1/3? Really?

[Will]

That's a very different matter. I was reading from the Independant, not from BBC News. I'd be very surprised if he is still employed there, even if he isn't guilty of rape in the eyes of the law.

 

[Tom]

What do you mean 'in the eyes of the law'?

 

[DaGaffer]

You might not have read the case. She got really drunk at a party. Her mates decided she needed to be walked home, and they picked the man later accused of raping her.

All she remembered was looking for her keys, and then later lying on the floor inside. A Uni counsellor spoke to Mr Dougal, who said they had consensual sex, which was the first she knew of it. She honestly admitted she had no recollection of the events.

No matter what actually happened, there are a few things here. If a girl is that minging, is she in a mental state to give consent? The judge said yes, which means future cases will have to take this into account. His exact words "Drunken consent is still consent". I don't agree with this, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge.

The case does not cover how drunk he was. If he was sober, which I doubt, it would be clearcut that, while not a rapist, he's a scumbag for having sex with someone that drunk. If he was pissed too, that could partially explain what happened, but that detail was glossed over in the papers.

And I'd be very careful who I let walk my mates home in future.

Nice mates. "Lets dump our mate with a stranger"

If she had no recollection, how can she say she was raped? This is the crux of the matter, she can't even act as her own witness ffs. Unfortunatley I don't see how any jury could do anything but give him the benefit of the doubt. Also bear in mind, that even when someone's pissed, you never know what they're going to remember the next day. I've had a couple of druken shags that I can't remember to this day, but most druken shags I do remember.

Druken consent is still consent because, going back the crux of the argument here, its your own responsibility to stay in control. If you say or do things while you're drunk, the law doesn't make a distinction between drunk or sober. If you think about it, how could it? It would be the perfect get-out clause; "sorry I blew up that bus load of Nuns your honour, but I was pissed".

Yeah he's a scumbag. But he's not an unusual scumbag. (I can honestly say I've always been a gentleman about that kind of thing, but talking to most blokes I think I'm in a minority).

 

[rynnor]

No matter what actually happened, there are a few things here. If a girl is that minging, is she in a mental state to give consent? The judge said yes, which means future cases will have to take this into account. His exact words "Drunken consent is still consent". I don't agree with this, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge.

This judgement is in line with the general line the courts take on alcohol and drug use - they say you are still able to make judgements regardless unless you are actually unconscious.

The reason for this stance is to prevent murderers etc. using being drunk as a defence - otherwise if you accept that being drunk means you arent in control of your actions then you wouldnt be legally responsible for your actions and could kill/rape/destroy without a worry.

Women need to understand that if they go off with someone they need to be fairly sure of that person because you cannot prove a case beyond reasonable doubt if it just comes down to one persons word against another.

If theres other evidence of violence or previous convictions then it may be possible but otherwise there wont be a conviction.

If people have a problem with this then they are in the wrong country because british justice is founded on proof beyond reasonable doubt as a protection for the innocent.

 

[Will]

What do you mean 'in the eyes of the law'?

Ok, the phrase wasn't needed as part of that sentance.

And I'm quite aware of why the case was thrown out. It shouldn't have been got to a judge with that little evidence. It doesn't mean he isn't a bastard (if the facts play out like they seem to be doing, I could be wrong). But the judges comments weren't that helpful in adding to the body of case law.

 

[Whipped]

Has anyone thought that maybe the girl was pissed. Someone asked this guy to walk her home and in her drunken state she started to come onto him. Maybe she kept insisting she wasn't that drunk, etc. etc.

They have sex and the next thing this guy knows he's in court accused of rape.

Not saying this is the way it happened. Just saying it's a possiblity. Without knowing the personalities and personal histories of these two people (In fact, without actually being there!), there's only one person that knows exactly what happend. Dougal.

This is why we need to invent thought reading machines

 

[rynnor]

This is why we need to invent thought reading machines

Or 1984'esque total surveillance systems...

 

[DaGaffer]

Or 1984'esque total surveillance systems...

Don't worry, the way things are going we'll have those soon enough.

 

[Chilly]

Will:" His exact words "Drunken consent is still consent". I don't agree with this, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge."

Personally I think it is correct. If someone wants to get completely ratted, then fair enough. But they then have to be aware that being ratted may well mean they make very stupid decisions. She drank the booze, thus she can take responsibility for whatever she did while drunk.

That is the stance the law has. You are not absolved of drink driving offences simply because you don't remember it happening. You were the one thinking it was a good idea to drive home after drinking a bottle of vodka and 8 pints, so you can go to prison for whatever happened.

Why should there be a difference just because the event is different?

If people want to get drunk, they should damn well do it in a safe environment, I rarely get more than tipsy anywhere where I am not among many friends (or at home) - and the times I have it was when I was younger and stupider.

