- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,086
I'm a little bit bothered by this story.
Freely admitting prejudice, as I've been to Rhyl and know it well enough to avoid anything from there for fear of catching a disease, I read story as thus:
Drunk girl went to hotel with a couple of footballers, got laid, woke up the next day with no memory of incident, decided it must have been rape and that her drinks must have been spiked.
The bit that concerns me is this:
Labour changed the law a while back to secure more rape convictions. I'm uneasy because I daresay lots of people get completely mullared, find a bird in a similar state, go somewhere for a bit of fun and then wake up the next morning with only fuzzy recollection of the incident?
Why then, is the onus on a drunken man to prove that consent was given when drunken girls are just as likely to walk up to you and say "take me to the toilets and fuck me now" as men...
Freely admitting prejudice, as I've been to Rhyl and know it well enough to avoid anything from there for fear of catching a disease, I read story as thus:
Drunk girl went to hotel with a couple of footballers, got laid, woke up the next day with no memory of incident, decided it must have been rape and that her drinks must have been spiked.
The bit that concerns me is this:
the prosecution allege she was in no fit state to consent
Labour changed the law a while back to secure more rape convictions. I'm uneasy because I daresay lots of people get completely mullared, find a bird in a similar state, go somewhere for a bit of fun and then wake up the next morning with only fuzzy recollection of the incident?
Why then, is the onus on a drunken man to prove that consent was given when drunken girls are just as likely to walk up to you and say "take me to the toilets and fuck me now" as men...