Halibut Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 "Claimed" being the operative word here don't you think? When she says she didn't know how to stop it, that's just too ridiculous for words. So are we to believe Graham that you subscribe to the view that unless a woman fights tooth and nail that she's actually giving consent? Why is it ridiculous that she says she didn't know how to stop it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 What rubbish, she was living in halls, not some secluded private flat ... I'm going off this thread, but I'll just say that anyone that will make excuses for some lowlife that has sex with an unconcious woman wants to take a long look at his/her attitudes. Anything could have happened to her, she could have got pregnant, got HIV, any sort of disease ... a man who'll have sex with an insensible drunk, won't have much duty of care towards either him or herself, after all. That is why I said this Ruby http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2087665&postcount=50 http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2087702&postcount=58 http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2087759&postcount=69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedr Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 This thread shows quite clearly the problem with getting rape convictions. This case comes down to 'who do you believe?' And if they don't have an overwhelming reason to believe the woman, a jury cannot convict. I hope that everyone here will try to find and read the actual judgment if and when it's published (if it's easily accessible I'll try to post a link to it) as that will have far more detail of what was alleged, admitted and contested at trial than any newspaper will. From what I read in the article, it seems that the trial judge led the jury to believe that they could find the defendant guilty if they thought he did not take enough care to determine whether she was consenting or not. I think the Court of Appeal will have held that this is not precise enough: what the jury need to do is decide if they think that he did not have a reasonable belief that she was consenting. He claims that he believed that she consented, because she did. The jury should have been asked whether they believe him. Instead they were asked whether he took enough care, which is the wrong question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 That is why I said this Ruby http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2087665&postcount=50 http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2087702&postcount=58 http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2087759&postcount=69 It's a bit hard to do any of those things if you've crept into bed because you've had too much to drink .. and then come round to find some random bloke inside you ... sorry Grahame, he should have been punished, letting men like him off just sends out totally the wrong message. That women are prey to be used whenever you can catch them off guard. It's all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 likewise. The majority of people who are raped don't report it. Of the very small minority of cases that are reported, a small percentage of these ever get to court. Of the cases that get to court, only a minority result in a conviction. I suppose using the logic applied by some people on SF there is a case for abandoning all rape laws on the grounds that so few are ever convicted - and even then some (like this one) are overturned on appeal. Just because a breach of the law is difficult to prove and there are so many shades of grey - doesn't mean there hasn't been a breach of the law. What worries me as a man is that even your wife can report you for rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 What worries me as a man is that even your wife can report you for rape. Only if you make a habit of raping her, surely? edit - I meant to say only if you have sex with her without her consent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 What worries me as a man is that even your wife can report you for rape. What do you mean 'even your wife'? Are you actually claiming that husbands should be able to legally rape their wives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 So are we to believe Graham that you subscribe to the view that unless a woman fights tooth and nail that she's actually giving consent? Why is it ridiculous that she says she didn't know how to stop it? Personally, and I haven't had sex since my wife died, but I found it very difficult to have sex if she turned over or crossed her legs and there is no mention of a fight. Therefore it must have been with consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonny Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 What worries me as a man is that even your wife can report you for rape. What worries me as a woman, is that any man can come along and rape a woman and in 99 times out a 100 he'll get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 It's a bit hard to do any of those things if you've crept into bed because you've had too much to drink .. and then come round to find some random bloke inside you ... sorry Grahame, he should have been punished, letting men like him off just sends out totally the wrong message. That women are prey to be used whenever you can catch them off guard. It's all wrong. The message it sends out to me Ruby is to stay clear of all women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.