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+.

Any brush with the criminal justice system puts the shits up people - and of course he doesn't want to admit that he was driving a child to a destination where she will be raped and did nothing about it

I am not connected with the taxi driver in any way but you are talking nonsense here.

I find it very hard to believe the accused did not realise she was younger. I find it hard to believe the police having found the missing girl they were looking for, who was with the victim, did not cotton on to the fact the victim was probably in the same age bracket.

charlestrenet - in this instance, they were specifically there to take children, who were too young to be out, home, and that's what they were in fact doing. A conspiracy or cover-up of deliberately not doing their job is plausible, but I don't know that it's likely, or that there's evidence to support it.

No they were specifically there looking one child who had been reported missing. If there were two of them on a busy weekend (?) night in the city I can understand why they didn't suddenly want to stay investigating a large group of teens and checking their ID and bundling all the under age ones up. They're only human and they ballsed up but their focus was on the missing person and ther is only so much they can do. I'm sure they will be looking internally at what happened.

My actual issue apart from all the women in here who think it's fine to rape a 12 year old if you're very sorry and can say you didn't know and it's her fault for being there in front of your penis anyway is the sentencing comments from the judge.

The police were looking for a specific underage girl. So I can fully believe they employed a form of selective deaf/blindness about all the other underage kids they came across on that particular, and every other, shift.

Otherwise, they would never get anything done. I am generally supportive of the police but I am a realist. They publically fucked up on this occasion, but there will be many other similar instances of them having to be selective about who they nick due to time/resource restraints.

If you are an adult and want to take the risk then be willing to accept the consequences.

The account I read of the role of the police is that they were the regular patrol looking for (rounding up and sending home) the underage. And that there was a 12 year old reported missing that night so they were being particularly attentive.

Though of course the possibilities of incompetence (somewhat mitigated by the other evidedence including CCTV) or perjury still exist.

FACT: men like having ex with children, in particular female children- look at porn, look at child sexual abuse statistics, watch the curb crawlers eyeing the girls going home from school.
No girl is ever considered too young, and when girls are raped they are blamed for it. As in this case. Men have failed this girl- the man who raped her because he couldn't care less how old she was, otherwise he would have taken the time to find out more about her, and the men who are jeering at this on Facebook and twitter, and on here. Women too have failed her by not sticking up for her. The only victim here is the 12 year old child. Perhaps the perpetrator burst into tears when he learned her true age out of fear for the consequences to his own life.

Sex, not ex ffs!

Orchid In the world of casual hookups it's not that normal to meet a girl off the street in the early hours and have sex with her at someone's house shortly afterwards.

Generally people meet in a bar/club/party and go home together. They do have a bit of time to assess the other person. If they don't and end up on the wrong side of the law, who's fault is that?

It's a pretty extreme idea that all teenagers who have what is considered a normal sex life these days should just accept the fact that if they happen to be unlucky they could end up as a sex offender

It's not extreme it's just a fact. If you're over 16 you have to be careful about having sex with someone underage. If you're not mature enough to grasp the law then you're not mature enough to be having sex. The same goes for the laws of consent.

AF speaks total sense.

He was wrong. He was maybe 'unlucky' in that she said she was 16/looked 16 etc but tough - he'd just met her and he took the chance she was what she appeared as he wanted sex more than he wanted to be sure/safe - he didn't even know her!

as for words like 'enticed' / 'crawl back in'. Vomit making.

and PoliceScotland have not been covering themselves in glory in general recently, although these particular coppers might have been acting appropriately it is hard to tell. I do feel though that if they found the 12 year old they were looking for in the same group of very young people out at 4am, drinking, they might have taken more information/care about this girl in particular.
She is 12. She is vulnerable.
Parents, 19 year old, Police - no one is 'stepping in' to help/save her.

To what extent are the mistakes in assessment of age related to the volume of sexualised images of teenage girls - maybe over 16, maybe some look old for their age but some deliberately young looking? I doubt this can help people, especially those of a dissimilar age, to make an accurate guess.

jeanhatchet.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/a-childhood-defined-by-appearance.html?m=1

This is excellent

What bothers me most about this thread is the total lack of a sense of proportion regarding this specific case, total lack of any acceptance that it was unusual and the the sentence reflected that.

No. The man is a liar and just wanted sex and didn't care how old the child was. The Police are liars and incompetent. The Judge is biased. Constant re-use of pornified phrases 'sticking his dick in a child' 'fucking a child' to try to bludgeon any dissent.

I have not seen any 'argument' on either thread to persuade me against my belief that this was a sensible humane judgement. Harsh sentences, need to be reserved for those who deliberately prey on children for sex.

There is no evidence that that was the case here and posters trying to manufacture that evidence out of the air are not helping the campaign to protect children from paedophiles one bit.

.

That it is not unusual is precisely one of the key points of thread, if you bothered to read it.

I can't tell if you are horribly naive or just dumb funnylikeaclown.

The idea that jail sentences should be reserved for those who intentionally rather than accidentally 'prey on children' basically means that children are not safe, and that 11/12 year olds in particular are highly vulnerable.

There seems to be no awareness that it's standard for men to swear they thought a girl was over 16 even while hoping or knowing she's not.

That men who specifically target under 13 year olds are bound to say they thought they were older due to the law.

Errol there was a similar discussion about judging age by appearance in relation to the refugees in the Jungle in Calais.

