Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Courts Should Assume You Are Guilty Of Rape If You Have Xes With A Drunk Woman

Recommended Posts

Courts 'should assume women can't consent to sex when drunk': Rape report's controversial proposal
03DCCACD000005DC-0-image-m-42_1433287561

Dame Elish Angiolini has called for a change to rape laws that goes beyond 'no means no' and takes into account occasions in which women may be incapable of giving consent, such as when heavily intoxicated.

Nice to see presumption entering the legal system, they should extend this to all legal cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its already the law...why do they keep going over this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what they seem to be trying to do is putting numerical test to the case.

for a barrister, I would think that having not thought it through would not be the case, but this idiot appears not to have.

want to entrap your man?....drink a skinful two hours before you complain. as the offence then becomes absolute, we have a fait accompli.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The population would collapse if people stopped drinking to find a mate.

Maybe it's all a part of the big plan there's a religious subset for whom drinking is forbidden and they are already aiding population growth at four times the national rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably if the drunk girl actively encourages the commission of the offence, she is aiding and abetting and should be tried as a joint principle.

But she is not capable of aiding and abetting the offence as she is incapacitated by alcohol. This logic would, of course, would not apply to the man.

The obvious answer to this problem is mandatory chastity belts for all women which can only be deactivated after the woman has provided a negative breath sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But she is not capable of aiding and abetting the offence as she is incapacitated by alcohol.

Nonsense. Just because a person does not have capacity to give valid consent, doesn't mean they have any immunity to criminal charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. Just because a person does not have capacity to give valid consent, doesn't mean they have any immunity to criminal charges.

Sorry, I should have known better, irony does not always work on forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It literally is unbelievable that the UK Government relentlessly seeks to criminalise swathes of the population. I recall as a young buck ending up in various sacks, that it rarely occurred without alcohol being involved for both parties.

Literally all my social peers grew up in the same way. This lifestyle would now see the male half all imprisoned. Nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It literally is unbelievable that the UK Government relentlessly seeks to criminalise swathes of the population. I recall as a young buck ending up in various sacks, that it rarely occurred without alcohol being involved for both parties.

Literally all my social peers grew up in the same way. This lifestyle would now see the male half all imprisoned. Nuts.

The sex offenders register has 10 year old pre-pubescent children on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It literally is unbelievable that the UK Government relentlessly seeks to criminalise swathes of the population. I recall as a young buck ending up in various sacks, that it rarely occurred without alcohol being involved for both parties.

Literally all my social peers grew up in the same way. This lifestyle would now see the male half all imprisoned. Nuts.

If we take the case of Ched Evans as an example, you don't have to be the one buying her a drink. Worse, a third party can decide her ability to consent, the fact that she says she gave consent will be ignored because her sobriety will be judged by others (on no other evidence than CCTV). Going further, she could bring a historical claim, and not need to provide any evidence other than her say-so, probably backed up by a couple of mates.

And she gets to collect compo.....

We need to limit compo to providing therapy for any psychological problems, and introduce a strict time limit for reporting the offence. In the case of drunkedness, that needs to be less than 24 hours so some forensic evidence can be gathered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It literally is unbelievable that the UK Government relentlessly seeks to criminalise swathes of the population. I recall as a young buck ending up in various sacks, that it rarely occurred without alcohol being involved for both parties.

Literally all my social peers grew up in the same way. This lifestyle would now see the male half all imprisoned. Nuts.

Yep put the boot on the other foot and i have been serially abused

This stance should cover booth genders if it`s going to be applied ,who haven't woke up in the morning thinking no surely not i couldn`t have, you may have the piss taken out of you for a few weeks but soon get over the it ,the get out clause for any woman in this situation is now going to cost someone years in the pokey by default

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone is unable to give consent to sex due to being drunk then they should also be unable to give consent to the contract implicit in purchasing the alcohol in the first place.

Ergo, women could not become incapacitated if they werent served alcohol.

Ergo, just ban serving alcohol to anyone who is unable to enter into the contract.

Then they cannot get sooo drunk they dont know what theyre doing. But if they were served alcohol then they de facto cannot be drunk.

Sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shamelessly copied from a comment in the Washington Post. I do hope this doesn't become the de-facto standard of applying the law in this country, but since the "yes means yes" and "all sex with alcohol is rape" guidance, I fear we are not far away from the police and courts being given similar instruction.

A Northwestern University insider, who wishes to remain anonymous, leaked to Popehat the following email on Title IX investigations, which was circulated to the Northwestern faculty and staff last Friday.

FROM: Joan Slavin [Director, University Sexual Harassment Prevention Office; Title IX Coordinator; Special Assistant to the Provost]

TO: FACULTY GROUP [3,344 email addresses], ADMIN GROUP [3,635 email addresses]

DATE: Friday, May 30, 2015 at 3:15 p.m.

Dear Northwestern administrators and faculty:

Public Attacks On Victims: When a student accuses a faculty member or another student of sexual misconduct, the only University response consistent with Title IX is contrition, acceptance, and support. That's an obligation of all University employees. Whether or not the complaint has yielded public litigation or press coverage, it is inappropriate for University employees to engage in victim-blaming and victim-challenging behaviors that might deter complaints. Prohibited behaviors include weighing, evaluating, questioning, critiquing, deconstructing, or otherwise assaulting the victim's complaint. This proscription applies to all departments: it is inappropriate to challenge a victim's factual account or legal assertion through the disciplines of law, philosophy, rhetoric, logic, or physics. Statements of support and belief in the victim's account remain acceptable — and strongly encouraged — under any discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not question or evaluate the complaint....lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this going against the whole basis of law I.e. we shouldn't assume any wrongdoing? The wrongdoing has to he proved by evaluating the evidence. I don't know where we go from here, I really don't. It's enough to make me turn to Sharia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not question or evaluate the complaint....lord

That's fine if you don't want to potentially upset the person making it any further - just as long as you don't act on the complaint either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine if you don't want to potentially upset the person making it any further - just as long as you don't act on the complaint either.

Its all seriously messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all seriously messed up.

Welcome to the modern world, which I keep getting told I shouldn't let bother me (when these things happen precisely because a bunch of lunatics think they're improving the world, and everyone else doesn't get bothered enough about thus creating the environment in which the loonies' ideas can breed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   100 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.