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

Thanks for the reports on this one.

We wanted to remind everyone that we do not advocate victim blaming on Mumsnet. We have already removed victim blaming posts on this thread, so please do report any more of these that you see so we can take a closer look.

We'd also like to direct you to our We Believe You campaign. Please do take a read.

Thanks all.

Thanks lou

Thank you HQ.

And sorry. Should've hit report.

if a person wishes to have sex with someone who doesn't look over 16 beyond all possible doubt (I.e. Looks mid-20s or more), it should be the responsibility of that person to satisfy themselves the person is over 16 by triangulating with some other information (e.g. Being a fellow student on a university course)..... simply believing the other person looked 16 or over wouldn't be a valid defence.
But that's absurd! If I am 20 and in a club for a night out with a few friends, what you are saying is that no man would be allowed to have sex with me without verifying my age with some external source. I might not want to tell him where I work or where I study. There might not be some other external source available. The external source could be fabricated.
This is as ridiculous as the ID card idea. It's positively insulting for women and it would not protect children. Children should be protected from being in that environment in the first place.

But that's absurd! If I am 20 and in a club for a night out with a few friends, what you are saying is that no man would be allowed to have sex with me without verifying my age with some external source.

It's not about being allowed, if the woman is 20 of course he's allowed as long as the woman consents. But he's taking risks, just like you are if you have sex with a man you've only just met. One of the risks he is taking (as well as STIs/ being accused of rape generally) is that if the woman turns out to be underage he could be prosecuted. Whether you consider it to be absurd or not.

Children should be protected from being in that environment in the first place.

Because there are no underage prostitutes on the street..... For one example.

Just for clarity this child was not in a club or pub when they met and there is no indication in the judges comments that she ever was.

Of course there are underage prostitutes on the streets - they shouldn't be there! They should be protected by taking them off the streets and looking after them properly.

Is the law not sufficient as it stands?

Whilst I agree with the sentencing, isn't most people's objection here that they think he was sentenced lightly, not that the law is wrong?

I appreciate that he was, in some respects, 'unlucky', but I think it's only going to be in the rarest of circumstances that someone will have sex with a 12 year old and genuinely hold a reasonable belief that they are 16.

I think the talk of ID cards and alike is a bit silly.

Yes but they should also be protected by men not picking them up for sex. And anyone who does deserves everything they get.

It's not realistic to remove all vulnerable young people from places that they may be sexually abused by those who 'think they are older'

Oooh smile

Maybe we will get my answer

Are you the judge user?

Maybe Rufus

Although I'm probably too much of a cretin to understand.

smile

*Oooh smile

Maybe we will get my answer*

Basically summarized in the post above. Its infuriating for people to be making comments when they lack the basic knowledge to understand why he was given such a sentence. Going on a witch hunt for this boy is just as unfair as victim blaming.

No user

I was curious as to whether you felt so strongly about the case that you logged on to comment

Or whether you were an existing poster afraid to post under their usual name

I am thinking its the first one

So you are victim blaming then?

It takes some balls to admit that.

EBI: don't do it.

All adults have a duty of care to young people. I've read many posts here blaming the parents for what happened to this child. I blame the person who picked her out of the taxi line and decided to have casual sex with her. He raped a child because he didn't take the time to check out her claim of being 16. He took advantage of her. He has been convicted and the rape conviction will stay with him for ever- it will probably become, hopefully become the defining mistake of his adult life, one which will make him reflect on his sexual attitudes and behaviour.

Oh I think we understand clearly why the offence was disposed of this way. We just don't agree with it.

And as for defending the courts- the statistics on rape convictions are a pure disgusting joke. The courts get it wrong all of the time. The courts get it wrong all of the time and rapists go free.

Although TBH I actually have far less issues with the disposal or with the man especially as he acknowledged his guilt immediately than I do with half of the posters on here insisting some little trollopy Lolita set out to ruin the life of a fine upstanding citizen.

I remain quite disgusted by some of what I have read here over the last couple of nights.

I agree rj