Mrsmum wrote: » To be more specific I think the defendant would have to prove how and to what extent the alleged victim participated so not ever that s(he) didn't say no but that s(he) did say yes and how that yes was made known to defendant. And not by interest shown hours earlier but at the moment of dispute.
Deleted User wrote: » Terrible idea. You can't just invent terms and force them into common use. The vast majority of people manage to have sex without there ever being issues of consent. So we only need to educate young men? Gay men get to skip this class I take it? I don't know where you have gotten this perspective from. If this is your take on sex you either aren't having it or you are having it with poorly chosen partners. Jesus. Honestly, this post is full of presumption, sexism and some really sordid concepts about what goes on in men's minds.
tritium wrote: » Again looking at the current case, the testimony was that the complainant began giving oral sex to one of the defendants without prompting. Does that qualify as clear consent on her part? On his?
meeeeh wrote: » How do you prove anything in a rape case? You listen to two sides, all the evidence and then decide. Nobody ever said it's easy how ever it's worth it if we avoid cases where people claim they thought the other party was up for it.
Grayson wrote: » A guy has a right to put his cock into anyone that doesn't say no.
meeeeh wrote: » Did he report her for assault?
tritium wrote: » But all the approach outlined does is lead to more false convictions instead of more false acquittals. Why exactly is that worth it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » A 'disaster' with those who have made up there minds maybe. To me it was a reasonable plea for common sense and humanity. Again we had the twitterati outraged demanding that culture changes instantly and that these innocent men be sarcrificed no matter what.
meeeeh wrote: » You keep on claiming but there is a difference between initiating contact (and Jackson admitted he was hoping it would lead somewhere) and being too drunk to say no/yes when some initiates contact. Jackson was very active, you can't claim you were assaulted just because you were drunk when you started kissing someone. Is this really so hard to understand or are you just trying to attack the complainant or any future complainants from any possible angle?
Mrsmum wrote: » No he really was dreadful and judging by the comments most reasonable people thought so too. Funny word 'reasonable' wouldn't you say ? Very much in the eye of the beholder.
tritium wrote: » As we know from the Ched Evans case that’s not actually necessary. We’re also discussing this in the context of a proposed change covering clear consent Care to answer the actual question
tretorn wrote: » Isnt this exactly what happened in the Belfast case and then you have presumably educated people like Aodhan O Riordan tweeting that they know better. You have a whole mob on twitter screeching for online justice, presumably we can excuse a lot of them due to their IQ but O Riordan is a school principal by profession so that assumes some level of intelligence.
tritium wrote: » Actually you can. The whole basis of a number of recent rape trials has been that the alleged victim was too drunk to be capable of consent Let’s just ask the obvious questions here. Do you believe women need to seek consent off men? Do you believe a man can be too drunk to consent and if a woman has sex with him at that point has any offence been committed?
meeeeh wrote: » You'd reduce the number of disputes with clear consent. You still go through the same in courts just less often. Prevention is always the best option.
meeeeh wrote: » I never claimed they should be found guilty. But people have the right to be disgusted by their attitude. What's the problem?
tretorn wrote: » There is noevidence Jackson was sexually active at all, there wasnt a speck of semen found anywhere. He said he had consensual oral sex and he fingered the woman. He didnt even come to ejaculation. The jury believed him. I think at this stage due to wild inconsistencies in the womans evidence it is safer not to lend any of it much credibility.
tretorn wrote: » Suggesting that we lower the bar of evidence to something less than reasonable doubt is not a safe proposition in cases like the Belfast one.
tretorn wrote: » It could only be proved that sex actually took place if internal swabs had Jacksons semen on them and they didnt. It was probably quite likely that Jackson couldnt perform so he used his fingers...... In any event the woman said he raped her front and back and he said he had consensual oral sex and fingered her.The jury believed him so he is innocent of all charges.
Mrsmum wrote: » See you heard a reasonable plea. I heard a dreadfully poor and foolish carryon. I thought the comments against were from reasonably minded people, you don't. Good job we're not in the bedroom as we seem to have a difference of opinion as to what is a reasonable belief.
tretorn wrote: » You can judge these men because their private conversations were disclosed in public, this was an awful lot worse for them than having their boxers used as evidence would be. The facts are if you asked a random selection of men to hand over their phones after a night out you would find similar messages, get over it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » A 'disaster' with those who have made up there minds maybe.To me it was a reasonable plea for common sense and humanity. Again we had the twitterati outraged demanding that culture changes instantly and that these innocent men be sarcrificed no matter what.
meeeeh wrote: » Just because you do something disgusting in the privacy or just because you have private conversation you can't assume it will stay private unless you talking to a solicitor, priest or doctor where there is guarantee of confidentiality. And even then it can be abused. What is the issue?
