Does that sound like the most ridiculous and revolting headline you've ever read? If so you may want to pour yourself a stiff coffee before reading this article from the BBC.
Let's clarify: A 10-year-old girl meets two guys - Keith Fenn, 24, removes her clothes and rapes her, then Darren Wright, 34, takes her home and sexually assaults her. No-one, not even the defence, is suggesting that the girl consented. No, the defence's case rests on the fact that she was "dressed provocatively"and "appeared to be 16". And the jury accept it and hand down sentences that will mean Wright walks free today and Fenn in four months.
Did I miss a meeting when the law was changed to say it's ok to rape a 16-year-old? Or that wearing nice clothes counted as consent? It it really exposes how much is wrong with our legal system and also how deep rooted these horrible offensive attitudes are in our society.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Further to some emails I've had - other reports on the story are now claiming the girl in fact did "consent" to sex. Of course a ten year old can't really consent to anything. They are basically claiming they met a woman they thought was 16 and she consented to have sex with them BOTH within 45 minutes of meeting them. Then they found out she was ten. I am still not really going with them here.
In a pub or off-license you have to double check anyone who appears to be under 21 to be sure they're 18 or over. Is it really not obvious that you should be a bit careful before you have sex with someone who looks about 16...?
Post a Comment