There were those who were convinced they knew by looking at a photo and those who said it's really not as simple as that. The doctors, social workers, immigration officials etc who explain the complexities were dismissed.

You can not judge age by normal standards in extreme situations.

That this man just wanted sex there and then is unarguable. He got it.

If the police genuinely didn't notice she was so young, which I think is quite possible, doesn't say much for their skills given that they were specifically looking for girls her age. Are you arguing this as a good piece of policework?

The judge was 'humane' to whom? Other than the defendant? How is this a sensible or indeed compassionate sentence for the protection of children?

Interesting point Errol as there was another case concerning an eleven year old where the defendant claimed he thought she was older, and the judge agreed, based on the fact that she was wearing makeup and sexualised clothing.

Thinking a girl is older is usually justified on those grounds.

Men tend to make broad brush stereotypical assumptions - breasts, sexualised clothing, high heels, makeup = old enough.

If lots of children look like adults it is still up to adults to be 100% sure they are having sex with adults and not children that look like adults. I'm not losing sleep over the restrictions on adults' sexual freedom it would cause for adults to choose not to have sex with '16' year olds they've just met in a taxi queue.

As with any thread about consent it is always about the poor innocent men and their ruined lives and the devious women, or in this case, child that have put these poor lads in such a terrible situation. I wonder how she'll feel about her consent when she's older and has an adult understanding of consent.

If lots of children look like adults it is still up to adults to be 100% sure they are having sex with adults and not children that look like adults. I'm not losing sleep over the restrictions on adults' sexual freedom it would cause for adults to choose not to have sex with '16' year olds they've just met in a taxi queue.

Yes, exactly this. We accept that the onus is on shopkeepers to ensure they are not selling alcohol to U18s, even if that means they have to check the ID of young-looking 20-somethings or above. And 'Oh but he/she looked over 18' will not cut any ice with the magistrates if the sales assistant or corner shop owner is caught by trading standards and threatened with losing their licences.

Yet when it involves penises, suddenly that same calculation of 'can I be 100% sure that this person is old enough for this transaction?' is somehow too complex for blokes to carry out.

Constant re-use of pornified phrases 'sticking his dick in a child' 'fucking a child'

I flinch too with the blunt descriptions and shock language. Because we're not talking about adult consent issues or casual sex. These are graphic descriptions in relation to a 12 year old child.

Not sure I'd speak like this about a real life child but talking about casual sex between a 19 year old and a 12 year old should be uncomfortable and shocking.

Orchid In the world of casual hookups it's not that normal to meet a girl off the street in the early hours and have sex with her at someone's house shortly afterwards.

Sorry but this is nonsense. It's very common for people to hook up in the street. I've seen it happening. Young people pour out of the local bars/clubs in the small hours, hang around at bus stops etc waiting for their transport to arrive, get chatting to others waiting at the same stop and often pair off and go home together, or invite each other to an after party at a mate's house. If you think that's unusual you need to get out more.

Generally people meet in a bar/club/party and go home together. They do have a bit of time to assess the other person. If they don't and end up on the wrong side of the law, who's fault is that?

People who meet in a bar or club frequently start snogging before any conversation has even taken place. You need look no further than posters earlier in this thread for examples. Going home to have sex straight afterwards isn't uncommon either. The taxi ride will usually be used for other things than talking. Are you saying all the millions of young men and women doing this are being negligent?

If lots of children look like adults it is still up to adults to be 100% sure they are having sex with adults

And yet not one single person has explained how it's possible to be 100% sure. Perhaps you could suggest a foolproof method?

As for shopkeepers selling booze:
a) We don't require them to be "100% sure", we require them to check ID if the person looks under 25. If they're shown fake ID (which happens all the time) the shopkeeper is not culpable.
b) More importantly, a shopkeeper who fails to check ID isn't going to be sent to jail ffs. At most they'll get a fine and lose their license. If you want to give this young man a £1,000 penalty for failure to check the girl's ID, then fine. It's the baying for jail time and branding him a rapist that people are disagreeing with.

Maybe if children end up being raped our attitude and practices need to change? What is more important? A casual sexual thrill or the safety of our children? Is casual sex a healthy activity? Not just because a child could end up being raped but for other reasons too- I had several ons when I was young. None of those experiences was fulfilling and at least one of them left me feeling filthy. I could have done without those experiences quite happily. How much do women get out of casual sex?

And yet not one single person has explained how it's possible to be 100% sure. Perhaps you could suggest a foolproof method?

That's the whole point, but you know that anyway. Clearly it's your view that men should not be expected to show caution or reserve when it comes to 'hook up' sex because it's acceptable collateral damage for the occasional 12 yr old to be raped so they can indulge in high risk sexual exploits without worrying about whether the girl/women they hook up with is actually above the age of consent, never mind they could even be younger than 13.

High risk sexual endeavour = risk of STDs, unplanned pregnancy, physical danger from someone you don't know (assault/robbery/worse) and the possibility the person you hook up with is actually a child not old enough to consent & you end up a convicted rapist. Known risks, particularly in light of this case.

Anyone who wants to indulge in high risk sexual exploits should at the very least be capable of knowing and understanding the implications of the risks involved, accepting any one of those outcomes is a possibility. The ' but she looked older' excuse is wearing a bit thin IMO.