From UK MSM:
[Former Emmerdale actor Ben] Freeman said while he hadn't done anything illegal, he had made "bad choices".
Freeman denied raping the girl after they met at a resort on the Caribbean island on November 29, 2006. The 28-year-old said he knew the girl, from Cheshire, was 16 at the time but said she never resisted his advances as he denied the charge at the High Court, Bridgetown, Barbados. The jury took 90 minutes to reach a unanimous not guilty verdict last week.
Freeman told ITV's This Morning he was "glad" it was over. He said he wasn't angry at the girl.
Freeman continued: "I do have to say that I made a lot of bad choices that I put myself in a position where someone can say that about me.
"The important point is that I didn't do anything illegal but it was silly."
Assuming that a lack of resistance means that a girl is consenting to sex is silly in Freeman's mind?
That isn't silly, it is negligent at best and it is rape if the girl wasn't consenting. The legal responsibility for telling the difference between lack of resistance and consent must belong to the person who is the aggressor.
"Oh, silly me, I guessed wrong," should never be a valid legal defense. Unfortunately, this defense often works to get an acquittal.
If Freeman changes his behavior only because someone (the girl who didn't consent) could honestly say she was raped by him, that's better than arrogantly continuing to use lack of resistance as a substitute for genuine consent. But it still positions him as falsely accused when it's clear by his own statements that the report against him was genuine.
She got raped. He made a bad choice.
But he isn't angry with her after he was acquitted? How generous of him.
Many of us who were raped by someone we know can relate to having rapists who position themselves as generous as they admit to making bad choices.