Rape or.......
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wale...
Is she telling the truth or is it two footballers lives potentially ruined? Reading her comments, she states she cant remember anything?
Is she telling the truth or is it two footballers lives potentially ruined? Reading her comments, she states she cant remember anything?
vz-r_dave said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wale...
Is she telling the truth or is it two footballers lives potentially ruined? Reading her comments, she states she cant remember anything?
It is an important legal point. She must give consent for the sexual intercourse not to be rape. If she was not in a fit state to give full and informed consent then it is rape. The difference in rape cases - to an extent - is that if the man beleives the woman to have given full consent then he does not commit the offence. So you have a victim without an offender.Is she telling the truth or is it two footballers lives potentially ruined? Reading her comments, she states she cant remember anything?
I would assume there is more to this than just 'I can't remember' although, if it is true, then she has every right to report it as rape as that is what it is.
There is much political pressure on CPS to proceed with rape cases at a lower chance of a conviction. We don't know whether this occurred in this case. However, rest assured that had CPS not been there then the police would have probably had a go. Their limit is much lower than that of the CPS, pressure or no.
There is a lot of urban myth around rohypnol and how often it is used is unknown. However, even if this girl was merely drunk out of her skin then if she cannot give consent in such a state it is rape.
TheHeretic said:
And if the man is just as drunk? What then? A drunk woman has no responsibility, so is the same applied to a man?
I was just thinking the same.Note to self - don't have sex with the misses after a few bevvies.
As for the case, it all seems extremely vague.
How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
TheHeretic said:
And if the man is just as drunk? What then? A drunk woman has no responsibility, so is the same applied to a man?
Are you suggesting that drunkenness should be a defence to the charge of rape?There is no suggestion that a drunken women has no responsibility.
The onus is on the man to ensure that consent is full and free. Have you an argument with that? I would assume that you would be a bit miffed if you went out of a night, got drunk and woke up after being buggered. You'd probably be more than a bit miffed.
Would you suggest that burglary should not be charged if someone did not lock their doors? Or that not fitting an imobiliser is just asking to have your car stolen?
If the drunk woman molested a man, or woman come to that, then they would be guilty of an offence on the expectation that the person did not welcome the advances.
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
As for the case, it all seems extremely vague.
How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
So if a woman is drugged to the extent that she can't remember then tough?How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
Derek Smith said:
Are you suggesting that drunkenness should be a defence to the charge of rape?
There is no suggestion that a drunken women has no responsibility.
The onus is on the man to ensure that consent is full and free. Have you an argument with that? I would assume that you would be a bit miffed if you went out of a night, got drunk and woke up after being buggered. You'd probably be more than a bit miffed.
Would you suggest that burglary should not be charged if someone did not lock their doors? Or that not fitting an imobiliser is just asking to have your car stolen?
If the drunk woman molested a man, or woman come to that, then they would be guilty of an offence on the expectation that the person did not welcome the advances.
No, you are reading too much into my question. It is simple. There is no suggestion that a drunken women has no responsibility.
The onus is on the man to ensure that consent is full and free. Have you an argument with that? I would assume that you would be a bit miffed if you went out of a night, got drunk and woke up after being buggered. You'd probably be more than a bit miffed.
Would you suggest that burglary should not be charged if someone did not lock their doors? Or that not fitting an imobiliser is just asking to have your car stolen?
If the drunk woman molested a man, or woman come to that, then they would be guilty of an offence on the expectation that the person did not welcome the advances.
If a woman is too drunk to take responsibility for consent, does a drunken man equally have that same surrender of responsibility? Remember that if they are both drunk, the drunk woman could well accuse the drunk man of rape, hence my question. If a drunk woman surrenders their responsibility for consent, does the same apply to a drunk man, or is a drunk man to retain all responsibility?
This is not to excuse a drunk man raping someone, but if at a party, a very drunk woman, and a very drunk man, end up in bed, the responsibility is on the shoulders of just one party.
zygalski said:
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
As for the case, it all seems extremely vague.
How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
So if a woman is drugged to the extent that she can't remember then tough?How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
As for the case, it all seems extremely vague.
How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
So if a woman is drugged to the extent that she can't remember then tough?How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
Your snide little comment to me shows that you've simply ran out of steam on this one.
