Man walks free from court after statutory rape

[AssassinatedBeauty]

Saw this news case today, and am not sure what I think:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

I feel that it gives the message that it's ok for men not to worry about the age of girls/women they have sex with if they have reasonable grounds to believe they're 16+.

At 11.30 they were in McDonald's on princes street. The police spoke to them in the street i think. There are underage drinking spots in every city. I know glasgow better than Edinburgh but I'm thinking princes street gardens is a possibility though there are lots of closes and steps round about too.

Seemingly in McDoanalds and/or on the streets. There's no suggestion they had been in a bar or nightclub.

I think some posters have got confused with the plot of trainspotting.

I'm thinking princes street gardens is a possibility though there are lots of closes and steps round about too

I think the gardens are locked at night but the railings aren't high. The graveyard at St John's at the west end of Princes Street is probably accessible too.

At about 04:00, the girl and her friend met Cieslak and one of his friends in a taxi queue.
The victim said she was 16 and her friend was 17. The taxi driver later said he thought the girl was 20.
Cieslak then invited them to a party at his friend's house, where he had sex with the 12-year-old.

Posted too soon meant to say this bothers me.

At about 04:00, the girl and her friend met Cieslak and one of his friends in a taxi queue.
.
Cieslak then invited them to a party at his friend's house, where he had sex with the 12-year-old

It was unlikely to have been a party wasn't it? He was taking her back for sex.

I assumed a few friends were going on afterward, and these boys scooped the girls up with them.

Realistically, I know nothing about what teenagers do at 4am, the etiquette of ONS etc. Being a teen has moved on significantly since my day. I'll stop trying to understand and focus on teaching my boys not to have sex with people they do not know.

I'll stop trying to understand and focus on teaching my boys not to have sex with people they do not know

Why?? Intrinsically there's nothing wrong with two people meeting, having a good night and then having sex together(ONS).

Except that's not what happened here.

Intrinsically there's nothing wrong with two people meeting, having a good night and then having sex together

Sure - so long as you're an adult and accept responsibility for any consequences, same as you should if its not a ONS. A partner who turns out to be a child is unlikely but failed contraception isn't.

Focus on teaching my boys not to have sex with people they do not know

Yes, whyever not? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with the notion that, sure, sex can be fun but its likely to be better and safer for both partners if the context is one of - forget the word 'love', that can mean anything or nothing - trust and affection?

Jean Hatchett; ''Men viewing children as fuckable doesn't mean the children look like adults.''

After Ched Evans and Brock Turner its still ok for men to have sex with drunk strangers.

I think it's ok for anybody to have sex with drunk strangers. It's only a problem if said drunk strangers don't want to have said sex. The drunkenness/stranger status of the 12yo child isn't the issue in this case.

People can have sex with drunk strangers if course. But you have to accept the risk. And in addition to the risk of pregnancy and STDs, which hopefully people consider, they should also be considering, particularly when the drunk stranger tells them that they are 16, that they might be being lied to, and the person they are about to have sex with is under the age of consent. So you can make the choice to trust the word of the drunk stranger, or you can decide not to risk it. In the same way that I wouldn't have much sympathy with a man who chooses not to organise his own contraception and rely not the word of someone he doesn't know, I don't have much sympathy for someone who made a decision to trust the word of a drunk stranger who said she was just the age of consent. Giving people a get out of jail free card for poor decisions does not encourage people to make more considered ones.

People can have as much sex with strangers as they want, but they need to mitigate against the risks.

I agree madonna

I've said exactly thay before. The consensus seems to be that men are entitled to have sex and that if she looks over x age then they are absolved of responsibility.

StealthPolarBear Thankfully, you don't make the laws in this country either.

Quite. We couldn't have men assuming personal responsibility, where would it all end?

In an injustice.

As far as I understand it, Stealth is mainly advocating for the actual law to be applied, you know, the one currently on the statute books, the one which says that having sex with an under 13 year old is a strict liability offence (i.e. it doesn't matter what the man's state of belief is, the material fact that the girl actually was under 13 is enough to make it an offence), the one to which the man in this case pleaded guilty, because it seems that he did understand the meaning of strict liability even if you don't, Cadno. Where's the injustice there?

Exactly. The law was applied. The man admitted guilt. The people who want to make new laws are the ones who want to remove or lower the age at which a child can be considered legally able to give consent, which is the only way he could have had a defence. I haven't heard many posters say they want to completely remove that age limit, nor suggest a lower one. But that is the only way this man could have avoided conviction.

M0stly Yes I agree with that. He pleaded guilty and on that basis he was convicted. In mitigation, he said that it was his belief that the child was over the age of consent. The Court had before it other evidence that such a belief was reasonably held and for that reason he was given an absolute discharge.

The actual law was applied. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between conviction and sentence. A custodial sentence would have been unjust. The conviction was safe and just.

I am not confused between conviction and sentencing. There was no way of him avoiding a conviction, and I do not think he should have been given an absolute discharge. But the two threads on this are full of people who think he should not have been convicted. Which would require a change in the law.

Again i agree with you madonna

Put yourself in the place of the judge then, what would your sentence have been and why.