ohnonotgmail wrote: » But how does it do that?
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » A good defense barrister is going to use anything and everything at her disposal to get her client off. The barrister wasn't holding a referendum on women's choices of underwear -- she was doing her utmost to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. I'm sure she didn't exactly take pride in exhibiting a 17-year-old's knickers to the court, but she did her job well and he was found not guilty.That's the kind of lawyer I would want on my side if I were ever up in court on serious criminal charges, not someone who would hem and haw and say "Maybe questioning her choice of underwear wouldn't be appropriate." A defense barrister's job isn't to decide what's appropriate -- it's to keep her client out of jail.
SusieBlue wrote: » A t-shirt can’t consent for a person. If they say No to sex, you can’t just go ahead anyway and use a slogan on a T-shirt for your defense. I can’t believe this point is even being argued. Clothing can’t consent on behalf of people.
blue note wrote: » If I go home later and my girlfriend is wearing something from Ann Summers I'll know she's planning to have sex.
Simple_Simone wrote: » Interesting argument. So you reckon that the tee-shirt forced itself upon the unsuspecting (or illiterate) wearer without their consent? It's really amazing what sophisticated items of clothing can get up nowadays.My man sometimes wears a Munster Rugby jersey - but your logic would suggest that he doesn't necessarily support Munster rugby. Perhaps he's a closet Leinsterman?
Simple_Simone wrote: » My man sometimes wears a Munster Rugby jersey - but your logic would suggest that he doesn't necessarily support Munster rugby. Perhaps he's a closet Leinsterman?
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » Ha! Off to consent classes with you, young man! Her sexy Ann Summers lingerie says NOTHING about her intentions!
seamus wrote: » Yes, please do head off there to consent classes. His wife may be intending to have sex with someone else, or indeed her intention may simply be to wind him up. Or she may simply enjoy feeling sexy in her Ann Summers gear.Do you think if said person had sex with his wife and she accused him of rape, that her wearing of lingerie should be considered in defence?
retro:electro wrote: » The fact that your underwear could be the cause of even a smidgen of doubt is what’s depressing. I wonder what kind of knickers the barrister had on that day and what kind of character judgment we should infer on to her and assume her sexual intentions on her behalf
tritium wrote: » The standard is reasonable doubt. To assume a smidgen of doubt created by frilly knickers led to this outcome is just wrong- a smidgen is not “reasonable doubt” and you can be sure the defense presented more evidence than that. The notion that barristers holding up knickers is getting rapists off the hook left right and Centre is just plain wrong.
seamus wrote: » So if I run up to your man with a crunching tackle and slam him to the ground, he can't complain, right? After all, he's wearing a rugby jersey therefore he is open to playing a game of rugby anywhere, any time. Right?
Simple_Simone wrote: » Interesting argument. So you reckon that the tee-shirt forced itself upon the unsuspecting (or illiterate) wearer without their consent? It's really amazing what sophisticated items of clothing can get up nowadays. My man sometimes wears a Munster Rugby jersey - but your logic would suggest that he doesn't necessarily support Munster rugby. Perhaps he's a closet Leinsterman?
JMNolan wrote: » So you're saying the judge was wrong to allow it?
SusieBlue wrote: » This has to be the stupidest argument I've ever read. Clothing can't consent or imply consent to anything on behalf of its owner. Stop tying yourself in knots trying to think up a scenario where an inanimate object can consent to something on behalf of the living, breathing person wearing it.
tritium wrote: » No but if it formed part of a wider argument based on him being on th pitch at a Munster rugby game and I was also their as a member of the other team, that might begin to build into a reasonable argument for that action. Which isn’t a bad analogy for building a defense based on a variety of, by themselves innocuous, elements
Grayson wrote: » I have pacman boxer shorts. They do not imply there's anything ghosty about my groin.
wexie wrote: » Does it imply pills make you grow stronger though? :pac:
Grab All Association wrote: » Absolutely ridiculous these leftards protesting. The defence is entitled to question and challenge the character/behaviour of the plaintiff. Nobody should be immune from suspicion/criticism/scrutiny. It may not be a perfect system but everyone is entitled to fair due process and representation. She was found to be not believable, whereas he was not guilty by a jury of his peers. Where’s the people questioning how an innocent man was brought to court and charged with a crime he did not commit? Where’s the people calling for charges to be pressed against this girl for making a false allegation? It’s a two way street. Why was a 15 year old wearing underwear that’s marketed to adults?
professore wrote: » Why stop there? All sorts of stereotypes are promoted in courts when defending and prosecuting. Like only men commit domestic violence. Only women can be good parents, people from "good families" can't be criminals etc. I really think its going down a bad path if you start restricting what barristers can say in a trial.
seamus wrote: » Yes, please do head off there to consent classes. His wife may be intending to have sex with someone else, or indeed her intention may simply be to wind him up. Or she may simply enjoy feeling sexy in her Ann Summers gear.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » To continue the analogy if the person was indicating quite strongly that they were indeed up for playing a game of rugby and were wearing a Munster jersey and after being hurt in the scrum sued the team - if they were later to claim they were wearing an Aran jumper and never intended any kind of rugby game, the jersey would be justifiable evidence. I know there are posters who will never accept this argument, but there is a vast difference between these two scenarios: Where a woman (or indeed man) is forced to have sex by someone they never had any notions of having sex with; who they gave no indication they even considered it and outright said they did not want to have sex - this is clearly rape and no amount of waving their clothing round can ever justify that. The perpetrators are lower than scum. However, where a woman (again, or man) who goes out intending to have sex with the person they are meeting (or meet subsequently that night and intend to have sex) then does so freely and keenly, regrets it or does not remember consenting due to alcohol or drugs and lies about their initial intentions then that's not rape. In that case whatever the defence uses to break this story is fair game in my opinion. I've worked with students who have been both accuser and accused in both the above cases and the statement from the former was very distinct - "I was raped by x..."; the latter fell more in the area of "I must have been raped", "The next morning he didn't seem my type so I wouldn't have slept with him" or "I might have said yes but I didn't mean it". Telling. Very telling.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » It is a stupid analogy so pointless continuing it.
SusieBlue wrote: » What has any of the above got to do with whether its acceptable or not use a 17 year olds choice of knickers to determine whether she was raped or not?
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » I've worked with students who have been both accuser and accused in both the above cases and the statement from the former was very distinct - "I was raped by x..."; the latter fell more in the area of "I must have been raped", "The next morning he didn't seem my type so I wouldn't have slept with him" or "I might have said yes but I didn't mean it". Telling. Very telling.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » I know there are posters who will never accept this argument, but there is a vast difference between these two scenarios: Where a woman (or indeed man) is forced to have sex by someone they never had any notions of having sex with; who they gave no indication they even considered it and outright said they did not want to have sex - this is clearly rape and no amount of waving their clothing round can ever justify that. The perpetrators are lower than scum. However, where a woman (again, or man) who goes out intending to have sex with the person they are meeting (or meet subsequently that night and intend to have sex) then does so freely and keenly, regrets it or does not remember consenting due to alcohol or drugs and lies about their initial intentions then that's not rape. In that case whatever the defence uses to break this story is fair game in my opinion.
