Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules in the UK

245

Comments

  • #32
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    Wonder what Ched Evans thinks of that?


    Who cares what he thinks? the jury heard the evidence


  • #33
    Roquentin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Roquentin


    blastman wrote: »
    I sat on a jury for a rape case and to be honest, you end up feeling like a referee in a debating competition. There's no way to establish a "true" version of events.

    this is the thing. the jury must decide over one interpretation or the other in some cases (not all).

    There was a case in the uk recently wherein a woman said she was raped and the case was dismissed through lack of evidence. the man who was accused of it then took it upon himself to try to bring the woman to court claiming that she had made a false allegation. But the woman killed herself before it went to court. she said it was rape, he said it was consensual.

    there are cases where its obvious that rape took place like larry murphy. what im saying doesnt apply to cases like that. im talking about cases where a man and a woman are enjoying the weekend and have one too many drinks and then wake up the next morning. if there is drink involved you are better off not doing anything IMO


  • #34
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    From the CPS document on the topic.

    Yeah so they're going to ask you if you looked for consent.
    Which depending on the circumstances could be difficult to provide irrefutable proof.


    Would you not consider "someone enthusiastically engaging in sex" to be consenting?

    I think it all hinges on this "reasonably believed" component. If the woman is so drunk that she can't speak, for example, it seem unlikely one could reasonably beleive they were consenting to sex. There is a line to be drawn between drunken consent and being too drunk to consent. It is a really tricky area, particularly when you consider both parties might be extremely drunk...

    Having sex wih a drunk person is risky. Best err on the side of caution.

    MrP


  • #35
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Most misleading headline in ages.
    This is why I don't read newspapers or watch TV news. They've become little better than small town gossips. It's like they take the news story and play a game of chinese whispers around the office and go with whatever comes out the other end.


  • #36
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Who cares what he thinks? the jury heard the evidence

    miscarriagesofjustice.org


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Who cares what he thinks? the jury heard the evidence

    If you happened to be wrongly convicted by a jury, would you just accept it based on the belief in your post there? Or is it only when its someone else that you believe that?


  • #38
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Bruthal wrote: »
    If you happened to be wrongly convicted by a jury, would you just accept it based on the belief in your post there? Or is it only when its someone else that you believe that?

    Irrelevant, the amount of shite I have seen posted in threads with regards to Evans is unreal... The 'Someone think of Ched Evans' whinge as shown in post 31


  • #39
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    miscarriagesofjustice.org

    I don't see Evans on that site, can you provide a direct link?


  • #40
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Irrelevant, the amount of shite I have seen posted in threads with regards to Evans is unreal...

    I mentioned nothing about evans or his case.

    You mention the jury hearing the evidence, as if that means their decision is incapable of being incorrect.

    So I asked the question, unrelated to the evans case.


  • #41
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Bruthal wrote: »
    I mentioned nothing about evans or his case.

    You mention the jury hearing the evidence, as if that means their decision is incapable of being incorrect.

    So I asked the question, unrelated to the evans case.

    I was responding to a poster on the Evans case


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    I was responding to a poster on the Evans case

    You state
    Who cares what he thinks? the jury heard the evidence

    That suggests you believe jury`s cant be wrong.

    Do you believe that? (Forget its the evans case, Im asking in general)


  • #43
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Roquentin wrote: »
    this is the thing. the jury must decide over one interpretation or the other in some cases (not all).

    There was a case in the uk recently wherein a woman said she was raped and the case was dismissed through lack of evidence. the man who was accused of it then took it upon himself to try to bring the woman to court claiming that she had made a false allegation. But the woman killed herself before it went to court. she said it was rape, he said it was consensual.

    there are cases where its obvious that rape took place like larry murphy. what im saying doesnt apply to cases like that. im talking about cases where a man and a woman are enjoying the weekend and have one too many drinks and then wake up the next morning. if there is drink involved you are better off not doing anything IMO

    And that happens in ALL jury based court cases - attempted murder, murder, rape et etc

    If you wish to get rid of the Jury system altogether I would suggest lobbying for changes in how the present legal system works :rolleyes:


  • #44
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Bruthal wrote: »
    You state


    That suggests you believe jury`s cant be wrong.

