There is just SO much wrong in this story.
If an 11 year old child behaves in a sexually disinhibited way (which the judge suggests by saying she was a "willing participant,") you know what? You can pretty well guarantee she has been sexually abused in the past or is still being abused by someone.
Even if she "looked" 14 (whatever the Hell that means!), that's still below the age of consent so why in the world did two 21 year old men believe they were entitled to have sex with a child even of that age? Even if she "appeared" more mature than she was, that didn't mean that emotionally, intellectually or psychologically she was anything but an 11 year old child.
Guidelines in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 suggest between a 10 and 13 year sentence for the rape of a child under 13. The judge deliberately ignored the guidance when sentencing the men to only 3 years and 4 months each (with the likelihood they'd serve no more than half of that.)
The latest reports say the CPS are considering an appeal against the lenient sentence, but it hasn't happened yet and there is no guarantee that the sentences will change even if an appeal is lodged.
The judge (as often happens) chose to state his belief that the child was culpable for her own assault as justification for the short sentences.
Yes, it's not just about the suffering of this particular child (and we can only hope she is getting support to deal with the shit she's suffered.) It is very much the message this sends out to children (that it doesn't matter if they are raped, don't expect the rapist will be severely punished and you'll probably be held to blame as well,) and to men (if you want to shag a child, don't worry, you'll probably get away with it but if caught, don't be put off by all that 10 to 13 years business - you'll be out within a couple of years, no probs.)