Woman sues footballers for raping her.
Discussion
Blue Cat said:
Kinderpup said:
NO, NO, NO and just in case anyone isn't sure, absolutely bloody not. If she made the choice as a mature, intelligent (?), consenting adult to drink enough alcohol to impair her judgement then she has no right to blame others for her bad decisions. Woman as well as men must take responsibility for their own actions, we scream bloody equality on everything else and expect, no DEMAND to be treated the same as men, yet when we make a bad life decision we expect to be able to blame someone else, usually the man involved. This is wrong and should be thrown out of court.
Sorry rant over, this type of behaviour make my blood boil.......
So your reasoning, if you come across a drunk man, it is acceptable to steal his wallet and car keys because he clearly deserved it. Sorry rant over, this type of behaviour make my blood boil.......
CaptainSlow said:
No you and Twiggy have missed a key point. The analogy would be if you got drunk and consented to giving your wallet away whilst drunk.
I don't understand what you don't understand about the term "consent" if you're even half cut (never mind eye rollingly paralytic) you can't give consent, it's a process which requires capacity to enact.FredClogs said:
CaptainSlow said:
No you and Twiggy have missed a key point. The analogy would be if you got drunk and consented to giving your wallet away whilst drunk.
I don't understand what you don't understand about the term "consent" if you're even half cut (never mind eye rollingly paralytic) you can't give consent, it's a process which requires capacity to enact.So what's the situation if you gave away your wallet following a few drinks, has the recipient stolen it? Morally rather than legally.
CaptainSlow said:
I fully understand thank you.
So what's the situation if you gave away your wallet following a few drinks, has the recipient stolen it? Morally rather than legally.
if they took advantage of your situation and talked you into giving it to them? What do you think? Do you think a court would accept it?So what's the situation if you gave away your wallet following a few drinks, has the recipient stolen it? Morally rather than legally.
and why the analogy of wallets?
If you got paralytic and woke up the next morning in another man's bed with a sore bum and cum running down the back of your leg would you simply accept it if he told you that you consented?
CaptainSlow said:
I fully understand thank you.
So what's the situation if you gave away your wallet following a few drinks, has the recipient stolen it? Morally rather than legally.
I'm not sure you do understand. For instance, you mention a theft, but there is no suggestion of crime in this case. The footballer has not been found guilty of rape. The woman has shown herself to have been injured by the man's actions which she did not consent to. So what's the situation if you gave away your wallet following a few drinks, has the recipient stolen it? Morally rather than legally.
Further, the woman did not give anything away. She was unable to consent so therefore there was no gift.
To take your made up circumstance, civil courts might find for the owner of the wallet if someone, realising the person was drunk, deliberately conspired with another and lied to a third party in order to take possession of said wallet, knowing full well that the person was in no fit state to make such a decision.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure you do understand. For instance, you mention a theft, but there is no suggestion of crime in this case. The footballer has not been found guilty of rape. The woman has shown herself to have been injured by the man's actions which she did not consent to.
Further, the woman did not give anything away. She was unable to consent so therefore there was no gift.
To take your made up circumstance, civil courts might find for the owner of the wallet if someone, realising the person was drunk, deliberately conspired with another and lied to a third party in order to take possession of said wallet, knowing full well that the person was in no fit state to make such a decision.
It isn't my made up circumstance, I was correcting another poster's analogy.Further, the woman did not give anything away. She was unable to consent so therefore there was no gift.
To take your made up circumstance, civil courts might find for the owner of the wallet if someone, realising the person was drunk, deliberately conspired with another and lied to a third party in order to take possession of said wallet, knowing full well that the person was in no fit state to make such a decision.
Why are you adding complexity to the example? No additional party, no conspiracy, no lies...just answer the question as it was.
CaptainSlow said:
It isn't my made up circumstance, I was correcting another poster's analogy.
Why are you adding complexity to the example? No additional party, no conspiracy, no lies...just answer the question as it was.
Because in the original article there were two people and they allegedly offered the girl a lift home but instead took her back to whoever's flat?Why are you adding complexity to the example? No additional party, no conspiracy, no lies...just answer the question as it was.
Oakey said:
Because in the original article there were two people and they allegedly offered the girl a lift home but instead took her back to whoever's flat?
Not in the original analogy there weren't.eta
and the analogy was in response to Kinderpup's generic rant rather than directly relating to this particular case.
Edited by CaptainSlow on Tuesday 17th January 16:35
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CaptainSlow said:
It isn't my made up circumstance, I was correcting another poster's analogy.
