I'm only going to give one sentence from the article as an example of just how misleading cheap writing is used to garner money from the imbecile-leveled intelligentsia.

David Mason, 24, admitted raping a 12-year-old girl five years ago and was sentenced to four years in a young offenders’ institute.

Really? He only spent two years behind bars for his his horrific crime,? Well, let's say that's true for a British "horrific" crime.

Let's look closely at the quibbles:

The rapist was 24.
No, he was sent to a young offenders' institute. He is 24 at the time of this writing... maybe younger, say, 23 and a half, rounding up to 24?

A 12-year-old girl? Five years ago, that would make her 7, right?
No, she was 12 at the time of the incident.

So, a 19 year old had sex with his 12 year old video game partner.

How did he get to a young offenders' institute? What is the law in Britain for that?

Was the little girl forcibly penetrated while screaming for help?

I think not.

I would suggest that they were sex partners and she agreed to the activity until, later, her parents found out. Then, it became a "forcible, violent, struggling fight" type of horrific crime.

The difference -- the point I am trying to make here -- is that you will often see the media take a highway fender bender and pump it up with emotion-ladened words such as "horrific" and end up with an news article about a $100 car bump that's exaggerated to a panic so intense that you wonder how many of the city's nearby residents had to be evacuated to escape the flaming inferno ripping through 10 neighborhood blocks. The website you have linked to is a prime example of such media. They are targeting the marginally literate, below average IQ, crotch-itchy old hags who love to read such crap while standing in a boring grocery store lineup at the cash register.