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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Ah ok ... never mind my above post
Nope.
But if you think it is acceptable to assume that any girl who got drunk wanted hot sex with a stranger, then that is wrong. And if you believe that, you are a complete twat.
None.
To clarify, judges decide on law, juries decide on facts. Only a jury can convict. If a jury convicted, it would have meant that twelve honest people would have believed her story ahead of his, to such an extent that there was no doubt he raped her.
If a jury had acquitted, similarly there would have been no precedent set.
Precedent is a legal term. The judge decided that because she was drunk and cannot remember explicitly saying no, then she must have consented. He decided that, and legally decided there was no case to answer.
The defendant should have been made to give testimony, and the decision on fact should have been made by the jury. That is what the problem is- the jury were not allowed to make the decision.
Way to miss the point, eh.
of course not, but did i say it's her fault, no
a person being responsible for themselves, must be aware of the risks surrounding themselves and getting drunk to not be able to remember isn't an acceptable risk, and im quite sure she get that drunk again
ive got that drunk before and its not a great feeling wondering how you got home with a tenner missing let alone being told you had sex and you dont remember
difference between responsiblity and blame you see
no but the point is, we don't know
is the guys a cunt? yes
rapist? maybe but maybe not
Well yes but that's why I added ...
Right after it.
Yes but no one has said anything like that on this thread.
So why did the judge throw the case out instead of putting the defendant to proof?
It was a matter of fact, and juries decide matters of fact.
This legal decision fucking stinks. If it had been against the defendant, there would have been grounds for appeal to the Court of Appeal.
To clarify, if a victim is unconscious, then it is rape. The victim in this instance testified that she was largely out of it, and didn't know what was going on.
The question of consent.
His evidence would be that she said yes.
It should have gone to jury.
I haven't misrepresented the case at all, based on information in the media.
she might not be able to remember consenting
I've explained myself enough times. But if people think this judge was right then, well, I can see why the contested conviction rate is 6%.
many women DO get plastered and demand sex.
seeing as the two strongest driving forces in a man are thirst and sex ...an awful lot of blokes would have sex with any woman that was screaming for it ...begging for it ...going through the actions of getting it ...is this what happened ...she doesn't know ...no case.
No, she said she couldn't remember consenting. That quite a big difference.
If she can't say without doubt that she was raped, and there are no witnesses, how is a judge or a jury going going to convict him?
And if everybosy thought like you we'd have a 100% conviction, including convictions for men who havn't done anything except have sex with a drunk girl.
thats where we would be with kermit kermit and frog ltd.
Or that this meant that there was sufficient grounds for "reasonable doubt". I don't think he explicitly said that it meant she had consented, just that there was doubt...
did you say yes ...don't know.
did you say no ...don't know.
did you have sex ...don't know.
what time was it ...don't know.
how much had you drank ...don't know.
why exactly are you here ...don't know.
Go on, quote me where i've said that you stupid fuck.
And you work in the legal profession? Doing what, exactly?
What are you babbling about?
You're making a proverbial mountain out a molehill. So he liked you and jumped in at the deep end, big deal, you push him off and that's the end of it.
Your word against his? What?
If a girl starts stroking me and I'm not interested in fucking them then I usually brush them off or just ignore them. That's all you need to do, it's hardly difficult.
Take his advances as a compliment...he liked you enough to risk rejection and looking a fool.
Oh and on a side note - consent is for each individual to be certain of under the new sexual health act. In a crude sense, it is not the responsibility of women to say no - it is the responsibility of a man to make sure she has said yes.
Errr...you're wrong...I've been "sexually assaulted" on various occasions if that's what you consider to have happened to Ballerina.
And there's no comparison to being attacked either.
Are you a teen girl? unless you are you can't compare and in fact look like a moron who's lack of empathy and understanding makes Stalin seem an example of tolerance and humanity.
I'm a man - I've had my arse pinched in pubs and don't find it threatening - if I was a woman I probably would. Sex equality doesn't mean that women and men are the same and what is playful if conducted on me is (rightfully) sexual assault if I was a woman
I was replying to girl with sharp teeth's assertion that it's "obvious you have no idea what a sexual assault feels like".
Forgotten your own contributions to the thread have you?
Unless she likes it of course. :rolleyes: It's either sexual assault for both or neither.
Some posters have made the point that you can't decide you have been assaulted (or not) based on how you feel about what happened once it's over.
Otherwise every case of buyers remorse becomes rape, every arse pinch that's playfully accepted and laughed about in the pub while pissed up becomes sexual harrassment in the morning when hungover and every relationship can be backwards rationalised to make your ex a rapist.
Either the prosecution counsel has fucked up, or something has been omitted in the media reports. But I'm not actually fussed about the facts of this particular case; the precedent is what it is all about.
The precedent has now been set that women who cannot remember saying no, and were drunk at the time, will not get justice if they have been raped.
To start wanking on about "breathalysers" completely misses the point. MR has a penchant for missing the point, so I can't say I'm too surprised.
The point is not that this woman was drunk. The point is not whether she had sex consensually. The point is that there is now a precedent that says if she cannot remember saying no, and she was drunk, then that will sink a rape case without trace.
Two assumptions have been made. Firstly, that her not saying no means she wasn't raped. And secondly, that because she was drunk she was likely to have sex with a complete stranger in a corridor inches from her bedroom. I don't assume that this man raped her- though he is a cunt for abusing her trust in such a foul way, regardless of consent- but the assumption should not have been made that because she was drunk she had "steamy raunchy sex" with a stranger in a corridor for kicks.
As I have said, it is up to the jury to decide whether the defendant was guilty. He should have been put to proof, and the jury should have decided on the facts, not the judge and counsel. I'm not saying that all drunk women who have sex have been raped, far from it, but it is for the jury to decide whether or not the woman has been raped.
Like it or not, most rape cases do hinge on whether the defendant is liked by the jury. Turn up suited and booted and you are far more likely to be acquitted than if you turn up calling the complainant a slut, with your mates laughing in the public gallery alongside. If the woman was drunk at the time already the defence just lay into the poor woman until she breaks down in the witness box; now there's a legal precendent that if she was drunk and can't remember saying no then that means she was not raped.
Spliffie, you're talking out of your arse mate. If you don't appreciate the different social dynamics there is between men and women, then you are sadly deluded. Sure you would brush the woman off, because there isn't the same social dynamic involved when its a man groping a woman. A man groping a woman is, for many women, far more threatening than a woman groping a man is for most men.
I also feel the attitude that "take his advances as a compliment" shows far more about your misogyny and your complete lack of empathy than anything else. Maybe we should go and say that to all victims of sexual assault, eh?
And since you ask, I work in the criminal law, for the defence.
Klintock, if a man considers himself to have been sexually assaulted, and he has been felt up in inappropriate places by a woman in a pub, then yes, that woman is guilty of indecent assault. It's all in the law.
I know of one man who is on the Sex Offenders Register for five years for groping a woman in a pub, for the record.
As I said, quote me.
I'm waiting...
Again that's not what she said. She was honest and said she couldn't remember if she consented or not. Theres quite a difference.
All three of these assertions are untrue.
1) If a woman cannot remember saying no, then it does not mean that the (alleged) rapist is automatically aquitted. If there is some kind of evidence - a witness, a confession of guilt, or a taped record - then the rape trial would clearly proceed.
2) The most strikingly obvious untruth - the point is whether she had sex consensually, since that is the idea of a rape trial.
3) If there is no evidence to put before a jury (as in this case, where the only witness would have been the defendant) then the case is dismissed by the judge, since there is no grounds for the trial to proceed.