Ched ......... is this nearer the truth ?

[Selly]

No and no. Both would just be sexual assault contrary to S3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

"Sexual assault


(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),

(b)the touching is sexual,

(c)B does not consent to the touching, and

(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents"

I find this imbalance in the definition of rape to be disturbing...I assume that the sentences for the above are shorter than for rape as well...

 

[Darren]

I find this imbalance in the definition of rape to be disturbing...I assume that the sentences for the above are shorter than for rape as well...

Assault by penetration carries a maximum life sentence as does rape. I can well see why penetration by a penis is distinguished given that it carries the risk of STD infection and (in vaginal rape) pregnancy, which other forms of penetration don't.

 

[Selly]

Assault by penetration carries a maximum life sentence as does rape. I can well see why penetration by a penis is distinguished given that it carries the risk of STD infection and (in vaginal rape) pregnancy, which other forms of penetration don't.

What about if a wonman has sex with a man against his will. You said that was sexual assault. Life imprisonment? I'll bet not...

 

[Highbury_Blade]

SellyOakBlade I think if a woman forced a man to have sexual activity without his consent that involved penetration, that would be covered by laws regarding Causing sexual activity, which have similar sentencing to rape

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s4_causing_sexual_activity/

Sexual assault by penetration also has similar sentencing to rape.

 

[Darren]

What about if a wonman has sex with a man against his will. You said that was sexual assault. Life imprisonment? I'll bet not...

Well your standard rape doesn't get life (see the case of R v Evans). I don't know what sentence a woman would get if she had penetrative sex with a man against his will, as I am not aware of there ever having been such a case in this country (which probably tells you how great a social menace such things are compared to male rape of women).

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I am not aware of there ever having been such a case in this country (which probably tells you how great a social menace such things are compared to male rape of women).

It it could be an indicator that it just goes unreported.

 

[Selly]

It it could be an indicator that it just goes unreported.

I think a bloke is much more likely to shrug it off as a mistake.

I think a woman is not...especially if she can`t remember.

Lets be clear here, rape is abhorrent. But cases where prosecutions are brought simply because:
"I don`t remember",
"I made a mistake",
"I wouldn`t have done that sober",
"I was in no fit state to consent" (when they were)

cause problems for the cases which are genuine rapes. It may be that the reason the conviction rate for Rape is so low (compared to reported rapes), is that the rapes reported in line with the above aren't normally pursued by the CPS (and rightly so).

It comes down to people taking responsibility for their own actions, losing one inhibitions, does not make any other party guilty of anything.

 

[Darren]

It it could be an indicator that it just goes unreported.

Well it might be, but let's not get away from the fact that the overwhelming majority of the victims of sexual offences are women and children and the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are men.

 

[Darren]

I think a bloke is much more likely to shrug it off as a mistake.

I think a woman is not...especially if she can`t remember.

Lets be clear here, rape is abhorrent. But cases where prosecutions are brought simply because:
"I don`t remember",
"I made a mistake",
"I wouldn`t have done that sober",
"I was in no fit state to consent" (when they were)

cause problems for the cases which are genuine rapes. It may be that the reason the conviction rate for Rape is so low (compared to reported rapes), is that the rapes reported in line with the above aren't normally pursued by the CPS (and rightly so).

It comes down to people taking responsibility for their own actions, losing one inhibitions, does not make any other party guilty of anything.

1. "I don't remember" is not rape
2. "I made a mistake" is not rape
3. "I wouldn't have done that sober" is not rape.

No prosecutions will be brought on the basis of a complainant saying any of those things.

"I was in no fit state to consent" would also not found a prosecution if that was all the evidence the prosecution had and the suspect denied the offence. There would have to be some objective evidence of a lack of fitness, as there was in Evans' case (though not, in my view, enough to convict).

 

[Selly]

1. "I don't remember" is not rape
2. "I made a mistake" is not rape
3. "I wouldn't have done that sober" is not rape.

Agree

I didn`t say that these were the admissions the "victims" made to the police/CPS. Just the reasoning they gave to themselves, followed by the word "...so I must have been raped"

Cue walking into Police station.

"I've been raped"

Number of reported Rapes + 1

Number of actual Rapes unchanged

Most will be thrown out by the Police/CPS, some wont.

 

[Darren]

Agree

I didn`t say that these were the admissions the "victims" made to the police/CPS. Just the reasoning they gave to themselves, followed by the word "...so I must have been raped"

Cue walking into Police station.

"I've been raped"

Number of reported Rapes + 1

Number of actual Rapes unchanged

Most will be thrown out by the Police/CPS, some wont.

