£80000 for civil rape conviction

[MB140]

singlecoil said:

Oakey said:

"remember back then you couldn’t rape your wife"

What does this mean?

It means there was no such offence.

Back then it wasn’t illegal to force yourself on your wife. Stupid fking thing and thankfully we have progressed since then. The point I was trying to make is that

“Even if he had forced himself on her (and he most definitely didn’t) back then it wasn’t a crime so how come he was being prosecuted under modern law for an act that at the time of her alleged rape wasn’t illegal”

Edited by MB140 on Saturday 6th October 16:31

[Pica-Pica]

Bill said:

Re-read it. He followed her home and forced his way in while she stalled for time, then raped her.

Not according to the trial outcome.

[singlecoil]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

singlecoil said:

Whether it's easy or not should not be an issue when a man's freedom and good name is at stake, and there are many thousands, maybe millions of people assuming that Kavanaugh is guilty.

And the same number thinking his accuser is a fantasist, including the POTUS .

Indeed, but is the court of public opinion the right place for this case to be heard and sides taken? I think not.

[kestral]

The way this case has been reported by the media is causing confusion.

Rape is a statutory offence it is not a tort so cannot be tried in a civil court.

The case will have been brought by the plaintiff for assault and battery and that is what will have been proved on the balance of probabilities. Not rape.

As usual the devil is in the detail.

[anonymous-user]

Oh, and the burden of proof is the same between the criminal and civil. It is the standard required that changes.

[BobSaunders]

Two (male) friends of mine took a girl back to theirs. Long story short they got busy. In the morning they turfed her out pretty quick, probably quite rudely. She took offence. Subsequently she went to the police and cried rape.

Que police turning up and arresting my two friends, one at work, and one at university. Police took her side of the story quite rightly, and interviewed and interviewed, and interviewed.

Saving grace.. one of the lads in his excitement of having a threesome videoed the whole thing secretly. She was bang up for it on the video and putting out.

They got turfed out of the police station, no charges, no apologies, and no charges were brought/bought against her. Police then tried to do one of the lads for video taping it..

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BobSaunders said:

Saving grace.. one of the lads in his excitement of having a threesome videoed the whole thing secretly.

What an utter scumbag. In my world, that would have been enough to put him behind bars for a couple of years.

[xjay1337]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

BobSaunders said:

Saving grace.. one of the lads in his excitement of having a threesome videoed the whole thing secretly.

What an utter scumbag. In my world, that would have been enough to put him behind bars for a couple of years.

What, worse than a fake rape allegation?

Sounds like that was the only thing that kept him out of jail !!!!!!

[NewbishDelight]

JimSuperSix said:

MB140 said:

FFS and he wasn’t found guilty. This argument can keep going on forever.

Guilt is binary. You are either guilty or not guilty. Not proven is a load of bks.

Proven = Guilty
Not proven = Not guilty

Arrrrrrh

I don't think anybody on the jury thought that those 2 offences were absolutely not commited, in fact they seemed quite likely, just that the prosecution hadn't done enough to prove them so in the end we pretty much had to return "not proven" instead of guilty or not-guilty.

This is the crux of the issue - I think that OP is confusing the laws of England and Wales with that of Scotland.

In Scotland you have Guilty (obvious), Not Guilty (obvious) and Not Proven.

Not Proven does not mean that the defendant is Not Guilty, merely that there is insufficient evidence to prove his guilt.

[768]

I think that's understood, but elsewhere that is by definition innocent.

[snake_oil]

BobSaunders said:

Saving grace.. one of the lads in his excitement of having a threesome videoed the whole thing secretly. She was bang up for it on the video and putting out.

Video of yourself in a threesome with two girls : I see the appeal.

Video of yourself in a threesome with a girl and another guy : You got to be kidding me.

[MB140]

NewbishDelight said:

JimSuperSix said:

MB140 said:

FFS and he wasn’t found guilty. This argument can keep going on forever.

Guilt is binary. You are either guilty or not guilty. Not proven is a load of bks.

Proven = Guilty
Not proven = Not guilty

Arrrrrrh

I don't think anybody on the jury thought that those 2 offences were absolutely not commited, in fact they seemed quite likely, just that the prosecution hadn't done enough to prove them so in the end we pretty much had to return "not proven" instead of guilty or not-guilty.

This is the crux of the issue - I think that OP is confusing the laws of England and Wales with that of Scotland.

In Scotland you have Guilty (obvious), Not Guilty (obvious) and Not Proven.

Not Proven does not mean that the defendant is Not Guilty, merely that there is insufficient evidence to prove his guilt.

And therefore if there isn’t enough evidence to prove his guilt he must be not guilty or not proven. It’s irrelevant if you call it not guilty or not proven because at the end of the day you haven’t proven his guilt so therefore ihes ‘not’ guilty. The rest is arguing over the wording of not proven or not guilty.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

xjay1337 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

BobSaunders said:

Saving grace.. one of the lads in his excitement of having a threesome videoed the whole thing secretly.

What an utter scumbag. In my world, that would have been enough to put him behind bars for a couple of years.

