[News] Lucky 13-y-o boy described as 'victim'

[Triggaaar]

Rape, section 1, and then look at section 2.

Seriously?

"Rape (section 1)

The elements of rape are:

(A) intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis;
(B) does not consent to the penetration, and
(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents"

"Assault by penetration (section 2)
...
Key points
This offence should be charged where there is insufficient evidence to charge rape, for example, if the victim is unsure if penetration was by a penis or something else."

So rape needs to be penetration by a penis.

What are you talking about TB?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Seriously?

"Rape (section 1)

The elements of rape are:

(A) intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis;
(B) does not consent to the penetration, and
(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents"

"Assault by penetration (section 2)
...
Key points
This offence should be charged where there is insufficient evidence to charge rape, for example, if the victim is unsure if penetration was by a penis or something else."

So rape needs to be penetration by a penis.

What are you talking about TB?

Never mind. You are being obtuse.

 

[dazzer6666]

Never mind. You are being obtuse.

Why obtuse ? It’s a simple matter of law isn’t it - only males can be guilty of rape for the reasons Trig stated.

 

[Triggaaar]

Never mind. You are being obtuse.

I said (in a general post, not a reply to you) "Regardless, it's a crime (although weirdly not rape) and she needs to be punished appropriately."

You chose to take issue with my statement, claiming that it would be rape if he was under 13, and my understanding is that you are wrong. Now you're just being rude to me for no reason.

Take a look at your signature.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I said (in a general post, not a reply to you) "Regardless, it's a crime (although weirdly not rape) and she needs to be punished appropriately."

You chose to take issue with my statement, claiming that it would be rape if he was under 13, and my understanding is that you are wrong. Now you're just being rude to me for no reason.

Take a look at your signature.

Being slow to understand is not rude. That is the dictionary definition of obtuse.

 

[Hillian1]

I'm more concerned with Sunday school teachers grooming crayon lickers

 

[Triggaaar]

Being slow to understand is not rude. That is the dictionary definition of obtuse.

Calling someone obtuse is rude. It's fine, I've been called worse, but you should apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Calling someone obtuse is rude. It's fine, I've been called worse, but you should apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others.

I apologise if you thought it was rude. It wasn't meant that way.

 

[Triggaaar]

I apologise if you thought it was rude. It wasn't meant that way.

Ok.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

You need to do further study of that CPS article, or perhaps not.

He's totally right though. If you look at the actual Act, only men can rape. It really is that simple.