    Do you believe that?

    I said that the jury heard the evans case and convicted him, from what I have seen on the evans case, I agree with the jury. Do you?


  • #45
    Ken.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,898 ✭✭✭✭Ken.


    I went on a stag do to Prague about 10 years ago and at the reception desk of the hotel was a stack of forms and a box of small(like bookie) pens. They were consent forms written in English and Czech. There were so many false claims of rape from girls that men were encouraged to get consent before having sex.

    Maybe something similar might be needed here.


  • #46
    Roquentin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Roquentin


    ken wrote: »
    I went on a stag do to Prague about 10 years ago and at the reception desk of the hotel was a stack of forms and a box of small(like bookie) pens. They were consent forms written in English and Czech. There were so many false claims of rape from girls that men were encouraged to get consent before having sex.

    Maybe something similar might be needed here.

    i think its heading that way


  • #47
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    I said that the jury heard the evans case and convicted him,
    No, you said who cares what he thinks, the jury heard the evidence, which suggested to me that you believe a jury is infallible.
    from what I have seen on the evans case, I agree with the jury.
    So you also heard the evidence?

    Do you?

    I dont know much about the case.


  • #48
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Bruthal wrote: »
    No, you said who cares what he thinks, the jury heard the evidence.

    So you also heard the evidence?

    I dont know much about the case.

    Yes, no and maybe you should look it up


  • #49
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Yes, no and maybe you should look it up

    Why should I look it up, since my question was not related to it. It was related to your statement on a particular case, but would be a valid question for any such case and jury. As in, once a jury hears the evidence, do you believe then that it does not matter what the accused thinks?

    I simply asked you do you believe a jury is infallible.


  • #50
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    ken wrote: »
    I went on a stag do to Prague about 10 years ago and at the reception desk of the hotel was a stack of forms and a box of small(like bookie) pens. They were consent forms written in English and Czech. There were so many false claims of rape from girls that men were encouraged to get consent before having sex.

    Maybe something similar might be needed here.
    Why do people need to make this so complicated?

    A woman who has been drugged can be capable of undressing herself or signing her name in a zombie-like state, and still be incapable of consenting to sex.

    Those little forms are probably intended to subsequently demonstrate to police that the man had no concept that he was about to rape. However,they clearly demonstrate that the man had some doubts about the woman's mental state before intercourse, and therefore the idea that this might constitute rape had of course flashed across his mind.

    Nothing screams rape like a man trying to get a drunk girl to sign a waiver.

    The surest way to avoid accidentally raping a girl is to sleep with her when she is lucid and alert. It really isn't as complicated as people are making it.


  • #51
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Why should I look it up, since my question was not related to it.

    I simply asked you do you believe a jury is infallible.

    Oh no, here we go again - why are you replying to a post of mine about evans and then say you are not interested in evans

    Of course juries are not infallible although I do believe juries get it right in the vast majority of cases or do you go around in life not believing jury decisions? If you do, how do you keep up with the campaigning? are you down at the court telling the juries they got it wrong each day?

    I do believe there are miscarriages and the other poster put the website up that details some cases, putting evans into the same ccategory is ludicrous

    Maybe you should read up on the case you are responding to


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Desolation Of Smug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 760 ✭✭✭Desolation Of Smug


    I wonder will they be applying the "prove they said yes" legislation with full vigor in situations such as Rotherham, and those young girls. Otherwise I'd be inclined to snort derisively and dismiss this as hot-air and window dressing.


  • #53
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Most misleading headline in ages.

    No new legislation is planned. The DPP for England and Wales is simply circulating new guidance for prosecutors, asking these lawyers to try to prove lack of consent in a more rigorous way.

