage>

Announcing his ruling, Lord Justice Moses said the men and their families had suffered as a result of their jail terms when it had been their own 'frank confessions' that landed them in court

<Oh poor men and their inability to keep it in their pants hmm I think the families would be suffering more due to the fact their sons' are (statutory) rapists! angry>

stretch Wed 13-Jul-11 14:18:44

Sorry second paragraph should be in "-"

EveryonesJealousOfWeasleys Wed 13-Jul-11 14:20:52

That is bloody awful.

Pootles2010 Wed 13-Jul-11 14:24:07

I must say, I've never really understood why the impact on the accused families is taken into account? I mean, really?

The fact that they cheered makes me feel quite nauseous.

aliceliddell Wed 13-Jul-11 14:25:43

Nice that families still support each other, though.

It doesn't matter whether the footballers believed that the girls were over 16 or not - the fact was they were 12. 13 is the cut off point for automatic rape. And the only reason they confessed was because they thought they would get away with the plea that it was consensual (which they very probably would have done by all accounts if the girls had been over 13) - but that doesn't apply when the girls are under 13. They cocked up and now they are being rewarded for so called confessing?? It is arstastic that is what it is!

They were 12 ffs. 12 yrs old - little girls.

stretch Wed 13-Jul-11 14:30:00

Huh? What about the families of the two girls? What about when they are older.

Jointhedotties Wed 13-Jul-11 14:30:35

It is the parents of those children I'd like to see in the dock alongside their abusers, too.

stretch Wed 13-Jul-11 14:31:28

Sorry HandDived, I meant alice's post.

I think alice was being sarcastic (from what I know of her anyway I hope!)

stretch Wed 13-Jul-11 14:33:51

Sorry, why Jointhedotties?

Jointhedotties Wed 13-Jul-11 14:36:07

For allowing twelve year old children out late at night, alone, unsupervised and open tp abuse, that's why.
And the very fact that little girls like this allegedly invited sex is of serious concern, God knows what type of " family" they come from.

Pootles2010 Wed 13-Jul-11 14:37:40

It wasn't late at night was it? Thought it said picked up from school. Quite normal for a 12 yr old to go to park after school?

May have read it wrongly, apologise if so.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now