Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think the result of this rape trial is disgusting

999 replies

joystir59 · 17/03/2017 20:48

Man gets off completely Scot=free for raping a 12 year old girl, and that this result gives such a wrong message to men, in a world in which girls are never considered too young anyway. I'm enraged!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

OP posts:
witsender · 18/03/2017 07:54

She couldn't consent. Therefore, she was raped. He raped a 12 yr old. This just publicly opens the floodgates for uncertainty. There should be no room for that. It would be a pity for him, sure, but that is a minor issue compared to the bigger picture.

People should be very, very careful when having casual sex with 16 yr olds they've

NameChangeNotNewbie · 18/03/2017 07:55

Why do you assume that the norm is like you graphista? You were a badly behaved child who lied to her parents. You don't lie to people who nurture a good loving and respectful relationship with you.

There was always a few like you in each year at our school, who thought their rebellion gave them status. We laughed at these girls because they looked like clowns with badly done make up and they were never very academic.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 07:55

Graphista:

Basic parenting safeguards - whose house is she going to? Do I have the address and contact number for parents? What are the arrangements? Will the parents definitely be there? Have I received a text confirming she has arrived?

Yes, there is an outside chance my 12 year old DD will be a Dr Evil level criminal mastermind and be able to elude me for an evening of hardcore boozing and shagging, but let's face it, if she is that determined to do so, I have already failed.

witsender · 18/03/2017 07:56

Stupid phone. 16 year olds they've only just met. If the difference between a child and a consenting adult is so small, then adults of 19 should think twice before shagging apparently 16 year olds they've only just met.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 07:57

witsender:

Non sequitur. She couldn't consent, BUT if the belief of the other person that she COULD consent was reasonable, that would usually be an adequate defence. In this case it wasn't because she was 12, not 13, but the inability to consent does not automatically make the other person a rapist.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 07:58

The idea that an adult might choose to refrain from sex with someone who says they are 16 is clearly not something that anyone thinks is reasonable. When I was 19, had I pulled someone on a night out who told me they were 16 I'd have been put right off as they would clearly be too young to have sex with, being a child and all. It would also have occurred to me that they could be underage. But apparently that's too much to expect of adults, and it's much more important to protect their cultural right to expect sex with anyone they reasonably deem to look old enough.

CecilyP · 18/03/2017 07:58

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about your futuristic perfect parenting hmm

Surely you can be a far from perfect parent and still not expect your 12 year old daughter to be out on the town at 4 in the morning after a night's drinking, then accompany a stranger to a party and having sex with him having lied about her age. This is not the behavior of an average 12 year old.

SmileEachDay · 18/03/2017 07:59

Is "I thought she was 16" (12 year old,unable to consent) different to "I thought she consented" (drunk adult woman,unable to consent)?

Andrewofgg · 18/03/2017 07:59

Coconuttella You can get married at 16, although not many men and even fewer women do, and in Scotland you don't even need parental consent (hence Gretna Green and all that). I don't see how the age of consent cannot be the same as the age of marriage.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 08:02

SmileEachDay: "I thought she was consenting" is a defence IF the belief is reasonable. So a 12 year old who says she is 16 and looks 20 = reasonable. A drunk woman who looks completely in control = reasonable.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 08:03

Namechange nowhere did I say that I did any of this myself. I know/knew girls that did.

I was a ridiculously good child because the consequences would have been horrific. (Abusive home).

Re basic parenting safeguards, are the parents dd is staying with sound sleepers? Would they hear the girls sneak out ?

I consider I've been partly lucky to have a dd that's reached 16 without any major issues aside from her disability. She's naturally ridiculously honest always has been, rubbish at keeping secrets from me. But as I say I consider luck a part of that.

Most parents do their best to raise honest, sensible people. Not everyone succeeds and it's not always as easy as people may think before their children teach teenhood, or even if eldest child was an easy teen and a younger sibling isn't.

AngryGinger · 18/03/2017 08:06

Joy you are so tiring. People are presenting the facts to you, such as we aware of them from the press releases etc. And you're just refusing to accept it,

He didn't know she was 12
She was out at 4am
They were both drunk
The police didn't know she was only 12

I could go on but you seem intent on only seeing this from "well it's rape cos she's 12" so I'm not going to waste my breath.

