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+.

It was the GP who discharged her legal obligation when faced with s potentially pregnant 12 year old and contacted the police.

I've been reminded of the last time there was a big fuss in the press about a pregnant sexually precocious 12 year old from the east of Scotland. She was called for all sorts.

Was several years before she felt brace enough to admit her older brother and raise her and got her pregnant.

Flipping hell the typos in that...

Yes, Tressa Middleton she was called. She was so judged at the time, and only later told what had really happened. She grew up in care, and recently wrote a book for her daughter about her experiences.

So, reading between the lines, he had sex with a stranger he thought to be 4 years younger without protection? Hardly the behaviour of a decent human being, is it?

I wonder if she was put under any pressure to say that she was not distressed/willingly consented. I wonder how well she actually remembers the incident. I feel like we are essentially just taking his word for it that she actively consented.

And I hope she is getting the help and support she needs.

That's her ninon.

Hardly the behaviour of a decent human being, is it?

Quite. It begs the question of whether she was actually asked for consent, whether she really understood what that meant, and whether he specifically had consent for unprotected sex.

Lady. You would save the MoJ a bucket full of dosh if you were in charges of trials. Dispense with witnesses altogether and make up your own of versions of events. Bob's your cis-uncle. Ker...chink!

Its come to something when we, as a society, from judges to teenagers to internet commentators think its quite possible for a 12 year old to be happily picking guys up in taxi queues at 4 am.

Kids are being groomed by society as a whole. Then any opportunist has half his work done for him.

I agree very strongly that there is an element of risk to any sex. Some circumstances are riskier than others. Women have known this forever - pregnancy, dishonour, incarceration, death, whatever your time and place throws at you. Its time men knew this too.

cadnowyllt We're pretty much having the sentencing hearing right here on this thread, but based on supposition & conjecture, and with a pinch of moralising about how "decent" human beings apparently don't have unprotected sex with strangers.

Dunno about decent

I would say that only complete fuckwits have unprotected sex with strangers

moralising about how "decent" human beings apparently don't have unprotected sex with strangers.

Do you think having unprotected sex with strangers is ethical?

Accurate adjective, Rufus.

LadyLance and Ninon I concur entirely. We're told it's "sensible" to advise women to alter behaviour/limit ourselves to "avoid" being raped (not that this helps, plus this essentially amounts to saying 'make sure someone else is raped' even if it did) yet we apparently have to accept as perfectly reasonable for men to target girls who look like they could pass for above the age of consent (so adult males going for teenage girls of 16/17) and that we should excuse or even pity them if it turns out the girl was below 16. Heaven forbid we should expect men to perhaps just not have sex with a girl who may, at best, possibly be 16.

It's super depressing that people look at this case and think we need to change the law to protect men like this. Advocating a change in the law so men who rape little girls don't get prosecuted.

Fuck every single person who thinks that, and fuck all of your bizarre scenarios.

Bob's your cis-uncle

What gobbledygook is this ?

he wasn't subject to a trial
There was a trial last month. The media reports don't say if he was cross-examined, but cross-examination usually focusses on 'facts' that aren't agrees by the parties.

The sentencing statement refers to the agreed facts between the parties. We don't know the scope of those agreed facts, but the impression I get (and it is just an impression) from the statement and the briefness of the reports about the trial, is that there wasn't a significant factual dispute. Alternatively, if there was a factual dispute, the judge could have ruled in his favour (I'm not familiar with these types of proceedings, or Scottish law, but I'd expect some sort of mention in the Statement or media articles if that is what happened).

There was not a trial.

He pled guilty. You don't hold trials if the accused pleads guilty (of course accused sometimes change their plea mid trial- there is no suggestion that happened here)

There is no cross examination as witnesses appear either for the prosecution or the defence. He will have appeared in court to enter a plea.

If the accused pleads guilty the sheriff or judge can sentence there and then. They would not do so as the court would want background reports.

At the sentencing diet his advocate can enter a plea in mitigation for sentencing. The Crown can ask for a proof on the mitigation but don't have to - no suggestion they did so here.

There is no cross examination as no witnesses appear either for the prosecution or the defence.

Wow some people are just making up their own stories now.

The press referred to it as a trial, but maybe it was just a hearing? The one on or around Feb 17?

There's a lot of it about holowiwi - ask any victim

I think you're right sorry, was looking at the Scottish Sun report, where they said the prosecutor a 'told a trial...', but I guess they've probably fudged their terminology.

I don't know....I would view asking a victim what happend different from a random group of people on the Internet deciding they have an idea of what really happened wouldn't you?

The case did not go trial. He pled guilty. No one will have given evidence on oath in court.