Better luck next time.
xxx
TheHeretic said:
No, you are reading too much into my question. It is simple.
If a woman is too drunk to take responsibility for consent, does a drunken man equally have that same surrender of responsibility? Remember that if they are both drunk, the drunk woman could well accuse the drunk man of rape, hence my question. If a drunk woman surrenders their responsibility for consent, does the same apply to a drunk man, or is a drunk man to retain all responsibility?
This is not to excuse a drunk man raping someone, but if at a party, a very drunk woman, and a very drunk man, end up in bed, the responsibility is on the shoulders of just one party.
I think there is a moral side to getting drunk, one I tend not to comment on as I'm tea-total. However, put yourself in the place of a victim - men can be victims of rape. You went out, got drunk and then you were buggered. Would you say: "Oh, yeah, that's alright then." if your mate had raped you?If a woman is too drunk to take responsibility for consent, does a drunken man equally have that same surrender of responsibility? Remember that if they are both drunk, the drunk woman could well accuse the drunk man of rape, hence my question. If a drunk woman surrenders their responsibility for consent, does the same apply to a drunk man, or is a drunk man to retain all responsibility?
This is not to excuse a drunk man raping someone, but if at a party, a very drunk woman, and a very drunk man, end up in bed, the responsibility is on the shoulders of just one party.
Should girls not walk through dark alleys, wear short skirts, kiss people she doen't want to go to bed with, or one defence I heard, sit on a bed with a bloke when the bed was the only bit of furniture in the room?
People do get drunk. If she consents due to beer goggles then that might well be another matter. Changing her mind afterwards does not make it rape, although she can change her mind during of course.
I went through 21 years of being a police officer without being confronted by many rapes. When I was ID officer I ran 3 rape parades a week and once 3 in one day. It changes your mind on the matter.
Derek Smith said:
I think there is a moral side to getting drunk, one I tend not to comment on as I'm tea-total. However, put yourself in the place of a victim - men can be victims of rape. You went out, got drunk and then you were buggered. Would you say: "Oh, yeah, that's alright then." if your mate had raped you?
Should girls not walk through dark alleys, wear short skirts, kiss people she doen't want to go to bed with, or one defence I heard, sit on a bed with a bloke when the bed was the only bit of furniture in the room?
People do get drunk. If she consents due to beer goggles then that might well be another matter. Changing her mind afterwards does not make it rape, although she can change her mind during of course.
I went through 21 years of being a police officer without being confronted by many rapes. When I was ID officer I ran 3 rape parades a week and once 3 in one day. It changes your mind on the matter.
Wow, you really do read multiple things into a quite simple proposal. Should girls not walk through dark alleys, wear short skirts, kiss people she doen't want to go to bed with, or one defence I heard, sit on a bed with a bloke when the bed was the only bit of furniture in the room?
People do get drunk. If she consents due to beer goggles then that might well be another matter. Changing her mind afterwards does not make it rape, although she can change her mind during of course.
I went through 21 years of being a police officer without being confronted by many rapes. When I was ID officer I ran 3 rape parades a week and once 3 in one day. It changes your mind on the matter.
I never said rape was OK.
I never said women should not walk in dark alleys.
I never said women should not wear short skirts.
I never said women should not kiss people they do not want to sleep with.
I also never said women should never be able to sit on the only bit of furniture in the room.
Let me try to give you my question in easy to read, non-strawman, non-hysterical way.
If a woman gives up responsibility of consent when they get really drunk, why is an equally drunk man, in bed with the equally drunk woman, the bearer of the responsibility? I'll give an example, as in my post above, (please note, there is no mention of short skirts, alleys, etc).
Dave and Betty are at a party, and they get equally, and absolutely hammered. They have a lustful fancy for each other, and skulk off to an upstairs bedroom where they proceed to fu...<censored>... where they finally retrieve the gerbil, then they fall asleep on the bed. In the morning, both hungover and feeling crappy, they get up. Dave, having no recollection of the night, as he was absolutely hammered, gets arrested. The reason he is arrested? Because equally, Betty also has no recollection of the night.
So, why is the woman excused of any need to bear responsibility for getting drunk, etc, whereas the man, equally drunk, bears the full brunt of the responsibility?
zygalski said:
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
As for the case, it all seems extremely vague.
How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
So if a woman is drugged to the extent that she can't remember then tough?How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
Your snide little comment to me shows that you've simply ran out of steam on this one.
Better luck next time.
xxx
Evidence is available by more ways than verbals.
Sorry for the snide comment. But I am right by suggesting, if rather crudely, that you were wrong.
"drinking four double vodkas and lemonade and a shot of Sambucca ....
....agreed she had drunk two-thirds of a bottle of wine and the other alcohol that night."
She can't remember if that was all and also states that she usually drinks more.
Why is there political pressure to prosecute such cases? What will anyone gain from doing so? Court time will just be wasted. The portion of cases in which you will never know what really happened won't change. The portion of cases in which the woman is lying won't change.
In the interests of sexual equality, can we know her name as well as those of the two blokes?
It's only a matter of time before a bloke names his accuser and claims discrimination on the basis that dual annonimity has not been granted, was part of the current governments election pledges (IIRC) and that it is granted routinely in other countries. There's going to be a massive compensation claim one day for this.
....agreed she had drunk two-thirds of a bottle of wine and the other alcohol that night."
She can't remember if that was all and also states that she usually drinks more.
Why is there political pressure to prosecute such cases? What will anyone gain from doing so? Court time will just be wasted. The portion of cases in which you will never know what really happened won't change. The portion of cases in which the woman is lying won't change.
In the interests of sexual equality, can we know her name as well as those of the two blokes?
It's only a matter of time before a bloke names his accuser and claims discrimination on the basis that dual annonimity has not been granted, was part of the current governments election pledges (IIRC) and that it is granted routinely in other countries. There's going to be a massive compensation claim one day for this.
Derek Smith said:
I might be flying a kite here but I have often found that many murder victims can't remember the course of event or even if they consented or not. So, can't be murder then?
Evidence is available by more ways than verbals.
Sorry for the snide comment. But I am right by suggesting, if rather crudely, that you were wrong.
Sorry to disagree but you're reading far more into the 'evidence' than what is included in the story. I assume based on your experiences.Evidence is available by more ways than verbals.
Sorry for the snide comment. But I am right by suggesting, if rather crudely, that you were wrong.
However, I read the story and if I understand there is no denial from any involved that any intercourse didn't happen. So any physical evidnce in this case appears largely irrelevant.
The question appears to be did the girl consent or not? The two players both say she did, she says 'I don't remember'. So she can't even deny that she gave consent.
I can't see how this can possibly result in a conviction, there is no evidence in the story that at any time she said 'No'.
Doesn't mean it wasn't rape, but I don't see enough information to prove or disprove, so reasonable doubt must come into play.
Perhaps the prosecution have witnesses leading up to the hotel who can vouch on the girl's behalf. I hope so because I'd be disappointed in the CPS if all they had was a girl with no memory.
And who is to say that she didn't agree to it or positively encourage the 2 players? She certainly doesn't see able to deny it based on the story.
TheHeretic said:
If a woman gives up responsibility of consent when they get really drunk, why is an equally drunk man, in bed with the equally drunk woman, the bearer of the responsibility? I'll give an example, as in my post above, (please note, there is no mention of short skirts, alleys, etc).
Dave and Betty are at a party, and they get equally, and absolutely hammered. They have a lustful fancy for each other, and skulk off to an upstairs bedroom where they proceed to fu...<censored>... where they finally retrieve the gerbil, then they fall asleep on the bed. In the morning, both hungover and feeling crappy, they get up. Dave, having no recollection of the night, as he was absolutely hammered, gets arrested. The reason he is arrested? Because equally, Betty also has no recollection of the night.
So, why is the woman excused of any need to bear responsibility for getting drunk, etc, whereas the man, equally drunk, bears the full brunt of the responsibility?
Be interested to see an answer to this question.Dave and Betty are at a party, and they get equally, and absolutely hammered. They have a lustful fancy for each other, and skulk off to an upstairs bedroom where they proceed to fu...<censored>... where they finally retrieve the gerbil, then they fall asleep on the bed. In the morning, both hungover and feeling crappy, they get up. Dave, having no recollection of the night, as he was absolutely hammered, gets arrested. The reason he is arrested? Because equally, Betty also has no recollection of the night.
So, why is the woman excused of any need to bear responsibility for getting drunk, etc, whereas the man, equally drunk, bears the full brunt of the responsibility?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff