Appalling reporting by BBC of male child rapist who identified as a woman

[FemaleAndLearning]

Just that really. I find this report sloppy and insensitive to the victim who was groomed and abused. The court found him not guilty of rape, no information given, but guilty of penetrative sex with a child. I'm about to put a complaint in and hope some of you feel the same.

Mainly I'm upset by the phrase 'had sex with' as it diminishes the victims trauma. I know they are reporting what happened but it doesn't read right. The girl was pregnant by him at 14 and didn't think she had been abused.

Also this Leicestershire Police - who said the 25-year-old identified as a woman at the time of the offences - were not able to give a current gender identity
Keeping his options open for prison?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63785679

Can someone explain to my why this is not rape on all counts?

Isn't t it Leicester that has the transwoman police officer who is hassling Fair Cop?

But surely gender identity is innate, even babes in the womb have a sense of theirs, so what's this from Leicester police about a 'current gender identity?'

It's appalling transphobic and I hope they are sent off for re education.

The whole thing is making my blood boil.

I don't know the details of the trial beyond the article above, but there is a difference in law between sexual activity with a child under 13 and one over 13 which might, MIGHT explain why the rape accusations failed.

Sexual activity with a child

(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,
(c)penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or
(d)penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(3)Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

_

From the Act I read it that penetration 6 not with a penis (2a) therefore it isn't rape.

I’ve complained as well. I’d also like to know from Leics police whether this crime will be included within male or female crime statistics.

It could also be a question of consent, and whether the perp believed the victim gave consent at the time. (Though I'm not sure how the age difference plays into it).

From the article its obvious the victim didn't believe herself to be a victim at the time of the assault.

I do note the article does not use pronouns. Uses 'defendant', 'offender'. This is notable for the BBC who are usually keen to adhere to their 'house style'.

Further, I note that the child became pregnant as a result of one the attacks. That poor child, and her family.

The offender raped and impregnated a child. Whilst identifying as a woman. Horrific.

Penis-havers should take responsibility for their penises. Appalling. My thoughts on what should be done with them would probably break talk guidelines.

I used to work for social services & you'd be amazed at how many child rapes fail to even get to court. CPS demand so much evidence & if someone isn't considered a good witness they won't even take it to CPS. That's my experience anyway.

In this case the young person might have convinced the adult that they were older, this can be really tricky if they look older too.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11482001/Transgender-paedophile-25-identified-woman-groom-14-year-old-girl-got-pregnant.html

Article for the mail is slightly different. It states:

Orton was referred to as a male in court and was charged under that gender.

I also note the quote in both reports (though I think the mail one is slightly longer)

Detective Constable Sarah Le Boutillier, of Leicestershire Police, said: 'Orton used the victim's vulnerability for their own gain and not only groomed the victim, but also her parents who believed Orton was a genuine friend.

'Throughout our interviews, Orton refused to accept that there was any wrong doing and that they were in fact the victim. The claims were unfounded.

'This was a complex and lengthy investigation; the initial report was made to the police more than two years ago.

'The victim's parents refused to accept her initial explanations and persevered with their concerns.

'We are pleased the victim found the courage to eventually talk about what she had been through and recognised that she was a victim and that Orton's actions were not that of a friend.

'We hope the verdict and sentence now helps the victim to come to terms with what happened and try and put that time behind her, and also reassures her parents that they did the right thing by coming forward.

Which begs the question about whether Orton tried to use the transphobia card to escape prosecution.

I think its even worse if you consider that Orton was charged as a male, in court male pronouns were used and he has been sent to a male prison.

Though the mail article largely dodges pronouns too.

Horrific crimes
But as he was charged and tried seperately with rape AND penetrative sexual activity with a child I don't think the crimes are being minimised. As we know its very difficult to secure a conviction for rape, and the upshot here is that the man has received a 9 1/2 year sentence.
No pronouns are used in the article but I nobody could read it and be in any doubt about the sex of the criminal.
In fact if it was written simply as 'man sexually assualted vulnerable teenage girl' we would be missing an important part of the story wouldn't we. The police said that he groomed both the girl and the family- possibly part of that grooming was 'but I'm a woman, I'm harmless' well clearly not on both counts.
I think this report is OK.

He made a 14yo child become pregnant. How can it be anything other than rape? He groomed the child and her family, so there is absolutely no doubt that he knew she was under 16. How can rape be downgraded to sexual penetration when the victim is a child and is made pregnant as a result?

Sick

It’s disgusting, this is a man, not any type of woman, committing a very male crime of raping and impregnating a child.

I pay a mandatory licence fee for this disgusting reporting.

From the Act I read it that penetration 6 not with a penis (2a) therefore it isn't rape.

But the girl became pregnant, so that would suggest rape?

The standard of proof in a criminal case is high. Presumably the jury felt that there was proof of the charge of penetration, but not of rape although clearly sexual intercourse took place. The man got a significant sentence and discussion of the case has been useful.

But how can it not be rape, when the victim is a child?

The law makes a distinction between children under the age of 13 and those over 13 but under 16.

Perhaps we could use the terms “Person of penishood” to describe those with penises.

That way all this man/woman thing doesn’t come into it and we all know that a person with a penis did the raping.

Public toilets could have the same thing:

None of this old fashioned men/women or ladies/gents none sense.

Lets just have toilets for:

Persons with penis.
Persons without penis.

Simple!

Hopefully he will remain in a male prison unlike the Scottish male sex offender who after beating up a fellow prisoner in a male prison was then transferred to a female prison.