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

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

Nobody has said society thinks this is acceptable.

Why is it only the men who need to make sure?

Because they are the ones sticking their body part into another human being. There isn't a god given right to do that. You have to be certain that the person you are sticking your body part into is capable of consent and wants you to do it.

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

How do you explain the judge, police officers and taxi driver's opinions then?

I can't see anyone blaming the girl, it's just the vast majority don't feel the man should have been punished by the court beyond what's happened.

What does our parental status or sex have to do with our opinion?

The police nor the taxi driver gave a shit about those girls. The taxi driver probably barely saw them. The police are most definitely covering their arses as they failed in their duty of care.

This man didn't just have a brief conversation with girls or see them through a rear view mirror. He took them to a party. He knew they were drunk. He knew they were young. Yet he still chose to stick his penis into a 12 yr olds body.

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

No it isn't but legally all rapes are not the same. The rape described in that post would be classed as category 1 culpability A in England, resulting in a sentence probably in the range 16-19 years, possibly higher in some circumstances. The offence we are discussing here appears to be category 3 culpability B, the lowest possible for sentencing purposes. Offenders in this category still normally get a prison sentence. This case is in the news because it is so unusual.

I'm in favour of '2'

I am not. We aren't going to stop teenagers having sex however desirable that outcome might be. The effect of this change would be to criminalise a lot of teenagers for behaving normally. And, given that the police didn't think the girl in this case was drinking under age and the taxi driver thought she was at least 20, I don't think it would have made any difference. She would have claimed she was 18 rather than 16 and would have been believed.

You have to be certain that the person you are sticking your body part into is capable of consent and wants you to do it.

You can't be certain, only reasonably sure, and he was.

I don't think there's any question that she wanted him to do it. If there was, I think the opinions would be very different.

Because they are the ones sticking their body part into another human being.

Sexual assault by a woman with a penis inserted carries the same sentencing guidelines. Only a man can rape (by definition) but it's unashamed ignorance to suggest that only male partners are responsible for ensuring the partner is of age and willing / consenting.

And the reason your parental status has something to do with it is because I'd expect some empathy with a vulnerable 12 yr old girl.

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

So did all the other people who saw her that night, and the judge who saw the CCTV, all see what they wanted to see for that reason, and hence decided she looked over 16?

scallopsrgreat

Nobody is defending what happened. Nobody would be defending this if it were not an exceptional case.

People are saying it's an exceptional case where there were a lot of mitigating factors. Plus, the fact that several police officers, bouncers and eye witnesses all thought the victim was far older was a very important factor in this case. If anybody had said they had doubts over her age, I doubt he'd have received no sentence. But the fact that everybody thought she was older than she said she was, and that the man in question had no reason or evidence to disbelieve her, meant that the judge could dismiss the case as the man acted as a reasonable person would and, legally speaking, took reasonable precautions.

I find the mothers of boys more depressing. I do understand that disconnect that says "my daughter would not be at risk because she would not be out in town at 4am". I worry about the mothers passing on to their sons the idea that really all you have to do is ask a child you have just met if she is 16 and then it's fine to have sex with her. Because the right to have casual sex with strangers trumps exercising caution and maybe passing on a sexual encounter with a stranger who claims to be 16.

A law requiring people to demand the production of ID before having sex would be totally unworkable - not least because someone under 16 who wants to have sex can easily borrow someone else's ID.

He knew they were drunk. He knew they were young

No-one thinks the girl in this case was too drunk to consent.

The evidence is that he did NOT know she was under age. However much you might want it to be different to justify your beliefs, the truth is that everyone who saw her that night thought she was late teens or early twenties.

scallopsrgreat - I don't see how the police are covering their arses. That doesn't make sense to me.

And whose arse is the judge covering?

scallops, can you not see the folly of second guessing the judgment of the people who actually were there, who have seen the CCTV, and have seen the papers and all the witnesses? Why do you assume you know better on the basis of one short report?

scallopsaregreat

Everybody empathises with the victim. What happened was awful, and I hope she can recover from it. I would not like my hypothetical daughter to be in that situation, nor my actual sons. However, if my 12 year old child had been out drinking and was in a taxi queue in a city centre at 4am drunk, I'd see that as a failure of mine, not my child's.

Children often need to be protected from themselves. At that age, my sons would've done insanely stupid things if we hadn't been around to stop them. I really do feel the parents are to blame in this case, as they have failed their duty of care.

You can't have sexual assault by a penis. That is rape.

And of course women are responsible for making sure their partners are over the age of consent. But this was the case of a man not taking due care and attention to assure that.

He couldn't really know that she couldn't consent. If it looks like enthusiastic consent and the girl is assumed by a nightclub, bar staff, taxi driver and police to be able to consent, why would the guy assume she can't consent?

This is society's fault, not his.

Children often need to be protected from themselves. And yet this man is absolved from that because he wanted to get his end away.

He didn't think she was early 20s. Because she told him she was 16. I do accept he thought she was 16. But she wasn't. And judging by other responses on this thread, it is clearly not reasonable to assume some one who looks 16 or older actually is. Because lots of posters know, or were, older looking children.

She couldn't give consent pickle. That's why.

Men always find excuses.

TheFallenMadonna

I bring up my sons to know that casual sex with a stranger is not exactly something they should be seeking. I'd be disgusted if this case involved my son and even if it were an exceptional case, I'd be admonishing him for being in that situation and picking up random strangers.

However, at the age of 19, my child would legally be an adult and they are allowed to make their own choices. Freedom means we're allowed to have casual sex if we want to do so.

I'll be showing my boys this case and hopefully it will drum into them that things like this can and do happen, and you should only really have sex with people you know very well and preferably in a loving relationship.

Everybody does not empathise with the victim. One poster called her a rapist. Two others said she coerced him into having sex. Another suggested that she should be sued. Another that she should be prosecuted.

There was a thread recently which suggested that any sex with a woman after drinking should automatically be rape. Now there's a suggestion that all women should carry ID which they have to show before they can have sex.

Do people not realise how disturbing this sort of thing is? It's taking away a woman's right to freely give consent in the circumstances of her own choosing and making consent to sex a state controlled act like applying for benefits of getting a driving licence. It commodifies women too, by treating them as objects on the same as cigarettes or booze or betting slips rather than autonomous adults capable of making their own decisions. I just find it horrifying that people who claim to be feminists say they are happy for a woman's free autonomy over what she does with her own body to be turned into a state controlled practice.

Just had long conversation with my teens about not having sex with people they meet in taxi queues at 4am. Recommended they get to know them first. Apparently it's the 21st century and it'll never happen.

I'm worried about protecting our teenagers, male and female, from a culture where this can happen. If she hadn't been spoken to by police, seen by taxi guy, this boy would be in jail and half of you would be thrilled about it.