Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Graphista · 18/03/2017 08:19

Prh not in Scotland. It's an enhanced disclosure here too not dbs.

"Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, the conviction of an offender who is F4... discharged absolutely as aforesaid shall in any event be disregarded for the purposes of any enactment which imposes any disqualification or disability upon convicted persons, or authorises or requires the imposition of any such disqualification or disability."

That means it doesn't count for police background checks.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 08:21

"the conviction of an offender who is ... discharged absolutely"

Still a conviction and yes scots law can be very complicated.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 08:24

Reading this, I am finding myself disturbingly close to saying something I would never say, know to be false and find repellant: the pendulum has swung too far the other way Grin

It hasn't.

We know that far, far too many people have deeply held and misogynistic beliefs about rape - she was asking for it, she was drunk, she had a short skirt on, she had already had sex, she was a slut, his life is ruined and blah blah blah. The result is thousands of rapes going unpunished, and that's a travesty.

BUT it is then so frustrating to hear people condemning someone who genuinely hasn't done anything wrong under the law, because it makes the above people, those who will excuse a rapist and condemn a victim unless someone jumped out of a bush wearing a ski mask, feel more confident in their ridiculous argument that there are thousands of innocent men being banged up on false charges of rape and sexual assault.

Grrr.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 08:25

I'd like a change in culture to not blame a 12 year old and making her responsible for an adult raping her. If 16 is the age of consent then I'd like to see a culture where anyone who says they are 16 or who looks to be around 16 is treated very cautiously by any reasonable adult who thinks they might want to have sex with them. I'd like to see a culture where an adult who willingly has sex with someone who says they are or appears to be 16 faces some kind of opprobrium for doing so when it turns out they are younger.

coconuttella · 18/03/2017 08:25

Trifleorbust

Whereas I agree that a "look 21/25" law would be imperfect and would be circumvented by older teens, it may well have prevented this case, and similar under 16s from having sex because the man reasonably thought she was 16 or over. For that reason alone I think it's worth seriously considering.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 08:27

coconuttella: Fair enough. I think it's too problematic.

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 08:32

It's an enhanced disclosure here too not dbs

It's Disclosure Scotland rather than DBS but his record will also show up on an enhanced disclosure through the DBS in England. A lot of people refer to DBS to cover both DBS and Disclosure Scotland.

PeridotPeridot · 18/03/2017 08:40

I hope the girl gets help as clearly there's something wrong there.

For him though, I think it's the right outcome.

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog · 18/03/2017 08:40

We don't let shopkeepers off for selling alcohol to under 18s because they looked older. Strict liability means just that in the case of selling alcohol.

Why is it that when a man - an adult man - sticks his dick in a 12 year old, suddenly strict liability gets torn up and thrown out the window?

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 08:42

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog:

Good question. I don't believe shop keepers should lose their licences for selling alcohol to people who clearly look over 18. I'm not sure why it is different.

SmileEachDay · 18/03/2017 08:43

That's interesting phr

So the inability to consent due to age protects even if the child lies..

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 08:50

Why is it that when a man - an adult man - sticks his dick in a 12 year old, suddenly strict liability gets torn up and thrown out the window

It hasn't been. He has been convicted. However, the judge has decided that, in all the circumstances of this case, having a conviction on his record is sufficient punishment.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 18/03/2017 08:51

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

No it does not. That is irrelevant to this issue.

I find it very hard to believe it never occurred to him that it coincidently convenient that she was just the legal age or that if spoke to her at all that it did not show she was much younger.

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 08:54

So the inability to consent due to age protects even if the child lies

Indeed.

A number of posters on this thread seem unable to tell the difference between an acquittal and an absolute discharge although, to be fair, I have seen a newspaper report that also gets it wrong and incorrectly suggests that the accused in this case was acquitted.

The accused in this case got an absolute discharge. That means he has been convicted and this conviction is on his record but he will not face any further punishment.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 18/03/2017 08:54

Good question. I don't believe shop keepers should lose their licences for selling alcohol to people who clearly look over 18. I'm not sure why it is different.

Shopkeepers will ask for ID for anyone they think under 25. My son is coming up 27 and still occasionally gets asked. He understands why.

HappyPaddyDay · 18/03/2017 08:54

MostlyBowling

I'm not sure why you used such a crass and horrible tone but I'd have thought it's fairly obvious.

It's in the rape victims best interests to not be raped. (I hope that makes sense)

It's in those looking to buy alcohols best interests to persuade the seller that they are over 18.

This was an unusual case where not only was the rape 'victim' persuasive (and obtained sex by deception - illegal), those around her judged her to be well over age.

There can be mitigating circumstances when deceived into selling alcohol or cigarettes to someone under age.

SmileEachDay · 18/03/2017 08:57

prh

Which presumably would mean if he accidentally had sex with a minor again, he'd be dealt with extremely harshly? Or does it not work like that?

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 08:58

I find it very hard to believe it never occurred to him that it coincidently convenient that she was just the legal age or that if spoke to her at all that it did not show she was much younger

You may find it hard to believe but the evidence is that several people spoke to her that night (police, taxi driver) and they all thought she was in her late teens or early twenties.

SmileEachDay · 18/03/2017 09:00

and obtained sex by deception - illegal

She is a 12 year old child Happy. A child who is clearly extremely vulnerable and for whatever reason is exhibiting risky behaviour. Let's try and keep that in mind, hey?

Megatherium · 18/03/2017 09:01

We don't let shopkeepers off for selling alcohol to under 18s because they looked older. Strict liability means just that in the case of selling alcohol.

Because that is a condition of the licence to which they consent when they take the licence; and because there are procedures they can follow to guard against this, notably requiring identification evidence.

Why is it that when a man - an adult man - sticks his dick in a 12 year old, suddenly strict liability gets torn up and thrown out the window?

It isn't, that is why this man has been convicted. Strict liability doesn't mean that the punishment has to be identical in every case.

lougle · 18/03/2017 09:03

"I find it very hard to believe it never occurred to him that it coincidently convenient that she was just the legal age or that if spoke to her at all that it did not show she was much younger."

You hold this opinion despite the evidence that the police, who were specifically tasked with seeking out underage children, had spoken to the girl at length and hadn't themselves detected that she was under 16, let alone under 13?

GreenPeppers · 18/03/2017 09:04

If we are taking the sam exposition with sex than we do with alcohol, we need to come back to the proposal right at the start of this thread.
Ask girls to have a form of Id with them that stipulate their age.
Otherwise, how on earth is a man supposed to be sure that the girl is over 16yo?
And what about if the a nice business of fake ID start, just Ike in the US?

So ID card anyone??

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 09:04

Which presumably would mean if he accidentally had sex with a minor again, he'd be dealt with extremely harshly

This conviction would be classed as a statutory aggravating factor warranting a higher punishment. Whether the result would be extremely harsh depends on the circumstances and is, in any event, a matter of opinion - in another case people I know differed as to whether the sentence was "extremely harsh" or "unduly lenient". But he would certainly get dealt with more harshly than if he did not have this conviction on his record.

debbs77 · 18/03/2017 09:06

This is shocking!!!!

I feel so sorry for the guy. He didn't take her to an alleyway and rape her. It wasn't seedy. He invited her to a party. She told him she was 16. They had sex. She left the party not upset. It only came to light because she said to her sister she might be pregnant.

This guy will have this hanging around his neck forever.

What on earth was a 12 year old doing out that late at night!

Jeez, my 13 year old still believes in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy!

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 18/03/2017 09:07

I strongly suspect she said she was 16, he thought she was 15 but took the risk anyway

That occurred to me too. The contrition could apply equally to finding out she was not 15.