To think the result of this rape trial is disgusting

[joystir59]

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

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!

Agree with this. Poor guy. Bloody hell. I bet he feels sick to his stomach.

This is not rape. FFS. It was consensual.

GreenPeppers:

I think this would be disastrous. Girls of 12-15 who CLEARLY look under 16 would carry fake ID (either to get into bars or buy cigarettes) and men would knowingly have sex with them and be able to use the existence of that ID as a defence. Even worse, men would FORCE teenage girls to obtain fake ID and then use it as a defence against sustained abuse. It is a well-meaning but very dangerous plan.

Is that your view?

I feel so sorry for the guy. He didn't take her to an alleyway and rape her

Because of course, that's the only sort of rape that is, you know, real rape.

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

Other people who saw her that night believed she was in her late teens or early twenties. That doesn't rule out the possibility that he thought she was 15 but there is no reason to believe that he did.

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.

I don't think his behaviour was criminal but please don't use the alleyway defence! It can definitely be seedy without an alleyway.

Yeah, it's essential that grown men shouldn't be responsible for making sure that they only do sex with people who are legally of age.

I mean, what kind of a society do we want to live in if we expect men to be responsible for their sexual behaviour?

"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 "

Yes, it's odd to me that a 19yr old still wanted to have sex with someone who although legally old enough would still be a child at 16.

MrsDustyBusty:

Of course men should be held accountable, but within reason. They shouldn't have to be Sherlock Holmes about it.

They shouldn't have to be Sherlock Holmes about it.

Well why not? This idea that men are helpless in the face of the machinations of sexual children is odious. If it takes expecting men to be taking precautions to protect their personal integrity, we should be requiring that. Nor saying that well, if a child said they were older, how could he be expected to not just whip his penis out?

MrsDustyBusty:

Because it is unreasonably restrictive. Having sex, including casual sex, is a normal behaviour for both men and women. People should be reasonably careful, i.e. consider whether someone is of age. They shouldn't be expected to prove someone's age before they get intimate with them. That isn't always possible or desirable.

I think they should. I see no reason why men don't have a duty of care, as adults, to ensure they aren't sexually intimate with minors.

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

But it didn't show to the police either? And the judge agreed (as stated many times already)

"Because of course, that's the only sort of rape that is, you know, real rape. "

Agree with this.

The post to which this refers was vile!

MrsDustyBusty:

Well, I understand that, but in reality it isn't as simple as that.

Let's say a minor goes to the police with a sexual assault complaint. She is 13. A young man (say 18) has participated in oral sex with her. He accepts that oral sex took place. She says he didn't ask for ID. He says he did and it said she was 17.

What do we do then? On what basis can we convict him of sexual assault?

Only read the first page but just wanted to say that my youngest DD has been a lot taller than average since a young age. She has a sister who is 5 years older than her, making her 18 when she was 12. With the older sister and with all these bl**dy vloggers demonstrating make up techniques/latest fashions, she could definitely have been mistaken as 16+ at 12.

The difference is that she wouldn't have been allowed on the town, let alone dressed like that. At 14, her older sister's uni friends thought she was 18 and that was during the day, in casual clothes and normal make up.

Unless you believe that the taxi driver, police, the judge were all colluding to protect this young man then I think commonsense has prevailed. This young man, has to live with this mistake for the rest of his life.

You'd be much better channelling that rage at a society that thinks it's acceptable for a 12 year old to be allowed out on the town like this.

To me, it's what's more desirable as a society:

1. that we keep the status quo of the age of consent being 16, with men being expected to take a reasonable view on whether an individual is over 16 based on circumstances. with the consequence that girls under 16 will have sex

2. We have stricter laws in place that such as raising consent to 18, and/or requiring 'proof' of age, and/or the judgement that the individual is over (say) 21 in the absence of proof before having sex...... with the consequence that sex is more restrictive for teenagers (as it is for alcohol and cigarettes) impeding their freedom somewhat (sure, they'll find ways round it) but with the consequence that younger teens are less likely to have sex.

I'm in favour of '2'. Given the facts of this case, it seems that the 12 yo wouldn't have had sex if a '2' scenario was in place, and protecting younger teens (even if it can't be foolproof) is more important that protecting unfettered sexual license for young adults.

You are being unreasonable. If the girl looked over 16 and said she was over 16 and everyone believed her to be so why should this man be punished for rape when he was not aware of her age? If she had been 13 then she can consent but not at just under at 12 even though she lied and said yes?

I'm with the judge here. This is exceptional and if you read the details does not send the wrong message at all.

He did not coerce her, he'd met her that night. I'd say she was definitely Fraser Competent.

It's times like this that I'm glad we have a system that allows a judge to take into account really exceptional cases, because clearly in this case it wasn't such a black and white issue.

I still want rape and CSA to be prosecuted with the full strength of the law, but here it's obvious that it was a truly exceptional case that had a lot of different factors.

I personally am not in favour of changing the laws as they stand, because I think it would remove freedoms without anything actually changing, as it would be incredibly ineffectual.

Of course, we can't forget the victim in all of this. I hope she is able to move on and have real relationships in the future. After what happened, I hope she is getting help so that she is not in that situation again. It's clear her parents are not doing their jobs properly.

society that thinks it's acceptable for a 12 year old to be allowed out on the town like this.

I don't think society does. The one thing most people have agreed is that the fact the little girl was out at 4, alone, had been drinking etc is indicative of a troubled background.

society that thinks it's acceptable for a 12 year old to be allowed out on the town like this.

Bizarre comment! Nothing could be further from the truth!

As she wasn't seeking contraceptive advice from him, whether or not he applied the Fraser guidelines is irrelevant.

Bloody hell this is so depressing. Loads of women/mothers/mothers of 12 yr old girls rushing to defend a rapist. Blaming it on a 12 yr old. Attributing adult actions and sexuality to a clearly vulnerable 12 yr old.

It's fucking sick.

He saw what he wanted to see so that he could stick his dick into someone and get an orgasm.

coconuttella

1), why is it only men who need to make sure? What about 16 year old girls and 15 year old boys? What about a 15 year old pair?

2. Is there a legal punishment for having sex with someone without seeing their ID. "Yes, I'm 20 but they didn't ask for ID before we had sex." Would an 18 year old and 17 year old still be statutory rape with your raised age of consent?

SmileEachDay

Completely agree. Personally I'm of the opinion that none of this would have happened if the family had been on the list of social services. Of course, with government cuts, social services aren't running at 100% capacity and so can't have everyone on their books who actually needs their services.

I wonder if this would count as neglect from the parents. I suspect it would be hard to prosecute because there would be no material evidence, as I'm guessing the council haven't been involved so fr.

scallopsrgreat - did the police, taxi driver and judge all see what they wanted to see as well?