man jailed after meeting 12 year old girl on a dating app who pretended to be 19

I don’t think the child should be “punished” as such. She obviously needs help and support because her actions are not those of a normal 12yo. But at the same time I think she bears some culpability for what’s happened and the man in question shouldn’t bear sole responsibility or be punished for a situation that she created.

Rape means non consensual penetration with a penis - orally, vaginally or anally.
They would not have ever taken a charge to court to prosecute for an act that didn't happen..

And like I say, if the two crimes are always used whenever a child is under 13 even when there's no suggestion that coercion or force was used
Then what can they reach for when coercion or force IS used.

I know you say that you think rape is a better term, but the term used in law is sexual activity with a child under 13.You thinking that's not a good name for it and you'd rather it was called rape is fair enough but it's not what the law says. And why it jumped out at me that he was also charged with rape (found not guilty).

I'm not a fan of making men legally the sex 'doers' and women legally 'done to'. This casts all women as passive in their own private lives.

I've never asked anyone to prove their age to me in my life. It would seem a really weird thing to do on a date or in conversation on a dating app.

If someone creates a profile on an adult dating site then at least in some respects they have had agency.

Littletabby I am sure that they are used differently.
It doesn't make sense otherwise.
The legislation and loads of other news stories support that that's what the words mean in law here.

I think the law gives the choice of both charges. I think rape is the right choice.

As I understand it, they didn't actually have sex, he claimed they did. Hence not being found guilty of rape.

I think it's disgusting that there are people wanting to punish a 12 year old child, one who has clearly already faced significant issues, for being a a vulnerable child! It doesn't matter in the slightest that she lied about her age, it doesn't matter if she was looking for men to have sexual with her. All that tells us is how damaged and vulnerable she already is.

The fact that the "reputation" of an adult man is more important to some people than protecting a vulnerable child is appalling.

I linked to the relevant legislation earlier on.

I have never seen rape used in the UK to mean statutory rape.
The crime we have for that is called sexual activity with a child under 13.

By your logic, if a man rapes a child under 13, as in not because she is too young but because he forces her,
Then he would be charged with the same crimes as this man has been charged with.
There is nothing that can be added on.
That's not how it works. You can see that's not how it works.
Surely?

It is astonishing to me that there are people who think the child deserves some kind of additional punishment. She's been sexually assaulted by an adult man. She has already been punished most severely. Poor, poor child.

Of course it is the responsibility of all adults pursuing sexual relationships to make absolutely sure that the other party consents and this includes making sure that they are capable of consent. If you're not prepared to take this responsibility seriously, you should not be having sex.

I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm fully aware of why he went to prison. As are all of us I suspect.

My post was in relation to whether he knew or not. The comment on him not being jailed for simply being a mysogynistic arsehole, was not meant to indicate I was unaware of why he was sentenced.

Sorry, notonthetelly, we do mostly agree and just have slightly different perspectives - for me, acknowledging it as rape recognises that and under 13 is always the victim and should be protected not punished. 'sexual activity with a child' plays into the idea that they did consent so it wasn't that wrong.

Anyway, I totally agree with your reaction to people wanting her punished. This is a 12 year old who sneaks out at night to have sexual activity with strangers. She has been failed very badly somewhere, is still a child and needs protection.

"How the hell would it undermine our laws on rape to say sex with a 12 year old is automatically non-consensual? Which is what our laws do genuinely say. I'm sorry you don't believe me, but it is true."

I do believe you

The crime is sexual activity with a child under 13. Which is what he was found guilty of.

Bluntness sex with an under 13 is a "no excuses" crime in the UK.

Thats' why he's gone to prison.

What he said /she said has been taken into account as he could have got 14 years.

He was found not guilty of rape and guilty of sexual activity with a child under 13.

If they are the same then why guilty of one and not the other.

Why most of the time is it only the single offence that men get charged with in situations like this.

It jumped out at me.

He was found not guilty of rape though as per the article.

How the hell would it undermine our laws on rape to say sex with a 12 year old is automatically non-consensual? Which is what our laws do genuinely say. I'm sorry you don't believe me, but it is true.

I'm a bit unsure about this one. My gut instinct tells me he really didn't think she was underage, because if he did he would very unlikely have sent a photo to his friend. Paedos know to keep it secret. They don't broadcast it. If he thought he was having sex with a twelve year that sort of image would only be shared with a fellow paedo. You wouldn't keep evidence you had sex with her and send it to a mate.

I've also met girls who are in this age range and do act and present a lot older, much is to do with their upbringing and who they spend time with ie older kids.

