Have I read this 'story' right?? Please tell me I haven't.

[stretch]

here

My first ever thread on Feminism, but I have no words...

I can't believe these knobs have been let off so lightly for raping two children.

ALthough it doesn't surprise me.

Rapists tell all types of lies. They're well known for it. Pretending they thought the children were older than they are is one of The Classic Lies that rapists tell.

According the the courts of the U.K, we must always believe a rapist when he pulls out A Classic.

We must always hold children accountable for their part in the rape.

Men must never be held fully accountable for their sexual crimes.

Judges must always support the pedophiles over children. THis one in particular gets my goat,as it pops up quite frequently in the incontinent ramblings of judges.
The well-being of the families of the pedophile rapists must be considered over the families of the young girls.

THe justice system is a. joke. Can somebody please get these pedophilic judges out of their positions of power please.

If a girl looks sixteen, says she' sixteen, behaves as if she's sixteen - how does anyone check?
Seriously, are we expecting these rapists to have asked to see their birth certificates?

Yes, they should be banged up but they are young men themselves. Some girls text them offering no strings sex. They meet, one girl calls them one at a time, they SAY they think she's sixteen.

I don't think this is necessarily normal nineteen year old male behaviour, but I'm , sadly, not so sure it's that rare.
Young lads offered sex on a plate by girls who say they are sixteen.

The crime here is not the sexual act but the age. Had the girls been sixteen, what would our reactions to this non criminal act, be?

And everyone is agreeing these girls will have been abused prior to this so why aren't more people wanting to take a closer look at the parents who may be complicit or may have turned a blind eye or may not, in fact, given a shit. They may be completely oblivious .

A 12 year old looks very, very different from a 16 year old, no matter how dumb you are. Besides which, what the fuck were they doing taking advantage of two drunk 16 year olds anyway? That would still be rape in my book.

Jointhedotties, it would be nice if you would engage with the posters above (including me) who have put forward opposing views. Plenty of people have discussed the age difference at length - plenty of people have acknowledged that issues of the age of consent and age differences are red herrings, because these girls were 12. End of discussion. Kladdkaka has been good on this.

No, birth certs aren't necessary if you're not determined to have sex very quickly. As I pointed out at length, there's plenty of other ways to establish someone's age other than asking them.

What is 'sex on a plate', please? Do you meant that boys cannot be expected to refuse sex?

And no-one has said that abuse in the home should be ignored. What most people have said is that the role of the parents in this rape is NIL. Because responsibility always lies with the rapists.

I have to go to work now.

How young does the victim have to be before excuses like 'she told me she was older', 'she looked older' etc are no longer a defence for raping a child? 11 years? 10 years? the law states that a 12 year old child cannot consent to sex, some obviously believe that this is wrong especially when there are 'mitigating' factors, so how young has a child to be before these 'mitigating' factors are not taken into consideration when passing judgement or sentencing?

Well said SF!

And well said slightlymad!

"How young does the victim have to be before excuses like 'she told me she was older', 'she looked older' etc are no longer a defence for raping a child? 11 years? 10 years?"

Law says 13. That's the youngest a rapist is allowed to use that escuse.

Also, I agree fully with Sakura on this one. The justice system is a joke, and there is something wrong with a judge who allows this. I think he needs to campaign to have him investigated for pedophilia if he thinks it is OK.

Oops . I mean:

I think he needs to be investigated for pedophilia if he thinks it is OK.

But I thought the sex offense act said something like either 13-16 and the defendent had reasonable grounds to not know the age, or under 13. That's how it sounded to me? That's what I meant? Am I wrong then? Consent is 16. I don't get why people keep saying it's 13?

JointheDotties - you seem to be desperate to pin all the blame on the parents. Ok, let's go with your theory that the parents were utterly shit - why is it, then that the girls were less deserving of protection from the law? 12 year old girls generally do not go out looking for gang bangs which does suggest (not always) that they had been victims of sexual abuse. Does this, then, mean that the law thinks it is OK for subsequent men to sexual abuse/rape them too?

If my house has been burgled does it mean than if it is burgled again then the law shouldn't impose any punishment on subsequent burglers?

The 6 accused new fine well what age they were (one of the girls was crying whcih does suggest that consent had been withdrawn) but knew that they could employ a whole host of rape myths to get them off the hook.

On another note, when a dodgy ruling like this is passed, it always makes me question the motives and private thoughts of the judge(s).

I don't think anybody is trying to take the guilt away from the men in this (well, except the judge). The 6 men were 100% at fault for raping the girls.

What people are saying about the parents is that for the child's mind to be warped into deliberatly getting themselves into this situation (or, by the sounds of it, one pushing the other into doing from what I read?) means that the parents have done a shite and neglective job of raising them at best, at worst turned a blind eye or possibly partaking to abuse themselves.

None of this alleviates any of the blame from the men who should not have done this. The parents are quite possibly guilty of a totally separate crime of being aweful parents.

Thank you AB, that is precisely what I have been ( trying!) to say.

What has upset me most about the whole case is not that six lowlife scuzzers did this, but that two little girls my daughters age are so damaged, their childhoods so obscenely abnormal , that they were even in the situation in the first place.

And the only place to look for reasons why those children were so vulnerable and open to this attack, is with their families. That does NOT negate what those men did in any way but their parents failed to protect them as parents should.

And that is why I hope their parents are also being looked at by the authorities. I have said all along that the men need to be locked up, that is a given.Sadly, children need protection from rapists and abusers and those children were not protected in any way.

For all you know there may well be a social services/police investigation taking place regarding their parents.

None of this, however, detracts from the fact grown men shouldn't be raping 12yr old girls.

Whichever way you dress this up it's wrong.
These Girls were 12 years old and the Men who raped them should have gotten life.
The decision stinks and the Judge has metaphorical blood on his hands.

No, it does not, Crack. The men are guilty and deserve much punishment.

But nowhere in these articles does it mention that the girls are recieving some form of concelling or help in any way. And although this judge seems to think it's perfectly fine that this girl wanted to do this, it is not. It seems obvious to me that she got into the situation intending to go to the police in order to make a cry for help that couldn't be ignored. In the case of someone this damaged, a cry for help should be heard, not ignored.

Had these men been decent human beings, they two would have seen this and it would not have happened. But after it did, everyone could clearly see it. Surely.

Life, organic? Really?

Frankly the men should have received much longer sentences than 2 yrs. However, the old "she looked 16" and was "well up for it" means more to judges than the fact the girls were children and had no real idea to what they were consenting.

It does sound like it, doesn't it? Which is, if you ask me, what is so shocking about this. We all know there's some sick people out there. We all know that gang rape happens. And we hope that if caught they are punished. But the judges attitude and that the original 2 years was considered too harsh is just disturbing.

I think someone said 4-7 years is the normal recommended for this crime? So two years was harsh given that the 12 year olds were well up for it, and how could these 6 men possibly be expected to keep it in their pants when someone is offering it? How has the world come this, you must ask.

So what do those who are talking about the parents suggest happens to them? Are they put in the dock alongside the rapists? Are they as complicit in the rape of those girls as the men who raped them?

They might be appallingly negligent parents who have failed in each and every duty of care: they still aren't responsible for what happened in that park.