 

[Hansmoleman]

Just to add some wood to the already burning fire. Is it possible for a man to be raped? and would he even report it or feel to embaressed?

Yes its possible, your heart starts beating faster blood gets rushing

 

[throdgrain]

Will:" His exact words "Drunken consent is still consent". I don't agree with this, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge."

Personally I think it is correct.

Make yer fuckin mind up mate

 

[Scouse]

No matter what actually happened, there are a few things here. If a girl is that minging, is she in a mental state to give consent? The judge said yes, which means future cases will have to take this into account. His exact words "Drunken consent is still consent". I don't agree with this, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge.

Tell you what Will, consider this:

Something similar happens when the guy is definately blind drunk aswell.

She wakes up, he remembers having sex with her, she doesn't, and NEITHER of them remember her saying yes.

He's actually nice guy and believes that he would never rape a woman.

She thinks differently (maybe she has a boyfriend and genuinely believes that she never would say yes) and feels that he took advantage and raped her.

She calls the police...

Now, with your train of thought this chap could still get banged up - because she can't remember giving consent.

In fact - if "drunken consent" shouldn't be consent then everyone who shags a bird who is so drunk is at risk from rape charges.


Remember: She drank the drinks. It's her responsibility to know if she gave consent or not.


It wouldn't be her fault if she was raped. Never. But if she can't remember giving consent because of her own actions how could you, in good consience, prosecute a man for that?

It's harsh, but the alternative is to criminalise pretty much every man I know.

 

[Scouse]

That's a very different matter. I was reading from the Independant, not from BBC News. I'd be very surprised if he is still employed there, even if he isn't guilty of rape in the eyes of the law.

Bingo!

So, even if he's not actually guilty of rape he should be hounded out of his job.

How about we put him on the sex offenders register?

Perhaps we could get a vigilante squad together?

OR

Perhaps this girl will take responsibility for her own safety and not get so shit-faced that she can't remember whether she fancied a fuck or not?



Edit: Gah. Should have read the whole post. Soz Will, I can't crucify you for that

 

[Will]

I'll sum up my views, since my "stream of gibberish" style of posting isn't always that clear.

I agree that he should have ben found innocent. There is not enough evidence to say if he is guilty or not. She honestly can't remember, he says she gave consent. It should never have got to court.

But a sober man, agreeing, as part of his job, to walk a girl that drunk home, should not have had sex with her. It isn't criminal, but would you do the same thing in the same circumstances?

 

[Whipped]

I'll sum up my views, since my "stream of gibberish" style of posting isn't always that clear.

I agree that he should have ben found innocent. There is not enough evidence to say if he is guilty or not. She honestly can't remember, he says she gave consent. It should never have got to court.

But a sober man, agreeing, as part of his job, to walk a girl that drunk home, should not have had sex with her. It isn't criminal, but would you do the same thing in the same circumstances?

Depends how horny I was, or she was

 

[ECA]

Reverse the sexes and revere the prejudice we see here.

Thats why this thread is bollocks.

"Sorry guv, I woke up with this bird, but I was a bit drunk, but I didnt give consent"

"Lock her away and throw away the key the dirty rapist bitch"

 

[DaGaffer]

But a sober man, agreeing, as part of his job, to walk a girl that drunk home, should not have had sex with her. It isn't criminal, but would you do the same thing in the same circumstances?

That's the problem isn't it, we'll never really know the circumstances. As I said in earlier post, when in that kind of situation I've always been a gentleman, mainly because really drunk girls ain't that attractive if you're not drunk too tbh, but, could I say I would always resist? I can't honestly say I could. If a girl really went for it and she was fit...

 

[rynnor]

From the Beebs discussion article about the collapsed rape trial:

Some, like Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, argue that the judge at Swansea Crown Court should have allowed the jury to reach a verdict.

"We know that in certain circumstances, where drink is involved, a man will often take advantage of a woman," she said.

Lovely presumption there - however in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty...

I think both parties in rape cases should have anonimity - even the mere accusation carries a huge social stigma and having a case collapse (as in this case) does not free a person from this stigma.

I once briefly went out with a girl who I found was two timing me - when confronted she tried to defend her actions saying she had been raped. Luckily for me I had found and read her diary which gave a different account ;P

When I confronted her with that she admitted that the rape allegation was just to stop me being angry with her... You can imagine the number of cases where this kind of thing gets out of hand and the police are brought in - plus once you've told such a lie it must become ever more difficult to tell the truth.

 

[Scouse]

But a sober man, agreeing, as part of his job, to walk a girl that drunk home, should not have had sex with her. It isn't criminal, but would you do the same thing in the same circumstances?

I've been in that exact same situation many times. I must admit that sometime's I feel a fool for not taking advantage but I've always been the perfect gentleman. I just couldn't live with myself the other way...

 

[Will]

That's exactly how I would feel. We all know what the right thing to do is, even if there isn't a law attached to it.

 

[Wij]

It's a broader issue than drink and consent. Drunken decisions are still your decisions.

<derek_and_clive>
Of course I was all over the road... I was fucking pissed !
</derek_and_clive>

Who knows what happened ? There's no way a case could be made and it was just a waste of police time.

Anyway - back to the main theme... does anyone know exactly what questions were asked to come up with this magic figure of 1/3 of men think rape is fine in many circumstances ?

 

[rynnor]

Anyway - back to the main theme... does anyone know exactly what questions were asked to come up with this magic figure of 1/3 of men think rape is fine in many circumstances ?

Heres the survey with the questions and % per option.

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/review...buse/Amnesty International - Sexual Abuse.asp

 

[rynnor]

Hmm - the more you disect this poll the more the picture changes - almost 60% of those polled were women - only 25% were under 35.

On the rape while drunk question only 3% of men thought she was totally responsible compared to 5% of women so it seems women are 66% harsher on this than blokes.

11% of the over 65's thought she was totally responsible compared to 1% in the 25-34 range so it seems that its a generational attitude thing and a womens attitude thing.

Blokes were slightly more likely to find the women partially responsible but there wasnt much diff - 27% male 25% female.

On flirting men were 7% saying she was totally responsible compared to 5% of women but again this is skewed by the old gits - the 55+ and 65+ had 10% saying she was totally responsible - double the rate of younger people.

All the way through this survey its evident that the over 55's take a far harsher attitude to this - if you exclude them then the 1in 3 becomes less than 1 in 4 - tut tut - old people today eh ;P

 

[MrHorus]

nd male on male rape is recognised in English law but not in Scotland

It's not quite that simple.

Under Scots Law, if you vaginally penetrate someone then you rape them, but if you orally or anally penetrate them then you sexually assault them - sex is irrelevant.

So when your talking 6-12 or 15-life errr, "don't miss"?

 

[Draylor]

Heres the survey with the questions and % per option.

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/review...buse/Amnesty International - Sexual Abuse.asp

And suddenly 1/3 makes perfect sense.

Id have given a 'partially responsible' answer to at least one of those I expect.

 

[Athan]

Women who dress, and act, provocatively, and/or get drunk off their skulls so they don't know what's happening do not deserve to be raped or otherwise abused, but they ARE raising the risk of it happening, should acknowledge this, and take this into account when choosing to do what they do.

By all means anyone who takes advantage of such a person should still be charged if there's any evidence the abusee made a clear 'no' evident. But they'll get rather a lot less sympathy for having demonstrated behaviour that is high risk in this regard in the first place.

-Ath

 

[Whipped]

Women who dress, and act, provocatively, and/or get drunk off their skulls so they don't know what's happening do not deserve to be raped or otherwise abused, but they ARE raising the risk of it happening, should acknowledge this, and take this into account when choosing to do what they do.

By all means anyone who takes advantage of such a person should still be charged if there's any evidence the abusee made a clear 'no' evident. But they'll get rather a lot less sympathy for having demonstrated behaviour that is high risk in this regard in the first place.

-Ath

The rape trial collapsing appeared on the 6 o'clock news last night. I was having my tea at the time I was only have listening, but at one point this was said.

"A spokesperson for some woman's group thought it was terrible that the case had been thrown out as the girl in question was nearly unconsious when she was assualted."

They're just making things up now. Noone knows if she was nearly unconsious, but the fact that she could walk home and remember the last thing she was doing "Looking for her keys" tells me she was far from unconsious.

Makes me angry that statements like this are made. Especially on the 6 o'clock news. Now, a large proportion of England will have possibly made up their mind about this guy, innocent or not.

 

[maxi]

'they're just making things up now' such paranoia!

This thread is rammed with presumptions!

I agree with whoever said the suspect should have anonimity though.

 

[Calaen]

The rape trial collapsing appeared on the 6 o'clock news last night. I was having my tea at the time I was only have listening, but at one point this was said.

"A spokesperson for some woman's group thought it was terrible that the case had been thrown out as the girl in question was nearly unconsious when she was assualted."

They're just making things up now. Noone knows if she was nearly unconsious, but the fact that she could walk home and remember the last thing she was doing "Looking for her keys" tells me she was far from unconsious.

Makes me angry that statements like this are made. Especially on the 6 o'clock news. Now, a large proportion of England will have possibly made up their mind about this guy, innocent or not.

Yes it is worrying that after the case gets thrown out, some chick is spouting on about him assaulting her, made worse because everyone knows who he is. Its all wrong

 

[Athan]

Did anyone point out this yet?

'Beer goggles' effect explained

-Ath