The Student Room Group

Two young girls raped by 6 footballers

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Stefan1991
True, the judge called them reckless, but reckless for what? Simply breaking the law. Nobody was harmed, if the parents hadn't realised they were missing nobody would have been the wiser and life would have gone on.


Yeah, I just thought the judge would have to tell them specifically why he's convicting them, not just imply why he's convicting them. It is quite an important thing lol.
Original post by anti-duck
Yeah, I just thought the judge would have to tell them specifically why he's convicting them, not just imply why he's convicting them. It is quite an important thing lol.


The law says that if you have sex with someone under 13 you have committed rape and there is no defence to this.
Reply 182
Avatar for EggmanD
EggmanD
11
Sorry but no one here can realistically give two ****s about this unless they were directly involved...

Group one - consenting but under age girls lying about their ages

Group two - meat head footballers on a barely legal gang bang mission

If your going to have sex with a 16 year old, make sure she/he is 16, if not then you could be a pedophile or just someone with a barely legal fetish in the wrong place.. if your going to lie about being older than you are then that is nothing short of fraud and if your at the age where your trying to get sex then you will be treated like an adult because this is an adult situation.

Someone tell me what im missing please.. I mean, as a human being this is the only conclusion i can draw from this which would struggle to make a page 54 short ad in my local paper.
Original post by The West Wing
The law says that if you have sex with someone under 13 you have committed rape and there is no defence to this.


Do you agree with the law?
Reply 184
Avatar for Pindar
Pindar
16
Original post by anti-duck
Yeah, I just thought the judge would have to tell them specifically why he's convicting them, not just imply why he's convicting them. It is quite an important thing lol.


I think he has to convict them simply because it's on the law books, the judge doesn't really have a choice whether the law is pointless or not.

You don't convict someone because they have done something bad, you convict someone because they have broken a law, it's just the judge has failed to rationalise why breaking this crime was so bad.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
Do you agree with the law?


Personally, I think there should be a minimum but 13 is too high. 12 year olds can clearly want sex (as demonstrated here).
Maybe the girls are racist? Black men NEVER rape women, they are clean living people decent people.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by The West Wing
The law says that if you have sex with someone under 13 you have committed rape and there is no defence to this.


Erm... yeah, that's what I said in my first post in the thread, but the law exists to make things as black and white as possible and can't assume that defendants have legal knowledge.

The judge could have easily told the defendants what you just wrote and added 'and that's why I'm convicting you' or something along those lines, instead, in his summing up he basically said a load of rubbish; none of which directly pointed out anything illegal. I just find it funny that a judge can convict someone and basically leave them to figure out for themselves why they're being convicted.
Original post by Stefan1991
I think he has to convict them simply because it's on the law books, the judge doesn't really have a choice whether the law is pointless or not.

You don't convict someone because they have done something bad, you convict someone because they have broken a law, it's just the judge has failed to rationalise why breaking this crime was so bad.


Yeah, exactly what I was saying :smile: See my last post in this thread. I guess I just didn't get the point across :colondollar:
Original post by anti-duck
Erm... yeah, that's what I said in my first post in the thread, but the law exists to make things as black and white as possible and can't assume that defendants have legal knowledge.

The judge could have easily told the defendants what you just wrote and added 'and that's why I'm convicting you' or something along those lines, instead, in his summing up he basically said a load of rubbish; none of which directly pointed out anything illegal. I just find it funny that a judge can convict someone and basically leave them to figure out for themselves why they're being convicted.


He is explaining the rationale behind the sentence - although he doesn't have to justify the conviction (as it's strict liability), he has to provide justification for the sentence: that they behaved recklessly in the way they treated them and had twisted views of sex.
Original post by The West Wing
He is explaining the rationale behind the sentence - although he doesn't have to justify the conviction (as it's strict liability), he has to provide justification for the sentence: that they behaved recklessly in the way they treated them and had twisted views of sex.


I just find it funny... that's ALL. I don't require a legal essay, but thanks :s-smilie:
Reply 191
Avatar for Pindar
Pindar
16
Original post by anti-duck
Yeah, exactly what I was saying :smile: See my last post in this thread. I guess I just didn't get the point across :colondollar:


Didn't spot that!

Original post by The West Wing
He is explaining the rationale behind the sentence - although he doesn't have to justify the conviction (as it's strict liability), he has to provide justification for the sentence: that they behaved recklessly in the way they treated them and had twisted views of sex.


That's just the judges ignorant opinion however, there is no such thing as "twisted views" on consensual sex, and it's certainly nowhere in the law. He probably thinks unless you have sex in marriage in the marital bed over the age of 30 with a white Christian and full parental permission it's twisted :lol:
Original post by Stefan1991

That's just the judges ignorant opinion however, there is no such thing as "twisted views" on consensual sex, and it's certainly nowhere in the law. He probably thinks unless you have sex in marriage in the marital bed over the age of 30 with a white Christian and full parental permission it's twisted :lol:


I agree, and this is one of the problems with having an almost entirely upper class, male, elderly judiciary. What does he really know about the sex lives of 12 year olds?
Laws need to be changed! Statutory rape age should be lowered to 12, perhaps even 11. Slags are obviously getting younger these days. Also, they need to start naming and shaming people whatever their age. It really pisses me off when you are constantly hearing in the news about some young teenager who has stabbed/shot someone, and yet their name and picture can't be shown in the media because they are under 16. People need to see pictures of this dirty slag (I imagine the one who slept with 5 men pressurised her friend into it) so that she doesn't do it again!
Reply 194
Avatar for Pindar
Pindar
16
Original post by pippa90
Laws need to be changed! Statutory rape age should be lowered to 12, perhaps even 11. Slags are obviously getting younger these days. Also, they need to start naming and shaming people whatever their age. It really pisses me off when you are constantly hearing in the news about some young teenager who has stabbed/shot someone, and yet their name and picture can't be shown in the media because they are under 16. People need to see pictures of this dirty slag (I imagine the one who slept with 5 men pressurised her friend into it) so that she doesn't do it again!


I agreed with you until you started ranting about "dirty" slags.
Original post by Stefan1991
I agreed with you until you started ranting about "dirty" slags.


Well they probably did get dirty doing it in a park :tongue: Come on, 12 years old, having sex with 5 grown men in a park. How is that not dirty?
Reply 196
Avatar for Pindar
Pindar
16
Original post by pippa90
Well they probably did get dirty doing it in a park :tongue: Come on, 12 years old, having sex with 5 grown men in a park. How is that not dirty?


You mean dirty because it was muddy or something? It might not have rained that day.
Original post by Stefan1991
You mean dirty because it was muddy or something? It might not have rained that day.


I mean dirty in all senses.
Original post by imomo16
They were 12. The law says that at that age a child is not capable of true consent and frankly I agree.


Agreed - but looking at the article, one of the girls is seriously messed up...
Reply 199
Avatar for Shook
Shook
13
Sure, it's unfair on the footballers, but they're texting school girls to have sex in a park... looks like they needed to be taught a lesson anyway.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you