What, worse than a fake rape allegation?

Sounds like that was the only thing that kept him out of jail !!!!!!

At the time of deciding to video the event secretly, without the consent of the other 2, he had no idea about the rape allegation to follow.

Secretly filming someone having sex is a ish thing to do. What a fking loser.

[otolith]

Discussion of the history and meaning of the "not proven" verdict;

https://tinyurl.com/yb4wykhm

(Had to TinyURL it, because PH will censor the word "bd" in the URL)

[Cat]

kestral said:

The way this case has been reported by the media is causing confusion.

Rape is a statutory offence it is not a tort so cannot be tried in a civil court.

In Scotland rape is a civil wrong as well as criminal offence and as such it can be dealt with in a civil court. In this case it was the Sheriff personal injury court.

kestral said:

The case will have been brought by the plaintiff for assault and battery and that is what will have been proved on the balance of probabilities. Not rape.

There was no plaintiff, in Scottish civil courts there is a pursuer and a defender. You are talking nonsense about assault and battery, the case was seeking redress for rape.

kestral said:

As usual the devil is in the detail

Indeed

Cat

[xjay1337]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

xjay1337 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

BobSaunders said:

Saving grace.. one of the lads in his excitement of having a threesome videoed the whole thing secretly.

What an utter scumbag. In my world, that would have been enough to put him behind bars for a couple of years.

What, worse than a fake rape allegation?

Sounds like that was the only thing that kept him out of jail !!!!!!

At the time of deciding to video the event secretly, without the consent of the other 2, he had no idea about the rape allegation to follow.

Secretly filming someone having sex is a ish thing to do. What a fking loser.

But is it more of a loser thing to do than a fake rape allegation?

[NewbishDelight]

MB140 said:

And therefore if there isn’t enough evidence to prove his guilt he must be not guilty or not proven. It’s irrelevant if you call it not guilty or not proven because at the end of the day you haven’t proven his guilt so therefore ihes ‘not’ guilty. The rest is arguing over the wording of not proven or not guilty.

Lots of single/double/triple negatives coming up....brace yourself.

Fine, he is not guilty, but as he has not been found not guilty he has not been to have not committed the crime, nor has he been found to have committed the crime. The court has found that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of a criminal offence, it has not cleared him of all wrongdoing.

Therefore, the option does exist to pursue civil action or, if there is significant new evidence, re-examine the case.

Comments above from Cat and Kestrel are both good.

IANAL, but I have spent quite a lot of time in Scottish courts for my employer to keep an eye on allegedly naughty employees, and this comes up quite a lot (especially when, as an organisation, we operate under the laws of England and Wales but the civil courts apply based on geographic location).

[DocJock]

MB140 said:

NewbishDelight said:

JimSuperSix said:

MB140 said:

FFS and he wasn’t found guilty. This argument can keep going on forever.

Guilt is binary. You are either guilty or not guilty. Not proven is a load of bks.

Proven = Guilty
Not proven = Not guilty but also not 'not guilty'

Arrrrrrh

I don't think anybody on the jury thought that those 2 offences were absolutely not commited, in fact they seemed quite likely, just that the prosecution hadn't done enough to prove them so in the end we pretty much had to return "not proven" instead of guilty or not-guilty.

This is the crux of the issue - I think that OP is confusing the laws of England and Wales with that of Scotland.

In Scotland you have Guilty (obvious), Not Guilty (obvious) and Not Proven.

Not Proven does not mean that the defendant is Not Guilty, merely that there is insufficient evidence to prove his guilt.

And therefore if there isn’t enough evidence to prove his guilt he must be not guilty or not proven. It’s irrelevant if you call it not guilty or not proven because at the end of the day you haven’t proven his guilt so therefore ihes ‘not’ guilty. The rest is arguing over the wording of not proven or not guilty.

You also haven't proven he's 'not guilty' so he's 'not, not guilty'. You really should read the previous explanations of the Scottish judicial system and it's verdicts. You declaring it 'irrelevant' just demonstrates your wilful ignorance.

[singlecoil]

xjay1337 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

xjay1337 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

BobSaunders said:

Saving grace.. one of the lads in his excitement of having a threesome videoed the whole thing secretly.

What an utter scumbag. In my world, that would have been enough to put him behind bars for a couple of years.

What, worse than a fake rape allegation?

Sounds like that was the only thing that kept him out of jail !!!!!!

At the time of deciding to video the event secretly, without the consent of the other 2, he had no idea about the rape allegation to follow.

Secretly filming someone having sex is a ish thing to do. What a fking loser.

But is it more of a loser thing to do than a fake rape allegation?

Filming myself having sex with someone is not something that I would normally consider (due to my not wanting my techniques to become common knowledge) but I must say it sounds like excellent insurance against possible false allegations.

[Oakey]

singlecoil said:

Filming myself having sex with someone is not something that I would normally consider (due to my not wanting my techniques to become common knowledge) but I must say it sounds like excellent insurance against possible false allegations.

Only if you get consent to film beforehand.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-man-who-secret...