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

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

Really? They were assigned tasks as part of their job which they failed on several counts.

Got her age wrong
Got the age of other underage girls they were meant to be assessing wrong
Missed that a specific girl they were looking for was there
Didn't enforce the law or safeguarding regarding underage drinking

Frankly I'm amazed they still have jobs!!

scallopsrgreat

You're deliberately being goady, aren't you? Nobody has said he is absolved of anything. He's a convicted sex offender in the eyes of the law because he plead guilty.

You seemingly think that this bloke is some sort of predator who absolutely 100% knew what he was doing and deliberately set out to do this. From all the available evidence, that isn't the case.

What he did was wrong and he knows it. However, the law allowed the judge to not award a custodial sentence because it was an exceptional case, and there was expert testimony that any reasonable person could think the victim was over the age of consent.

scallopsrgreat

Is it only mothers who can empathise with the girl? Nop one has judged the girl. Everyone seems in agreement that she possibly is 'damaged' and needs protection and care. Her status and his are entirely separate here.

Men always find excuses

Do they? The judge was a woman? You clearly are on a crusade and should step back a little and gain some perspective.

because the right to have casual sex with strangers trumps...

Thinking you have the right to have sex with someone is rape. Reasonably (and more) believing the person willingly having sex with you is an adult is an entirely different thing.

As he mother of 2 (pre-teen) boys, I haven't begun the sex chats. I won;t be telling them to ID any partner before having sex. Obviously I'd like them to wait for a long term partner but this is an exceptional case. I'll educate them re. alcohol and consent, bodily autonomy, respect for others and the law but, as I said, I expect them to be good people who behave reasonably.

I have never shown ID before sex. I had very willing sex on the eve of my 16th birthday. My BF (now husband of 20+ years) would, I think, be guilty of statutory rap, being 2 months older than me. I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who thinks he should be locked up. There are 'shades' of rape and this is a case which certainly isn't black and white. The man in the case isn't remotely like the vast, vast majority of rapists.

Some extreme opinions cropping up

And yet this man is absolved from that because he wanted to get his end away

Which bit of "he has been convicted" is it that you don't understand?

He is not absolved from anything. He believed the girl was of age. Everyone else who saw her that night also believed she was of age. She told him she was 16. Others thought she was at least 18, possibly early 20s.

Perhaps you think teenagers should have to carry ID and demand to see it before having sex with each other. But that isn't the way it is right now. And an attempt to make it so would simply result in a flood of fake ID for teenagers.

Since everyone who saw this girl thought she was at least 18 it is quite reasonable for this teenager to believe her when she said she was 16. He had no reason to believe he was having sex with an under age girl.

The fact he failed to realise that she was under age means he now has a criminal conviction on his record. That will never go away.

It was 'statutory rape' which I think is ridiculous to start with. There is no 'age of consent' in other countries in Europe, it's down to the particular cases. Girls under 16 can definitely be mature enough to consent to sex, this cut off is completely arbitrary and I'm glad I grew up in a country where my boyfriends weren't at risk of being considered sex offenders just because they were a couple of years older than me...

Graphista - they found the 12 year old they were looking for.

They admitted that they spoke with the victim at length and didn't have any concerns over her age. That isn't covering their arses, that's admitting they made an error.

No one use suggesting having to provide ID. Just the very simple suggestion that adults should be extremely cautious not to have sex with a child. Why is that an extreme opinion?

It's also ridiculous to suggest that half the posters here would be thrilled if this man was in prison. No one has said that at all.

Our culture is fucked up, where adults are not expected to be responsible for what they do sexually. Children are to blame for tricking adults into sex with them, apparently.

One poster called her a rapist

If that was to me, I put that I meant was it possible in a roundabout way that he was raped as he wasn't having sex with who/it thought he was. He would not have had sex with her if he thought she was a child (obviously assuming he is a decent human being and pleading guilty etc) and therefore in the same way like this case

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11990605/Gayle-Newland-Woman-who-pretended-to-be-man-to-have-sex-with-friend-jailed-for-eight-years.html

I also put clearly that the child in this case has been let down by everyone in her life

There is a clear age of consent in most countries including European ones. I know in some it's as low as 14 but it does exist.

What I read one pair of officers missed the girl being looked for and another spotted her.

There is no 'age of consent' in other countries in Europe, it's down to the particular cases

That is not correct.

I meant was it possible in a roundabout way that he was raped as he wasn't having sex with who/it thought he was

Nonsense. There is no comparison with the case you linked to.

It was Wingsofdesire who said "to my mind, HE was pretty much raped".

Can I suggest you read the actual statement from the court? It's likely the most reliable account of the facts. I'm not sure where you're getting your info from but grateful for any links to support that the police are covering their arses.

www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1754/HMA-v-Daniel-Cieslak

Not that I think your speculation is much better TBH.

Oblada many european countries have an age of consent. In some might be lower. In some might be completely disregarded, but they do exist. I became aware of the exact age in my home country after having sex when i was under it.

What I read one pair of officers missed the girl being looked for and another spotted her

According to the judgement the missing girl was in the group of girls with the victim. The victim directed them to the missing girl. So the officers who spent time talking to her and had no concerns about her age are the ones who found the missing girl.

Ok I was sure I'd read there were 2 sets of police officers I stand corrected.

Reading the judges statement I am even more appalled. There are several comments that give the impression imo that the judge thinks

The law is wrong
That strict liability in these cases is wrong
That the girl lying and 'willingly participating' makes it acceptable.
'If she were a few months older...' Point is she isn't there HAS to be a cut off point somewhere to protect children.
That his 'spontaneous distress' means he was contrite - he could well have been 'spontaneously distressed' because that's the point at which he knew he was facing a serious criminal charge.

There is little to no compassion or empathy for the victim. The judge even talks about how HE may need help to recover!

I never want to see and "I'm old enough to have sex" card.
It will nothing to protect girls and it will do a lot to harm women.
If such a thing existed, I'm pretty sure this girl would have had a fake one.

Nonsense. There is no comparison with the case you linked to

Of course there is, he thought he was having sex with a consenting adult, not an unconsenting child....

I stand corrected on the age of consent!! :) funnily enough where I'm from I've never actually heard of anyone convicted of statutory rape, whereas it's a relatively common topic here! Should check with a criminal lawyer over there to see what happens in practice! I think the age of consent and statutory rapes are poor legal practices and should be reviewed! It should be the same for the 'criminal age' ie age where someone can be convicted of a criminal offence: there should be no minimum just an assessment on the facts!

In other circumstances if people do not intentionally break the law but have done are very often punished becuase a law has been broken.

Yet when it comes down to a man who should have been and only needed to be a bit more aware and could have turned down having sex that night it's ok (he record is clear) becuase in our society we are still entrenched in the belief that men can't refuse sex and they have to have sex

If I buy stolen goods I can be prosecuted even if I claim I wasn't aware or suspicious in anyway

If I accidentally knock someone over and harm them becuase I didn't see them step out behind another vehicle I can be prosecuted

If I accidentally damage property though I felt it was an accident I can be prosecuted

Point I am making is that we can all make mistakes but laws are broken making a wrong judgement can be and often is irrelevant yet when it comes down to men and sex is so often isn't

oblada, you think that it might be ok in some circumstances for adults to have sex with children even under 12 years old? Or have I misunderstood you?

Yes enthusiasm, so much for ignorance not being a defence!