NoWinNoFfi · 18/03/2017 08:06

Re. consent - the Judge found that it was a fact that the girl actually consented, but that legally she couldn't consent. The 'fact' the girl consented was relevant to sentencing, even if it wasn't relevant to determining if an offence had been committed.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 08:08

"This is not the behavior of an average 12 year old." I agree. It is though highly likely to be the behaviour of a child who has been neglected/abused/ignored.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 08:09

Graphista:

I would hear two 12 year olds getting ready for a night out and sneaking out, I think. But fair enough, it is possible. I will have to rely on my ability to bring up my DD to know, like she knows the sun rises in the morning, that to do this would be to destroy, beyond hope of recovery, her chances of ever, ever being trusted to leave the house without me again, to be given cash, to be allowed to wear make-up, to go to sleepovers Grin

Most children who have been loved and taught boundaries don't want to behave this way. This is a sign that something has gone horribly wrong.

witsender · 18/03/2017 08:12

The point here is the message it sends. It makes it allowable to rape a child if you say you thought they were older. Maybe it isn't a bad thing that people become more cautious of who they shag after meeting them at a taxi rank? Especially when they say they are 16, knowing that that is only just old enough to consent.

coconuttella · 18/03/2017 08:13

When I was 19, had I pulled someone on a night out who told me they were 16 I'd have been put right off as they would clearly be too young to have sex with, being a child and all

In which case you seem to be arguing for the law to be changed.... which is fine, I'm tending to think the same. However, currently, legally the age of consent is 16, so whatever your views on age, someone surely can only be held to a legal standard in a court of law.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 08:13

witsender: It doesn't. The belief has to be reasonable. You can't just say it.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 08:13

"This is a sign that something has gone horribly wrong."

On this we absolutely agree! I would not be at all surprised to learn (which we won't as the girl rightly has anonymity) that this girl has been neglected/abused already for several years and is possibly already in the care system.

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 08:14

*Is "I thought she was 16" (12 year old,unable to consent) different to "I thought she consented" (drunk adult woman,unable to consent)?"

Legally, yes.

With the drunk adult woman it is a valid defence if the accused reasonably thought she consented and was not too drunk to consent.

With the child under 13 a reasonable belief that she is over 16 is not a valid defence. The only possible defence available to the accused is that he did not actually have sex with the victim. That is why the man in this case was convicted and now, contrary to what some posters seem to think, he DOES now have a criminal record. An absolute discharge means you have been convicted and the conviction is on your record. This conviction will appear on his enhanced DBS check for the rest of his life.

coconuttella · 18/03/2017 08:14

Andrewofgg

Easy.... the age of marriage should be raised to 18! The fact someone can marry at 16 (in Scotland without parental consent) is a law that absolutely needs changing.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 08:16

I'm in a tiny flat I hear dd turn in her sleep! But some of her peers live in large houses with 'wings' or 'annexes' and they find it very easy to sneak out.

HappyPaddyDay · 18/03/2017 08:16

SmileEachDay

Is "I thought she was 16" (12 year old,unable to consent) different to "I thought she consented" (drunk adult woman,unable to consent)?

In your case of too drunk to be able to consent, it's different.

I think a better analogy would be if she had taken a mind altering drug and could in no way give consent but to all intents and purposes seemed 'sober' to the person she had sex with.

If someone was drunk had sex they willingly participated in and then a third party said she was raped then the 'rasonableness' of her consent would be under question as well as the accused's belief (or otherwise) that she could give consent. If policemen and a taxi driver testimony and CCTV evidence all pointed to her sobriety then I'd imagine it would be unlikely to end in a conviction.

There are shades of grey in statutory rape as well as rape* cases and this is why judges have discretion.

By that, I don't mean 'no means no' is wrong, I mean situations like sober enough to participate but too drunk to 'give' consent.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 08:17

From the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1995:

Where a person is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence (other than an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law) and the court is satisfied that he committed the offence, the court, if it is of the opinion, having regard to the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, that it is inexpedient to inflict punishment F2. . . may without proceeding to conviction make an order discharging him absolutely

I read that as he has not been convicted.

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 08:17

It makes it allowable to rape a child if you say you thought they were older

No it doesn't. You will still be convicted. It will still be on your criminal record. It might help with sentencing but only if you reasonably believed you thought the victim was older. Simply saying you thought she was isn't going to get you anywhere.