Woman sues footballers for raping her.

[Motorrad]

Munter said:

Slow down. Read. Comprehend. Then try again. Because that just appears to be the ramblings of a mad man who's heard 1/2 a conversation and decided aliens are landing.

What you might be getting at. Is the same as the post you (through stupidity?) failed to quote properly.

He says he's a foreigner and a handsome, blonde, Aryan one at that so we should cut him some slack.

[Ayahuasca]

So can the men legally be described as 'rapists'?

They were not found guilty in a criminal court so I guess not.

So, if someone describes them as such, can they be sued for defamation / slander / libel whatever?

[Oakey]

Ayahuasca said:

So can the men legally be described as 'rapists'?

They were not found guilty in a criminal court so I guess not.

So, if someone describes them as such, can they be sued for defamation / slander / libel whatever?

They could try but they may not end up with the result they wanted.

[otolith]

Ayahuasca said:

So can the men legally be described as 'rapists'?

They were not found guilty in a criminal court so I guess not.

So, if someone describes them as such, can they be sued for defamation / slander / libel whatever?

They were found against on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. If you called them rapists and they took you to court, it would be a defence to establish that on the balance of probabilities the allegation was true. No idea whether the prior court decision would make that a foregone conclusion.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

tommunster10 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

tommunster10 said:

Why are peoples morals so warped that they would rape a woman because "if women did it they'd not be called rapists!"
I shudder and hope this is blokes with anonymity just acting hard on a forum and not reflective of how you actually live your life.

Wow. I'm not sure how you've arrived at that interpretation from anything that's been posted so far.

Let me see: (It's not fair!!!! Thats sexist!! )

popeyewhite said:
In the eyes of the law you are absolutely correct. However for some of us less pedantic PH non lawyers it's an oddity that when a man has intercourse with a woman against her will it's rape, but when a woman has intercourse with a man against his will it's not rape. Hence my comment the law is inherently sexist.

I don't care if the law IS sexist, I don't want and won't ever rape a woman. So who cares!!??

A rapist saying "well if she did it to me it would not be rape"...come on, its wrong, so few are willing to condone 2 men shagging a girl who a witness said needed an ambulance and eyes were rolling back into her head and couldn't stand up...jesus.

Edited by tommunster10 on Wednesday 18th January 13:44

Are you on mind bending drugs?

It is entirely possible for people to discuss if the existing rape laws are sexist (I don't think they are) without wanting to be a rapist.

[del mar]

Noting that the thread has now moved on, but as a comparison with poor Ched...

The lady in this case does not recall being raped - she has no recollection of the events from the night club to the following morning. (granted that the article does not make any reference as to the evidence she originally gave to the police - this is crucial)

Unless these men were hung like a horses I would wager that she did not "feel" anything the following day. The day after my birthday my wife does not walk around in agony !

Ched's accuser, after police investigation into her missing handbag, appeared to have been raped to by two men yet she never mentioned it - she woke up in a strange place but didn't "feel" as if she had been raped.

We will never know what actually happened but a drunk woman has had sex whether willingly or not with two drunk men, that she has no recollection of - so it must be rape ? Could the two men argue that they were so drunk they were not able to understand or interpret her not giving consent ? Again we do not know what the police report said but this does not suggest any violence.

It appeared to hinge on evidence of the bouncer, who whilst an expert in dealing with drunk people may or may not have seen these three people before, and certainly has no idea of in what state they were in once they arrived at their flat.

I still don't really know what the £100,000 is supposed to do.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

del mar said:

Ched's accuser,

That would have been Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions. No one else accused him, AFAIK.

[del mar]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

del mar said:

Ched's accuser,

That would have been Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions. No one else accused him, AFAIK.

Fair point.

[jonah35]

In every town tnight tipsy and drunk people will be having sex having met for the first time. There will be lots going on.

Because theyre footballers they get hung out to dry.

[walm]

del mar said:

The day after my birthday my wife does not walk around in agony !

Worst, "I've got a tiny willy" post, ever.

