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+.

Slightly off topic but I've never seen what someone's 'previous good character' has to do with ANYTHING

Of course it does, it means the probability it was genuine mistake is higher. If some has done it many times before its much more likely deliberate and not a mistake.

What age are you Orchids?

Emotional attachments are exactly what teenagers do! Good grief, can you not even remember? Are you that old?

Elendon I'm 48 and I genuinely have no clue what you're on about. Of course teenagers do emotional attachments. When did I say otherwise? If my last post wasn't clear, it was in reply to Errol and was specifically to do with whether casual hook ups in general are bad thing or whether it would be a big change to outlaw them.

Charles
So the defence bundles these clowns into court, all with their own agenda, and enters a plea that they know will cut the possibility of a full hearing and hopes that they get a judge who is all about the mens (not exactly a gamble) and hey presto ... not only has this child been failed by everyone in her life so far that led her to being at that taxi rank, but even the justice system doesn't protect her bodily integrity.

I agree.

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.

Anyone hooking up with a young girl randomly at a taxi rank is already doing something extreme - some people in society dulled into just thinking of it as a "norm", does not make it a wise thing to do. It cannot follow that because someone wants to consider it normal now days, they can refuse to accept the consequence that they might end up raping a young girl lying about her age.

In his autobiography, Keith Richards said he sent underage groupies away. They would have all tried to look as old as they could. (Obviously, plenty became the prey of pop stars in general.) Going way back to the 1960s vulnerable teenagers have tried to look older, and have appeared to be very consensual about wanting sex. That cannot be an excuse for treating them as though they really are older, or that they really know what they are consenting to.

"Genuine mistake", or "genuine not really caring enough to check or not to have sex given that he couldn't be certain"?

Mind you there was plenty of sex going on in the office I worked in. In the end you had to have a special key to go to the stationery cupboard.

Well I think it's really desperate and depressing, Orchids, and it's not standard behaviour. I know it goes on, but it's not the norm, and if you think it is, then your idea of normal is warped. Just as going out with a 21 year old when at 12 isn't normal either.

Never seen anyone have sex at a bus stop in London, ever. Lived here all my life. Parties, yes, people do it in cars or parks at night, but bus stops is just skeezy and naive. There are too many people around & you'll end up with a public decency offence.

Anyone hooking up with a young girl randomly at a taxi rank is already doing something extreme - some people in society dulled into just thinking of it as a "norm", does not make it a wise thing to do. It cannot follow that because someone wants to consider it normal now days, they can refuse to accept the consequence that they might end up raping a young girl lying about her age

Yep.

I do think would be a pretty big shift to say people are no longer legally allowed to indulge in casual hook ups.

But no-one is actually saying that. They're saying people should take a bit more care, or accept that there will be consequences if they get it wrong.

Anyone hooking up with a young girl randomly at a taxi rank is already doing something extreme

This.

I do think would be a pretty big shift to say people are no longer legally allowed to indulge in casual hook ups.

One of the consequences of shagging in the stationery cupboard at work was that one of those couples caught were fired. They were professionals as well. Mind you, of the other couple I heard of, who were caught at it by the cleaner, the man, a partner was kept on. She was told to go.

Well put, KindDogsTail

I lived in Zone 2 in London for 8 years, five of which were when I was when I was socialising and out late. I never encountered sex in a bus stop.

Similarly I've always lived in Zone 3 and have never encountered sex at a bus stop either, involving people of any age, let alone "young teenagers". I've also never heard of a "young teenager" or anyone I know meeting someone unknown to them on the street and going off to have sex with them straight away. Not sure what world anyone suggesting this is common practice is living in.

I also expect most men who encountered a girl who claimed to be 16 in the early hours at a taxi rank would be more concerned that she gets home safely than preoccupied with gambling that she may be over 16 and getting her to go and have sex with them.

"Of course it does, it means the probability it was genuine mistake is higher. If some has done it many times before its much more likely deliberate and not a mistake."

1 I am struggling to think how ANY adult compos mentis can commit a crime 'by mistake'.

2 every criminal has a first time committing crime - until then they're all of 'previous good character'

3 if someone has committed crimes many times before but not been caught/convicted they can still in a court be said to be 'of previous good character'.

It's a meaningless phrase meant to give the impression that a CRIMINAL is a basically good person in order to hopefully get a lighter conviction/sentence.

Maybe Londoners are all much more restrained than folks down here in Sussex, Nancy. Or folks in Cornwall, for that matter...
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shameless-couple-caught-having-sex-8960356

I never said having sex at a bus stop is normal. I said it sometimes happens. Because it does. You seem unfazed by sex in cars and parks so perhaps that's the London way.

Meeting someone at a bus stop, or outside a bar after closing time, or on a train on the way home, and proceeding to hook up with them for a ONS, is commonplace. From a quick mental tally, at least half of my circle of friends at school did this at least once during our A level years. And we weren't even considered a particularly wild crowd. Amongst the parents at both DCs schools, there have been several conversations about the older teens engaging in similar encounters. Sorry but anyone who thinks this is rare is either very naive or very disingenuous.

That link is not secure.

Please do not go onto the link that Orchid provided. It is not secure.

OrchidsAndLace teenagers meeting someone they've never met before out on the street and going off to have a one night stand with them is rare. I have never heard of anyone I know doing this. At a house party or some such is a completely different matter.

Seems like there is a case for raising the age of consent?

Whilst I agree this girls parents seem to be asleep at the wheel when it comes to parenting, but what about the 19 year olds? I'm a man and I didn't behave that way at that age and if my son did I would personally feel I had failed as a parent. If he was my son he may have escaped jail but he'd be getting a fucking earful from me...

I'm inclined to think that someone 'of good character' who can generally behave in a civilized manner has no excuse whatever for appalling behaviour (eg clergy who were doubtless of extraordinarily 'good character')

Dervel quite. As I've said earlier in this thread, most men would be appalled by the man in question in this case and those defending him actually have quite a low opinion of men in general.

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.
The sentencing statement says they were looking for the particular girl and others that were too young to be out, so not solely the particular 12 year old.

I do accept that it's possible that the police did suspect the victim was very young, but decided not to do anything about it, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I don't like to presume that their statements are false, particularly when making a legal analysis of the sentencing decision.

Realistically (and for better or worse), a judge in a criminal matter is going to rightly attach significant weight to the evidence of two police officers, particularly when it's undisputed in court, and there's a degree of corroborating evidence.

We don't have the evidence in front of us to make an assessment of its strength, all we have in terms of actual material to scrutinize is the facts established by the court and whether the sentencing statement properly applies the law to those facts. I believe it does, but that's open for debate (and that's what I'd understood the OP in this thread to be asking).

But Errol that is the consequence of what people are saying, i.e. that you need to be 100% sure the person is an adult. Not reasonably sure, but 100%. For example, if two 20 year olds met in a bar they would have to meet each other's families, or see each other's birth certificates, or ask each other's employers to verify age. Even going on a few dates before DTD wouldn't cut it because you couldn't be really sure from that.

It's really not difficult to be sure of someone's age after getting to know them a little. There is no way I could have a conversation with a 12 year old and not be able to work out pretty swiftly that they weren't 16.

Are posters really meaning to sound judgmental about consensual casual sex?