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...

Lisa, No one who is 12 looks 16. I have never seen anyone in my life who really did. I've heard many claim that they did, and then when you see a picture of them when they were younger, they never look older than they are. Just more "developed", but even then there are obvious signs that you don't need to be a master of body language or biology to see.

I think that was a spelling mistake, Pootles. Am I right Lisa? It should have said "Deceived"?

The other thing I'd point out with regards to them thinking they were older - these men we quite young, late teens i think, so they're not long out of school, they remember what 12 yr old girls look like, they're not daft.

I think you're right TAB, a rather unfortunate spelling mistake though!

The judge in the original case gave them two years. The appeal judge cut this to one year suspended.

These sentences are derisory

Section 5, Sexual Offences Act 2003:

(1) A person commits an offence if?

 (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and

 (b) the other person is under 13.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

That would make more sense!

Also, can we stop using the phrase "statutory rape"? It gives the impression of American 17 year-olds being banged up for being caught at it on the backseat of their car. There is no such thing as statutory rape in English law.

This is simply RAPE.

lisad - you are saying that sex with a 12 yr old is alright. After all you say:
They weren't forced into it
They deceived those poor little men who just couldn't see that they were so young and who couldn't say no.
You know girls who have had children very young, implying that it is regular and therefore OK.
12yr olds can look 16? Really?

Where in that does it say that you think that it isn't OK for these men to have sex with them? You can say it isn't OK but your arguments belie that.

Would you be happy for your 12 yr old daughter to have been in this position?

Of course I ask everyone I sleep with how old they are. What a ridiculous question! And at 20 I wouldn't have been looking at 12 yr olds (or 16 yr olds either).

Oh and it is more than a "sad fact" it is bloody illegal what those men did and the onus was on them not to do it.

Sorry malinois. I didn't want to use the wrong term and have to have the post deleted. (got it wrong anyway!)

Completely sickened by this too. Anyone who imagines that these young girls were anything other than vulnerable are under a serious misapprehension - a twelve year old girl who is sexually experienced has been miserably failed somewhere along the line.

And the fact that these 'men' imagine that this was an acceptable situation with women of any age just makes my jaw drop!

Have they been placed on the Sex Offenders Register?

stretch no worries.

It's an American term that has crept into English usage from books and films etc. It causes a lot of confusion because people don't agree on it's meaning - some will use it to describe sex with a child under 16 (which, as long as it was consenting, is not rape under English law), and some people use it to describe sex with a child under 13 - which is automatically rape as the law does not deem an child under the age of 13 to be able to consent to sex.

Lisa - are you really saying that these girls deserved to be with these men? Am I reading that right? That they deserved to be raped?

Actually, that is a point HandDived. I can tell you the age of every single person I have slept with.

If a 13-16 year old can give consent, what is it under UK law? I thought under 16 is against the law?

I'm not defending the decision (which worries me deeply on many levels: I though the whole point of our law was to protect children, including from themselves when earlier mistreatment had left them sexually messed-up) but beware of accepting a precis in a newspaper or online story at face value-court reporting can be shockingly misleading as to the real tenor of what was said. I'll see if the transcript is on bailli and cut adn paste anything that sheds light on why this went the way it did.

Atomic - section 9 Sexual Activity with a Child. 6 months on summary conviction or 14 years on indictment.

Obviously if no consent, then it would be rape.

There are also some other offences if either both parties were under 16, or one party was over 16 and the other was over 16 but under 18 at the time.

The whole Act is here if you are interested.

Absolutely unbelievable. This is like the case in Cleveland in which an 11 year-old was gang raped by eighteen boys/men - only for the New York Times to report that she wore make-up, hung out with older boys, and looked older. As if that justified any of it.

And I totally agree with the posters above - whyyyyyyy does nobody point out that men aren't, in fact, led by their dicks? I'm astonished that men, so rabid when it comes to any 'feminist' critique of their behaviour, should accept this awful stereotype.

I should point out that no-one in the Cleveland case seemed particularly fussed about establishing the victim's allegations as untrue - rather, it was all along the lines of 'it probably did happen, but it's not really rape because she wants it really, as evidenced by her make-up'.

Seems that the same is happening here - as long as rapists admit the sex took place, they'll get off. Because even a CHILD, and the actions of that CHILD, can be twisted to fit rape myths. No-one should be subject to rape myths, of course, no-one, not a fully-grown woman or an OAP or a man, but you'd think, wouldn't you, that a goddam child would be the one figure where judges and juries and reporters and the public would go 'woah there? A child wants sex? A child entices a man? A child is more responsible than that man for ensuring her safety? Fuck off with your nonsense, there's a love'. But no - they lap it up!

Makes me sick.

From mid-day, an American (?) newspaper

"They were said to have been shocked and disgusted to learn the true ages of the girls, with one stating: "I've got a little sister about that age.""

Yuk and

Sorry, not American, Indian, I think?

That's interesting Mal. So, the arguement of this Judge that the men could not reasonably know the age of the girls is not an issue if under, but it is the same crime if they knew they were 13, if I'm reasing it correctly?

Atomic - I guess so, but without reading the decision we don't know. I've just looked on BAILII and it doesn't seem that it has been published yet.

The judges didn't overturn the convictions, they only ruled that the sentences were disproportionate.

The sentencing guidelines suggest 10 years as a starting point for rape of a child under 13.

They should be in jail IMO. Not a life sentence but they should definately have got a couple of years.

I am sure the fans (even the ones of their own club) will give them a lot of abuse for the rest of their careers.

I'm appalled. I'm not sure how any different spin could make it less awful either. Sure, there may be elements we don't know about, but:

6 men, 2 girls. Even if they were 16 there would be something very, very off with this scenario. In what world would it be ok even for two 16-year-olds to have gang-bang sex with 6 lads? Would anyone honestly try to interpret that as done willingly and with no history of abuse? At the age of 16? Really? Plenty of willing teenage sex going on I know, but don't think many of them would be up for a gangbang.

Also, I agree with the other posters who say you can tell that a 12-year-old is underage, even if she looks older. And anyway, what are the odds of both these girls being very advanced for their age? And even if they did look 16 they would still look young enough for any reasonable man to ask about her age and just check.

This is terrible.

We also need to remember that our senior judges are overwhelmingly public school educated, Oxbridge, upper middle class, white middle aged men. If you want to see what the patriarchy looks like, take a look at our senior judiciary.

Luckily, more and more women are joining the Bar, so we have lots of public school educated, Oxbridge, upper middle class, white, middle aged female judges to look forward to.

I'm sure this will be a huge improvement.

Malinos, are you saying that public school educated, Oxbridge, upper middle class, white middle aged men are generally quite acceptant of gang bangs involving 2 x 12 year old girls?