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+.

Of course they got it wrong. So far as I see it;

On the night, they spoke to her and wrongly assessed that they should have no concerns about her age.

In this course of proceedings, it appears they have confirmed "Yes we met her on the night, yes we wrongly assessed her to significantly older than she was".

I'm not sure why you're saying "well they would say that". Do you mean that they would say it because it was the truth? If not, why do you think they are saying it?

Mousse

Can I ask how you would identify a rapist?

Moussemouse - I agree with you. All I can say, is that those professionals with a duty to assess her would be guided by the welfare criteria contained in S1(3). of the Children Act 1989. here Paying for it all ? - God only knows.

Sorry Stealth - I meant assess not access.

Yoshimihere - Its a Scottish case but I would have thought it will make it to the Judiciary website soon.

cadnowyllt

Can I ask how you would identify a rapist?

Obviously Cadnowyllt, Mousse, and NoWin can identify on appearance a person who is above the age of consent.

Can they identify a rapist?

I frankly have no idea what you're even blathering about. You seem to like talking in vague innuendo and suggestion.

You seem to be alluding to some sort of conspiracy or cover up on behalf of the police. I'm simply asking you to provide some detail as to how you understand this potential cover up has taken place, but you're asking me how to identify rapists? Bizarre.

I'm not alluding to a conspiracy or cover up.

Now answer the question.

Can you identify a rapist when you see one?

Obviously, you NoWin will obfuscate till your heart's content about what is identifying as a rapist. Instead of answering the question, you will blather on.

On appearance NoWin can you identify a person who is the age of consent?

I also threw doubt on the "evidence" of the police not immediately noting she was way too young to be drunk on the streets in the early hours

No conspiracy here, either

I just think it is being used to mitigate what a rapist did and I object to it.

And if you could identify a person who is sixteen on appearance would that be your objective opinion? Or is there a set of guidelines on what a sixteen year old should look like?

Of course the police officers are going to agree that the girl was older than she really was.

All the police agreed she was sixteen. They would do that, wouldn't they?
I'm just trying to find out what you actually mean. Either you're saying they would say it because it's what they truthfully believed, or you're suggesting they are lying for some reason, what is it?

I'll answer your question with a big, obvious 'no of course I don't know how to identify a rapist'. The reason i hadnt answered first is because you askes it where you were (and are) continuing to avoid answeing my question.

All the police agreed she was sixteen. They would do that, wouldn't they?
That doesn't suggest they are lying or covering up? If not then what does it mean?

Sorry NoWin, xposted with you

I think that going on what later happened (a 12yo child was raped) the police are going to stick with their assertion that she "looked 16" aren't they

I mean, there are no negative consequences to doing that for them, are there ?

And no one is denying that she "looked 16" actually

No answer to the question then?

How disappointing. I would have thought that you were actually interested in the child of 12 who was raped. Seems to me you are not.

Elendon Could you rephrase your question. I don't understand what you mean. I think others are having the same difficulty.

Yes exactly AF. No one is denying she looked sixteen at all. In fact one witness, whose testimony was taken into account in giving the sentence, thought she looked 20.

funnylikeaclown
No problem! It's appreciated.

If people want to criticize the judgment, or call for legal reform, fine. But making vague inuendo of conspiracy, then refusing to answer when asked what you actually mean (and instead responding with an unrelated, seemingly rhetorical question) is Trumpesque and does nothing to aide a genuine discussion.

And Elendon, i answered your first question, it's just that you've now asked a second question while you continue to avoid asking mine.

Sorry, answering mine.

NoWin, no problem
Like you I don't understand the style of posting where you make an allusion to something but refuse to back it up and simply throw an unanswerable question in. Trumpesque indeed and very disappointing on such a serious topic

I've just asked my 15 year old son if he could tell the difference between a 16 year old and a 12 year old. He said he would know if they were 12, but might have difficulty discerning between a 15, 16 and 17 year old.

He's 15 and understood the question. (He's been to his dad's this weekend).

Also he said that the only way to identify a rapist is by their biological sex, i.e. male.