The trouble is, he was done for statutory rape (which means the girl was under 16, therefore unable to consent).
The Judge (Timothy Mort) accepts that the girl was pretending to be 16, looked and acted 16, and agreed to sex (although she regretted it later).
Bhuta met her on Facebook through a friends request, met up with her, had sex, then went to the pictures with her and accompanied her part of her way home. It was only because she was late home that she got in trouble and then confessed all to her mum.
Bhuta was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, and was placed on the sex offenders register for seven years, although the Judge admits he was not a predator, did not groom her, and if he had known about her true age, would probably not have had sex with her.
Sounds to me like he has got a raw deal, and he will always have the stigma of being a rapist.
Obviously there has to be a lot of care and protection towards young girls, but the inflammatory headlines (calling him 'Preston rapist') just make it look as though he has walked away scot free after raping a child, and it's another case of a Judge being too lenient, which is not the case at all.
Bloody papers
More news here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-10781281
toodle pip
1 comment:
i am very greatfull for what jamie has put up about the preston rapist article... there are people out there who just do not understand the reason why it says rape, unfortunaly its the english law who uses the term rape and its for under 16 whether given consent or not... i think the lad is in all this mess because a 12 year old lied over and over. i think other newspapers need to learn to write the truth and explain themselves and stop trying to ruin someones life all because they want the cash...
Post a Comment