So I'm not sure. Both of them are saying he didn't know. I think there is a possibility this is really the truth.

On the other hand his image sending and associated message is appalling, but that's not why he is going to jail.

Littletabby I think we are sort of in agreement

However my understanding is that as he was charged with rape AS WELL AS sexual activity with a child under 13 that the police and CPS had ideas that non consent may have been involved. Other cases like this in the news the men have only been charged with sexual activity with a child under 13. Not rape as well.

We do not have statutory rape in the UK. That word is not used.

""Do you think she should go to prison and lose her future and he shouldn’t even get a slap on the wrist?"

No I don't think that.
The fact that you have written it shows you for what you are though >> no friend of women and girls."

Or yes maybe :D hard to parse

If it were reversed the woman should go to prison for sexual activity with a child under 13 and the child should not be punished but should be supported & there should be questions around whether there is previous CSA and looking for the perpetrator/s if there is.

Your idea that the women who think this man got what he desvered and the criminal justice system should not be acting against the girl, would not say that if it were the other way around, shows up what you are really here for and how you really think.

You think women who think the outcome is fine are biased against men.

Also I believe consent isn't mentioned because they CAN'T consent - meaning it is automatically non-consensual. In the same way that sex with an unconscious person is rape because they can't consent, rather than because they said no. It is not minimising, its correcting the ridiculous notion that a 12 or 11 (or even 5 or 6) year old girl could ever be the 'pursuer'.

Sorry didn’t realise this was feminism or I wouldn’t have posted. Any debate here is shut down as ‘no friend of woman’

I’m out.

Littletabby if there is no suggestion of coercion etc then they get charged with sexual activity with a child under 13 which carries a max 14 year tariff.

This is what he was charged with.

If you are suggesting that men in the UK get charged with rape when there is no suggestion of non consent then that is very different to all the info I have had around this in the past.

If rape is the charge for penetrative sexual activity with a child under 13, then why do we have a separate offence for penetrative sexual activity with a child under 13? That makes no sense.

I also am sure that IF rape were used in the UK to prosecute cases that included no force or coercion then we would have heard of it a lot as it would totally undermine our laws about rape.

He was 27, she was 12. He knew he had a very much younger person in his flat. He then sent an indecent image of her to his friends, claiming sexual contact and said she was filth. They drank one alcoholic drink, another part of the article uses the word 'drinks'. She refused to give much information about the encounter and was guarded about the event.

As it is, she is being accused of ruining this man's life. Had she claimed sexual intercourse, she would have been subjected to a much more complete character review questioning her clothes and previous behaviour.

If he had bought her a drink in a pub, he would have been obliged to ensure she was of legal age. Sharing of indecent images without consent is a crime, regardless of the age of the person involved. His defence that it was not an intention to commit an offence is laughable. Sharing indecent images of children is a crime which is indefensible.

1. Wow. The criminal justice system in not there to punish children who tell lies.
2. Interesting. You think that women who don't think the girl has done something wrong WOULD want a 12 year old boy who lied about his age in a situation similar to be punished by the criminal justice system. You think that posters on here who don't think a TWELVE year old girl who is likely a victim of previous CSA should be punished because a 27 year old man performed a sex act on her and photoed her naked, WOULD want to see a 12 yo boy punished for the same.

And the final point reiterates that you think the women on here are man-hating harpies who think women can do no wrong:
"Do you think she should go to prison and lose her future and he shouldn’t even get a slap on the wrist?"

No I don't think that.
The fact that you have written it shows you for what you are though >> no friend of women and girls.

If you follow your link and look up rape of a child under 13, you will see that the definition is sex with a child under 13. It does not include consent (it lists 2 points, the activity and the age, rape of an adult also lists consent). This is how it is implemented in practice. As I mentioned, at work we have a legal duty to report sex involving under 13s because it is always rape and we have been involved in prosecutions. Perhaps the term 'statutory rape' is incorrect but he would have been charged with rape regardless of whether he believed he consented.

I'm not being an apologist. It's an important distinction and relevant to the discussion. There is no suggestion he thought the activity was non consensual.

She is 12. She is a child Sea. She tried her hardest to protect him - she told the police he had no idea he wasn't 19. And the police prosecuted anyway because it is incumbent on adults to make sure they're not having sex with children.

And yes, that cuts both ways.

Do you think people that lie should just get away with it then?

What if it was the other way round and it was a boy that had lied and said he was older to get a woman to sleep with him?

Do you think she should go to prison and lose her future and he shouldn’t even get a slap on the wrist?