[TTwiggy]

jonah35 said:

In every town tnight tipsy and drunk people will be having sex having met for the first time. There will be lots going on.

Because theyre footballers they get hung out to dry.

There's nothing illegal about drunk/tipsy people banging uglies. There is (rightly) something illegal (as well as morally abhorrent) about taking sexual advantage of someone too drunk to walk/stand/speak. The profession of the scumbags is irrelevant.

[walm]

del mar said:

Could the two men argue that they were so drunk they were not able to understand or interpret her not giving consent ?

No.
Just like you can't get hammered, rob a bank, and claim you were too drunk to know what you were doing.

[PurpleMoonlight]

TTwiggy said:

There's nothing illegal about drunk/tipsy people banging uglies. There is (rightly) something illegal (as well as morally abhorrent) about taking sexual advantage of someone too drunk to walk/stand/speak. The profession of the scumbags is irrelevant.

But do you really think this woman would have sued a penniless nobody?

She originally claimed £500,000 .....

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TTwiggy said:

There's nothing illegal about drunk/tipsy people banging uglies. There is (rightly) something illegal (as well as morally abhorrent) about taking sexual advantage of someone too drunk to walk/stand/speak. The profession of the scumbags is irrelevant.

^^^THIS.

The sex lives of millions of happily married couples are totally reliant on her Saturday night wine consumption whilst watching some medical drivel followed by him having a few whiskies whilst watching Match of the Day.......so I'm told.

[Munter]

PurpleMoonlight said:

But do you really think this woman would have sued a penniless nobody?

She originally claimed £500,000 .....

Just because there's no point pursuing a poor scumbag, doesn't mean she should ignore the possibility of justice by pursuing a rich scumbag. If they don't want people suing them then A)don't rape people and B)Don't be rich. B doesn't really matter if you don't do A.

But all this is beside the point. If one court says someone can't be found guilty for a crime. How can they be considered to have committed the crime by another court? There's no consistency. Either the original court was wrong, and they should be retried, or there's nothing to sue for.

[walm]

Munter said:

There's no consistency.

Criminal court has a higher burden of proof, IIRC. It's not supposed to be 100% consistent.

[otolith]

Munter said:

But all this is beside the point. If one court says someone can't be found guilty for a crime. How can they be considered to have committed the crime by another court? There's no consistency. Either the original court was wrong, and they should be retried, or there's nothing to sue for.

That's not what happened. There wasn't an original court. It never went to court because prosecutors didn't think there was enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty. The standard of proof for a civil case is lower - balance of probabilities - not beyond reasonable doubt.

[Munter]

otolith said:

Munter said:

But all this is beside the point. If one court says someone can't be found guilty for a crime. How can they be considered to have committed the crime by another court? There's no consistency. Either the original court was wrong, and they should be retried, or there's nothing to sue for.

That's not what happened. There wasn't an original court. It never went to court because prosecutors didn't think there was enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty. The standard of proof for a civil case is lower - balance of probabilities - not beyond reasonable doubt.

Ah oops. I forgot they never faced the first trial.

I still think it's wrong. Either you did it. Or you didn't. If they did it, then it's the full weight of the law. If they didn't then it's none of it.

[TTwiggy]

Munter said:

Ah oops. I forgot they never faced the first trial.

I still think it's wrong. Either you did it. Or you didn't. If they did it, then it's the full weight of the law. If they didn't then it's none of it.

Anyone can bring a civil action though. The CPS (or whatever it is these days) have to weigh up the possibility of getting a result versus the cost in court time.

[Oakey]

Munter said:

Just because there's no point pursuing a poor scumbag, doesn't mean she should ignore the possibility of justice by pursuing a rich scumbag. If they don't want people suing them then A)don't rape people and B)Don't be rich. B doesn't really matter if you don't do A.

But all this is beside the point. If one court says someone can't be found guilty for a crime. How can they be considered to have committed the crime by another court? There's no consistency. Either the original court was wrong, and they should be retried, or there's nothing to sue for.

Beyond reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities.

It's not a new concept