[Tom4784]

If someone cannot consent, it is rape, a failure in the system to recognise that doesn't change the facts.

[Nicky91]

gross


what sort of mother would do that

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

If someone cannot consent, it is rape, a failure in the system to recognise that doesn't change the facts.

The facts say you are wrong

[arista]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

gross


what sort of mother would do that

Paedophile Mother

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by arista

Paedophile Mother

well this woman needs some serious mental help, she's really sick in her head (as we dutch call it)


those 3 children are better off in a foster home, with better parents than with this idiot of a paedo woman

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

The facts say you are wrong

Nope. If someone cannot consent to sex, it is rape. Are you saying that non-consensual sex ISN'T rape, Sheriff?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

well this woman needs some serious mental help, she's really sick in her head (as we dutch call it)


those 3 children are better off in a foster home, with better parents than with this idiot of a paedo woman

This why its sad case
for those 3 kids


Maybe the Husband can help?

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Nope. If someone cannot consent to sex, it is rape. Are you saying that non-consensual sex ISN'T rape, Sheriff?

Clearly in this case the boy consented otherwise it would of been rape

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Clearly in this case the boy consented otherwise it would of been rape

The boy is under the age of 16, and thus he does not have the legal capacity to consent to sex. Nonconsensual sex = rape, and the failure of the court to classify it as such does not change that.

Would you be so quick to downplay the rapist's actions if the genders were reversed?

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by arista

This why its sad case
for those 3 kids


Maybe the Husband can help?

where is he in all this anyway?

how did he not know, was he busy working when she did this

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

She was not convicted of rape but sexual activity with a child, the law is complex and getting the wording wrong on what someone is charged with can mean the difference between a conviction and being acquitted.

Because of how rape is legally defined in the UK (forcible penetration with penis) women cannot be charged with any sort of rape, only various degrees of sexual assault. That’s purely down to the definition in law, and has nothing to do with the morality of what happened.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Because of how rape is legally defined in the UK (forcible penetration with penis) women cannot be charged with any sort of rape, only various degrees of sexual assault. That’s purely down to the definition in law, and has nothing to do with the morality of what happened.

Yes as he is just 14 years old
I am leaving Rape on the title

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Clearly in this case the boy consented otherwise it would of been rape

I don't understand your reasoning, so if a 14 year old girl went willingly to a man 13 years her senior and had sex, would that not be rape? she can't consent she is underage

[Niamh.]

14 year olds can't legally consent

[Ammi]

...the child is below the legal age of consent so by the law’s own reasoning, consent isn’t applicable at all...but the charge is sexual assault because no penetration occurred in this situation, which is how the law defines rape...even within that, though...?...the sentence was very, very short to what could have have been given for a sexual assault charge of a child...

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Clearly in this case the boy consented otherwise it would of been rape

He can't consent, just like all children can't. Do you think a senile old woman can consent to signing all her money to some gold digger? It's (sort of) the same thing.

Tbh i think the age of consent should be eighteen.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...the child is below the legal age of consent so by the law’s own reasoning, consent isn’t applicable at all...but the charge is sexual assault because no penetration occurred in this situation, which is how the law defines rape...even within that, though...?...the sentence was very, very short to what have been given for a sexual assault charge of a child...

At least she is going to Jail.
Thats a shock for her.


Yes its only a 2 year sentence
if she is good, can leave after a year

[Ammi]

...I understand that she herself had been in an abusive relationship and wasn’t in a good place...which is horrific for her...but that doesn’t in any way excuse nor should it be considered in the sexual abuse of a child...she absolutely knew what her actions were according to the court reports as she had tried to persuade the child to delete the messages/images and also admitted guilt in the original interview...the not guilty plea was then submitted for the purposes of her trial and I would presume it was something that was advised by her defence for a lesser sentencing...

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The boy is under the age of 16, and thus he does not have the legal capacity to consent to sex. Nonconsensual sex = rape, and the failure of the court to classify it as such does not change that.

Would you be so quick to downplay the rapist's actions if the genders were reversed?

I’m not down playing anything I’m just stating the law in this case

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I don't understand your reasoning, so if a 14 year old girl went willingly to a man 13 years her senior and had sex, would that not be rape? she can't consent she is underage

Every case is different for the case in this thread the police cps did not charge the woman with rape so she has not been convicted of rape but convicted of sexual activity with a child

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Every case is different for the case in this thread the police cps did not charge the woman with rape so she has not been convicted of rape but convicted of sexual activity with a child

a woman can't be charged with rape in the uk

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

a woman can't be charged with rape in the uk

A thing that should most definitely be changed, way too many women get away with things like this because of it, it’s shocking

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Liam-

A thing that should most definitely be changed, way too many women get away with things like this because of it, it’s shocking

yes I agree

[Toy Soldier]

I think perhaps the MOST messed up part of the definition is that it specifies "with a penis". I could almost understand if it was simply that the definition of "rape" was "forced penetration" and there were other words with the same severity for other types of sexual crimes, but the UK law on rape specifies "forced penetration with penis". So essentially, if someone is forcibly sexually assaulted including being forcibly penetrated, but it's with an object other than a penis, that is NOT classed as rape. Men CAN be victims of rape - but only by a male perpetrator. It causes a lot of confusion when it comes to considering the severity of the crime and I think it really should be redefined to include all forms of non-consensual sex. At the absolute minimum, it should include penetrative sex with non-consenting males.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

I’m not down playing anything I’m just stating the law in this case

And the law is incorrect, since non-consensual sex IS rape. The law is not absolute, it is flawed and it's cases like this that prove such statements to be true.