No you weren't. Read the post again. what they are saying is if you get drunk, it's your fault if someone takes your wallet without your consent.Which is b
ks, as I and others pointed out. Maybe you reread the post and understand the difference.
Derek Smith said:
He has paid out for the injury caused to the claimant in exactly the same way you can claim from a neighbour who drove into your wall. So perhaps you are missing something. She's been injured, she's claimed, she's been paid out.
Plymouth Argyle said:
“We note today’s judgment from the court of session in Edinburgh regarding David Goodwillie. We await the full report, which we will consider in detail before making any comment. Until such time, David Goodwillie will not be selected to play for Plymouth Argyle
Be interesting to see how this plays out. If he'd wronged anyone else by driving into their wall it wouldn't have had any bearing whatsoever on his employment, both being civil cases. Unless it was the Chairman's wall, I suppose.
CaptainSlow said:
It isn't my made up circumstance, I was correcting another poster's analogy.
Why are you adding complexity to the example? No additional party, no conspiracy, no lies...just answer the question as it was.
You stated you understand. I'm afraid you don't. My analogy is more complex but it runs with the circumstances of the case. There was a conspiracy, there was an additional party and there were lies. These circumstances might well have been persuasive. Your story was unconnected with the circumstances of the case under discussion so any reply was pointless. Why are you adding complexity to the example? No additional party, no conspiracy, no lies...just answer the question as it was.
PurpleTurtle said:
Be interesting to see how this plays out. If he'd wronged anyone else by driving into their wall it wouldn't have had any bearing whatsoever on his employment, both being civil cases.
Unless it was the Chairman's wall, I suppose.
I think the wall bashing would depend on the intent. If he did it as part of being human and making a mistake while driving. No big deal. If he did it deliberately, because a drunk woman said he could, and doing it made him and his mate (also in the car) achieve an orgasm as the desired end result. I suspect it might have a bearing on his employment. Unless it was the Chairman's wall, I suppose.
Kinderpup said:
NO, NO, NO and just in case anyone isn't sure, absolutely bloody not. If she made the choice as a mature, intelligent (?), consenting adult to drink enough alcohol to impair her judgement then she has no right to blame others for her bad decisions. Woman as well as men must take responsibility for their own actions, we scream bloody equality on everything else and expect, no DEMAND to be treated the same as men, yet when we make a bad life decision we expect to be able to blame someone else, usually the man involved. This is wrong and should be thrown out of court.
Sorry rant over, this type of behaviour make my blood boil.......
If your shagging a woman that drunk you're an aSorry rant over, this type of behaviour make my blood boil.......
hole in my book. Whether it's rape or not in these cases is open to debate, but if you meet a girl on a one night stand and shes so drunk you have to carry her out of the cab and into bed then you're an utter toad of a man who can't get a woman who is sober to shag them...sad. Rape? Maybe not
Blokes a sad little chancer? Yep.
In my youth I had a simple policy, if she's too drunk then I didn't take them home, I once put a girl in cab i was so worried about what might happen if i left her out in town, irony is the cabbie probably nailed it.
If you shag a girl who is so drunk she can't barely stand or speak then your a scum bag.
I have known friends of friends bragging about shagging girls who were passed out, I was never sure what the attraction was, must be if your ugly or have a small cock or not very good in bed you need them passed out...vile...
Looks like the clean-up is underway. It makes me wonder what on earth possesses people to think that way let alone to actually type it.
I can understand the mods not wanting it around but I do sometimes wonder whether it would just achieve more to leave it out there so people can see how some folks tick.
I can understand the mods not wanting it around but I do sometimes wonder whether it would just achieve more to leave it out there so people can see how some folks tick.
RizzoTheRat said:
I always think the tea analogy sums it up quite well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
What about:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
- Would you like some tea?
- Yes! Yes! Yes! Give me tea! Give me all your tea NOW!
- Are you drunk?
- Maybe. But Give me your tea!
- OK, Have some tea.
.........
- You know, when I said I wanted tea, I didn't really want any tea, but I was too drunk to know I didn't want any tea.
Derek Smith said:
CaptainSlow said:
It isn't my made up circumstance, I was correcting another poster's analogy.
Why are you adding complexity to the example? No additional party, no conspiracy, no lies...just answer the question as it was.
You stated you understand. I'm afraid you don't. My analogy is more complex but it runs with the circumstances of the case. There was a conspiracy, there was an additional party and there were lies. These circumstances might well have been persuasive. Your story was unconnected with the circumstances of the case under discussion so any reply was pointless. Why are you adding complexity to the example? No additional party, no conspiracy, no lies...just answer the question as it was.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff