If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Get drunk, get raped, and it means you consented
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Or it does according to Justice Roderick Evans anyway.
Story.
This should make any girl terrified. If you can't remember saying no, then that means you said yes. It doesn't matter if your drink was spiked or whatever, if you can't stand up in court and say you can remember saying no, then you have not been raped.
It doesn't matter if you were so drunk you didn't know what was going on, if you can't remember saying no then that obviously means you said yes.
This country, and its attitude to women and rape, absolutely sickens me.
Another sick and twisted man walks free. Even if that creature didn't rape the girl, it took advantage of someone it was supposed to be protecting. I hope the sub-human monster Ruairi Dougal, from County Donegal, gets everything that's coming to it, the sick little cunt.
Story.
This should make any girl terrified. If you can't remember saying no, then that means you said yes. It doesn't matter if your drink was spiked or whatever, if you can't stand up in court and say you can remember saying no, then you have not been raped.
It doesn't matter if you were so drunk you didn't know what was going on, if you can't remember saying no then that obviously means you said yes.
This country, and its attitude to women and rape, absolutely sickens me.
Another sick and twisted man walks free. Even if that creature didn't rape the girl, it took advantage of someone it was supposed to be protecting. I hope the sub-human monster Ruairi Dougal, from County Donegal, gets everything that's coming to it, the sick little cunt.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Just a shame that the truth is worth fuck all in court.
She shuld knock his fucking lights out and then claim he consented to being punched. If he "can't remember" doing so he must have, mustn't he.
No, it doesn't. And that BBC link suggests nothing of the sort.
Never been so drunk you can't remember something you did/said, and don't believe it when someone tells you?
Much as rapists are scum (recently found out someone i vaguely know is a rapist, and he is the epitome of the cowardly, viscious little fuck you'd expect him to be), I don't see anything particularly outrageous about this.
at the same time - if you're sober and the girl is so drunk she's faints half way through and has no idea the next morning whether she consented or not - you are an absolute cunt and it should be illegal to have sex with someone when there in that condition and you're not.
I'd agree with that.
Especially in rape cases, its all about who has the nicer suit, and looks more respectable. It's all about respectability, not truth.
If you want to commit a crime and get away with it, rape is the one to do. Choose a drunk girl, or drug one with rohypnol, and you'll get away with it. Even if she has the guts to come to court, this happens.
Morgan should have been jailed for a very very long time for abusing the trust placed in it. As it is, the little cunt walks straight out of court scot free, after betraying a vulnerable person's trust in the most horrific way.
Spliffie, that is exactly the message it spells out. If you get drunk and get raped, then you will be assumed to have consented. A decent defence barrister will have a rape victim tied up in knots anyway, and if there's the merest hint of being drunk they will sink a prosecution case.
And isn't it the role of defence lawyers to try and get their clients off, the same as it is the role of the prosecution to try and make sure they are prosecuted.
So even if it was consensual he's still a 'sick little cunt'?
He obviously considered her case too weak to stand up. If she couldn't remember consenting or not, and is going on theoretical supposition of whether she would or wouldn't have done when sober, then it's a very dubious accusation.
An unfortunate incident, whatever happened.
Kermit's letting his emotions take precedence over his logical reasoning on this one.
Where as you assume straight away that she's been raped.
very difficult to judge case, imho it's not something for the law to sort out, its a lesson in life in that you try not to get that wasted - if the guy got her drunk or drugged her purposely, he should be investigated but she admitted getting drunk before even going out, so again imho it's just a bad experience to learn from
Well i'd agree with Kermit on that. If you're sober and someone is so drunk they pass out it may be technically consensual, but its still taking major advantage. Its even worse is that he was a security guard and the organisers of the event had asked him to escort her home as she was too drunk too get their alone (ie his job was to protect her from being taking advanatage off - not shag her in the corridor).
It may be technically legal, but I wouldn't cry if his testicles got caught in a meat grinder.
The CPS are the kings of the fuck-up.
Yep, that's what my job is. He's a good lad, honest, guv.
The big problem is that there are no specialist rape lawyers for the CPS, especially there are no specialist rape counsel. The complainant isn't the main person in the case; a victim is merely a witness is someone else's case. The case is brought by, and run by, the CPS- the victim is largely ignored.
Defendants, on the other hand, have huge amounts of time spent on them by defence solicitors, and have several conferences with defence counsel before trials.
In rape cases the odds are always stacked against the complainant. It's no wonder so few women bother to report it- even if they get to court, they just end up getting humiliated like this woman has been. The rapist gets off, the woman gets humiliated, what's the point in reporting it?
I know three or four very close friends who have been raped. Not one reported it- because they wouldn't be believed. They would get to court and be humiliated by the defence. Talk about rubbing salts into a wound.
He was paid to look after a weak and vulnerable woman, not have sex with her in the corridor.
He was a security guard, his job was to get her safely home. Instead he took advantage in the most despicable way possible.
I don't know whether he raped her or not. I don't care. He is still a sick little cunt.
He was acquitted. So legally he didn't do it.
But we all know how terrible the conviction rate is on rape.
Well yes he is a cunt for taking advantage, but Kermit seems to think he shoudl be locked up simply for that.
I agree something needs to be done about the system, though I thought there was now rules about asking about women's personal histories or sexual past. CPS need specialist rape teams (as do the police - I think it was announced recently only 8 forces had a specialist rape unit). But at the same time a man accused of rape deserves a decent defence (especially if he is innocent either becuase the women lied or more likely police have the wrong man).
Should the law be extended to say sober men having sex with extremely drunk women is rape unless there is reasonable grounds for believing she would give consent if she was less drunk(for example a married couple having sex when he's been the driver and she's been enjoying the party).
I understand their is malfeasance in a public office (which stops copper shagging women they pick up when on duty) - could this be in someway extended to bouncers, barstaff or security guards.
I don't have the answers I'm afraid.
Now that's just pure sillyness, NQA.
That would mean people being charged with rape even when clear consent was given.
"She pulled my dick out and said she was wanting to have sex..."
"Yes, she did indeed, but she drunk. What grounds did you have to believe she would have consented if she was less drunken?"
"We'd only known each other for five minutes".
See the problem?
I don't know the answer to the whole issue, but Kermit's way off target here, there's no doubt about that.
If someone is tipsy or just normally drunk it shouldn't be a crime, (especially if she whips down your fly and pulls out your cock I would think consent is a given) but where someone is so drunk that they are having to be helped home, collapses in the corridor etc and you're stone cold sober if you have sex with her it should be rape.
Doesn't mean she did either.
I agree with the original post. The countrys attitude to sexual harrassment of any sort is pathetic, and I speak from experience (though I haven't been raped, which I'm thankful for) and unfortunetly witnessed friends go through it.
It's no wonder teenage girls who get harassed are too scared to claim.
I think consent should have to be informed- especially if the man is stone sober and the girl isn't. The bloke should have to reasonably believe the woman is giving informed consent; in this instance, she obviously was really drunk, otherwise he wouldn't have been entrusted to walk her home. This bloke obviously saw an opportunity for an easy shag, and took it- that should be criminal, given his position of responsibility.
I would also suggest that the fact she can't remember anything except being unconbscious makes any consent unlikely, let alone informed consent.
This happens in all rape cases unless the woman was grabbed at knifepoint and beaten half to death. The attitude is always the same on this message board though- if a girl is drunk, then she obviously consented, and any man who has sex with them is doing it for purely selfless reasons. This bloke is a grade A cunt, and he should have been jailed for what he did.
But as the attitude persists that if the girl is drunk she obviously consented then rape victims will not receive justice.
I quite agree that it has to be beyond reasonable doubt, and that is a huge problem with rape cases. If acquaintances shag, it could quite easily be consensual, but regretted. There's always some doubt. But whilst people have the attitude that drunk women will open their legs for anyone, then rapists will get away with their despicable crimes.
IMHO, the assumption in this case is that this woman was drunk, therefore she will have been up for anything. The incompetent prosecution counsel seems to have bought into this as much as anyone. Whilst people have the idea that drunk = easy nothing will change at all.
I don't want to comment on the individual case too much, as I don't know all the facts, but the attitude that drunk = slut is one that is endemic in this country, and one that shows again and again that if you rape someone you are almost guaranteed to get away with it.
There should be specialist rape prosecutors, and specialist rape police officers. They have them in the US, and the rape conviction rate shot up, as the prosecutors know how to help the victim give the best testimony in court.
Only if we have specially trained experienced rape lawyers will we ever have a situation where rapists get punished for their crimes. As it is, any woman who reports a rape by an acquaintance and gets to court will be humiliated, and her attacker will be released scot free. There are rules about the admissibility of sexual history, which is a good start, but it isn't enough. All a defence barrister needs to do is show a woman was drunk and the man will be acquitted.
So even if she explicitly consents, it's still rape because she's pished? That's bullshit.
How drunk she gets and who she consents to have sex with is her responsibility.
Rape is sex without consent - you can't change the definition.
he should be castrated.....sorry but thats my attitude to rapists, it'll stop them from doing it again tbh!
What do you mean by "informed" though? You either want to have sex or not.
I mean, I know people (guys and girls) who have had sex when out their face and regretted it later on. But they made that choice themselves - nobody forced them.
Perhaps you can question the morals of a guy who shags pissed-up women, but that doesn't make him a rapist.
And of course, to play the Devil's advocate here, i've shagged loads of girls
when i've been full of cocaine and ABSOLUTELY out of my face. Are they potentially guilty of sexual assault because i wasn't capable of making an "informed choice"?
I think the sensible position to take on this issue, is that consent is consent, regardless of intoxification. It's more of a moral issue imho.
:yes:
The fact is that many girls who go out on the town, get 'out their face' and then go back with a bloke.
You can't put a limit on drunk sex like you can drink driving.
Well, your consent certainly wasn't explicit. By explicit consent, I mean actual verbalisation and actively participating.
Having sex with a girl who is passive, semi-conscious and doesn't know what's going on is a completely different matter - it's rape.