    Neither the English nor Irish DPP has the authority to enact new laws or to flip the burden of proof to an accused person. The golden thread remains intact: the Prosecution must prove everything, the Defence need prove nothing.

    It's just the Telegraph exaggerating its stories to give its readers the only bit of excrement many of them ever get.

    TL;DR: no changes to the law, no changes to the presumption of innocence, just the DPP asking lawyers to work harder to prove that the alleged victim did not consent.

    FYP


  • #54
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Heres some ink and a sponge.

    For identity validation purposes im going to need a mingeprint.


  • #55
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    conorh91 wrote: »
    The surest way to avoid accidentally raping a girl is to sleep with her when she is lucid and alert. It really isn't as complicated as people are making it.

    Wouldn't you say that a woman that walks out of a hotel to get a handbag which she has remembered she left outside and then later walks back inside after she has retrieved it, completely unaided, is showing signs of being 'alert' and 'lucid'? I would.


  • #56
    whupdedo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,513 ✭✭✭whupdedo


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Why do people need to make this so complicated?



    Those little forms are probably intended to subsequently demonstrate to police that the man had no concept that he was about to rape.

    Nothing screams rape like a man trying to get a drunk girl to sign a waiver.

    Fair enough, but, can it still be classified as rape if she consents to sex after consuming alcohol, even after getting written consent ? can it be classified as rape if he believes consent was given at the time, even though she might regret it in the morning and was a willing participant in the act


  • #57
    Roquentin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Roquentin


    gozunda wrote: »
    And that happens in ALL jury based court cases - attempted murder, murder, rape et etc

    If you wish to get rid of the Jury system altogether I would suggest lobbying for changes in how the present legal system works :rolleyes:

    you obviously cant read


  • #58
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Oh no, here we go again - why are you replying to a post of mine about evans and then say you are not interested in evans
    Just found it interesting that you say who cares what someone thinks, the jury heard the evidence. If it had been any other case, id have asked the same.
    Of course juries are not infallible although I do believe juries get it right in the vast majority of cases or do you go around in life not believing jury decisions? If you do, how do you keep up with the campaigning? are you down at the court telling the juries they got it wrong each day?
    No, but I didnt post an opinion suggesting jury`s are infallible.
    I do believe there are miscarriages and the other poster put the website up that details some cases,
    Luckily in them cases, not everyone said "who cares what they think, the jury heard the evidence"
    putting evans into the same category is ludicrous
    Did the jury not hear the evidence in the above cases also, before convicting?

    Maybe you should read up on the case you are responding to
    Im asking about your view on jury`s.


  • #59
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,686 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Bruthal wrote: »
    J
    No, but I didnt post an opinion suggesting jury`s are infallible.

    and neither did I, can we get to your point?


  • #60
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    and neither did I, can we get to your point?

    My point? I asked a question based on one sentence in your post earlier, are jury`s infallible, you answered it saying no.

    So do you still agree with this..........
    Who cares what he (insert any defendant here) thinks? the jury heard the evidence


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    The thing is - signing a form saying you give consent doesn't actually mean you do. There have been cases where someone admits they agreed to have sex, at first, but during they changed their mind. And if the other person didn't immediately stop - that IS rape. And people have gone to jail.

    People retain the right to remove their consent at any time. Having a piece of paper is meaningless in that context.

    And - they can always claim they signed under distress or where intoxicated.

    Short of video taping everything (which is probably a crime if you do), it will always be 'He said vs. She said' or 'He said vs He said' or 'She said vs. she said' etc...and any system you setup is going to screw over some people. We know rape happens. We also know false accusations of rape happen. The more you favour one group over the other, the more innocent people get screwed. Laws that favour the accuser (like 'Yes means yes' in California) mean it is going to be easier to falsely accuse and get a conviction. Laws that favour the accused (like our good 'ol Innocent Until Proven Guilty) mean actual rapists will get away with it because the burden of proof is too high.


Advertisement
Advertisement