Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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:
Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 12:02

He should have got sentenced as it would be a strong message that '16' year old girls are not appropriate sexual partners for adult men, even when they say they'd like to be.

How could such a judgement stand when the age of consent is 16? The law must be consistent. If a 16 year old is deemed able to consent to sex, he or she can consent to sex.

Sallystyle · 18/03/2017 12:03

FFS some of the posts here makes me ashamed to be on MN.

He raped a child. He took the risk and got it wrong. She was a child. If he spent some time with her before having sex with her he might have noticed that. 12 year olds don't act like 16 years old, but that would require a conversation and not just sex. It's also grim for a 19 year old to have sex with someone he thought was barely legal. The fact that underage people often lie about their age to get into pubs should have crossed his mind in the first place.

Poor man huh? He slept with a stranger who he assumed was barely legal who he met in a taxi queue and she turned out to be a child. And he is the victim? He shouldn't have been having sex with a 16 year old in the first place. His behaviour was disgusting all around and he should pay the full price of raping a child. Thinking she was legal is not a good enough excuse.

I don't care what age he thought she was. She was a child.

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 12:04

Mainly a defence lawyer including the Lockerbie bomber, and Tommy Sheridan

As Andrewofgg says, lawyers can't refuse cases because they don't like the client. Everyone is entitled to a defence.

Apparently abusing underage girls is a 'sexual preference disorder'

A lawyer is required to mount the best possible defence for their client. If the client wants to argue they have some kind of disorder the lawyer is required to put that argument even if they think it is complete rubbish. And paedophilia is a recognised psychiatric disorder.

Praised a rapist that subjected a woman to a violent week long ordeal, only gave him 6 years

She did say it was too his credit that he had settled in the UK and had successfully run a business for most of his adult life. She did not praise his actions in raping the woman. I would agree that the remark was unwise, giving easy headlines to the tabloid press, but it does not appear to have affected sentencing significantly. You may feel the sentence was low but, given the facts of the case, it was in line with normal sentencing practice in the Scottish courts, which is why most of the press reported it in a matter of fact manner without the confected outrage of the report in the Express.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 12:06

" don't think she is a victim of child sexual abuse in the sense it is usually used. I don't see her as a rape victim nor him as a rapist."

Geez, do you have any knowledge in the area at all?

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 12:07

If he spent some time with her before having sex with her he might have noticed that. 12 year olds don't act like 16 years old, but that would require a conversation and not just sex

He did spend some time with her before having sex. He did have a conversation with her. The evidence is that she did act like she was 17-20. The prosecution accepted that everyone who came into contact with her that night thought she was 17-20, in some cases after extended conversations with her.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 12:07

U2HasTheEdge:

In that case anyone who ever had a one night stand as a result of an encounter at a night club in which they believed the person they were shagging was over the age of consent is a rapist. Which they're not, of course.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 12:07

A rapists career success has NOTHING to do with rape.

STFU · 18/03/2017 12:09

He shouldn't have been having sex with a 16 year old in the first place.

Why not? If she had been 16 and he 19, you think it is wrong?

Graphista · 18/03/2017 12:09

U2 I agree both shameful and terrifying what some people think. Particularly on a parenting site.

Tomorrowillbeachicken · 18/03/2017 12:12

I think there needs to be charges against the parents tbh

Moussemoose · 18/03/2017 12:13

Everyone is an expert at judging age by looking at someone or talking to them. The police have no idea what they were doing and the judge is incompetent. All agencies have failed the girl. Anyone blamed teachers yet?

I hope the people who make these comments work with trouble young people and are sharing their expertise around.

The girl has been let down by most people in her life. However, these case are ferociously complex to work with and often involve working against the express wishes of the young person involved.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 12:14

I think it's a very poor choice as an adult to pick up a 16 year old stranger on the streets in the small hours, take them to a party in a strangers house and then have sex with them. It's not illegal but it's a very very poor way to behave.

HandbagCrab · 18/03/2017 12:14

16 is the age of consent, as there needs to be a line somewhere. If you choose sexual partners that say they are on that line and you are an adult then you are choosing to open yourself up to the possibility that this person is in fact a child and is just saying they are older than they are. Just because someone says they would like to have sex with you doesn't mean you have to oblige.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 12:16

HandbagCrab:

And if they say they are 17? Where do you draw the line? Where does 'poor behaviour' become criminal behaviour, when the law says it isn't?

TheFallenMadonna · 18/03/2017 12:17

All this talk of ID is nonsense. If you want to have sex, make a choice as to whether the person you want to have sex with is legally able to consent. If you only have their word for it, the choice is then whether you believe them. If you have only just met them, you can either decide to trust the drunk stranger, or you can decide not to take the risk. Either way, it is a choice. And then you deal with the consequences of that. That is in fact the law, and the man convicted did indeed accept his guilt. I do not see why the law should be changed, or an ID card system should replace an adult making a decision as to whether he should trust the word of a child claiming to be 16 rather than 12. And if that puts off so.easy men from having sex with 16yos just in case, I do not see that as an unreasonable infringement of personal freedom.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 12:17

AssassinatedBeauty: Oh I agree. But legal procedures have to follow laws, not subjective opinions.

TheFallenMadonna · 18/03/2017 12:17

Some men, that should say.

BeingMePls · 18/03/2017 12:19

For any other law, ignorance would not be an excuse. Who cares if thousands of people thought she was older than 12. She wasn't.

Kids lie all the time. Adults believe them when it suits them.

Sallystyle · 18/03/2017 12:20

Why not? If she had been 16 and he 19, you think it is wrong?

A 19 year old is an adult. So yes, I do think it's wrong to have a ONS with a 16 year old when you are 19.

Is it so shocking that I expect 19 year old men to show a bit of care over a 16 year old?

I have an almost 16 year old and he is still very young and naive. I would be disgusted if an adult had sex with him as a ONS. If they were in a relationship that's different. But picking him up from a taxi queue when he barely legal? Yeah, i'd have a problem with that.

Sallystyle · 18/03/2017 12:21

I think it's a very poor choice as an adult to pick up a 16 year old stranger on the streets in the small hours, take them to a party in a strangers house and then have sex with them. It's not illegal but it's a very very poor way to behave

I can't believe it even needs explaining really.

Trifleorbust · 18/03/2017 12:22

BeingMePls: That is not what ignorance of the law means. Ignorance of the law would mean, for example, that even if you didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a 12 year old, common sense should tell you it's wrong. It is based on the idea that the law springs from morality.

In this case he wasn't ignorant of the law. He didn't know he was breaking it.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 12:23

Trifle which is why I said it's not illegal. I'm disappointed in our society that has resulted in the judge finding it reasonable to give an absolute discharge in this case. It means that adults are not expected to care enough about the possibility of their sexual partner being a child to be expected to modify their behaviour.

HandbagCrab · 18/03/2017 12:24

She said she was 16 and the law says that the age of consent is 16. Why speculate about what might have happened if she had said differently? Maybe if he'd not have had sex with a '16' year old he had just met then he wouldn't have been charged with raping a 12 year old and a 12 year old would not have been raped. She could have said she was 42 and he'd be in the same situation.

fluffiphlox · 18/03/2017 12:25

If anyone should be facing charges, it should be her parents.

Tomorrowillbeachicken · 18/03/2017 12:26

Even poorer choice to let your child out at that time drinking tbh.