See what you said above "prosecutions are brought simply because..." and then you list the things a woman might say.

Let's at least be clear that prosecutions would not be brought "simply because" a woman said any of the things you mention.

 

[Selly]

See what you said above "prosecutions are brought simply because..." and then you list the things a woman might say.

Let's at least be clear that prosecutions would not be brought "simply because" a woman said any of the things you mention.

Yeah I wasn`t clear, it was their own internal monologue used to justify their accusations...

 

[Darren]

Yeah I wasn`t clear, it was their own internal monologue used to justify their accusations...

It's actually not that easy to get the CPS to prosecute for rape. I have acted for a few women who were mightily pissed off that the CPS wouldn't prosecute despite what seemed fairly compelling evidence. It's a complete myth to suggest that a woman only has to make an allegation and a bloke is dragged through the courts.

 

[Selly]

It's actually not that easy to get the CPS to prosecute for rape. I have acted for a few women who were mightily pissed off that the CPS wouldn't prosecute despite what seemed fairly compelling evidence. It's a complete myth to suggest that a woman only has to make an allegation and a bloke is dragged through the courts.

I woudl respectfully suggest that if you and I acted as CM/CE did in a similar scenario, it wouldn`t get to the courtroom. Their status as footballers made them a target for someone along the line...

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

We both know that's not true

Not something i'd be doing every week, but we both had good fun at the time. I'd have been a bit disturbed is she'd been demanded we do it all the the time anyway....

You might have even more disturbed if you'd turned her over and .........

 

[Crouchy]

Well your standard rape doesn't get life (see the case of R v Evans). I don't know what sentence a woman would get if she had penetrative sex with a man against his will, as I am not aware of there ever having been such a case in this country (which probably tells you how great a social menace such things are compared to male rape of women).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_sex_in_chains_case

 

[Studge]

Interesting comparision case overturned by the Lord Chief Justice non the less

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...fted-in-and-out-of-consciousness-6777855.html

 

[Darren]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_sex_in_chains_case

I think that we have to go back to 1977 tells its own story....

 

[Bedrock Blade]

I wonder when misandry will become as repugnant as misogyny? I wish it would hurry the fuck up.

 

[grafikhaus]

Scenario No. 9763.

You get pissed, jump into your car and smash into a similarly pissed-up pedestrian. Back at the station, you tell the police 'I must have been drunk, I don't normally do this kind of thing, I can't remember.'

We all know how far that would get you. But wait! It's now serious and the person you hit will be in a wheelchair. Probably for five years. Even if a full recovery is made, the other person's future stands every chance of being fucked. Do you:

a) Hold your hands up and say your drunken actions on this one night should not affect another person's life to this extent and ask them to consider the repercussions and possible paying of compensation? Or

b) Keep shtum, pretend you're not aware of the devastating implications of this 'joint enterprise', carry on as normal and probably do exactly the same again?

You decide.

 

[Darren]

Scenario No. 9763.

You get pissed, jump into your car and smash into a similarly pissed-up pedestrian. Back at the station, you tell the police 'I must have been drunk, I don't normally do this kind of thing, I can't remember.'

We all know how far that would get you. But wait! It's now serious and the person you hit will be in a wheelchair. Probably for five years. Even if a full recovery is made, the other person's future stands every chance of being fucked. Do you:

a) Hold your hands up and say your drunken actions on this one night should not affect another person's life to this extent and ask them to consider the repercussions and possible paying of compensation? Or

b) Keep shtum, pretend you're not aware of the devastating implications of this 'joint enterprise', carry on as normal and probably do exactly the same again?

You decide.

If the driver is supposed to be equivalent to the Complainant in Ched's case that's a pretty piss poor anaolgy. She had done nothing illegal. Your driver behaved highly illegally.

 

[super_pig]

everybody has the right to their opinion highbury,its called democracy and thats why we had 2 world wars,free speech its called too.fuck the righteous liberals,

indeed.. most of the righteous liberals didn't even turn up for the wars that allow them to speak in the first place.. most liberals were conscientious objectors .. or 'conshys' as my grandfather used to call them

 

[munich]

I think thats what we all thought but darent say it for fear of being none "PC" or "Chauvinistic".

Munich - if it is a chauvinistic approach could you enlighten us as to why 1 got off??

Thing is on every jury you'll get 2 or 3 that turn up and their mind is made up. Get 1 or 2 feminists. Then get a couple of an older generation who think the very idea of a 3some is some disgusting sordid sex act that is only performed by xrated 'scum of the earth' pornstar. The rest on the jury would've just got out voted.

No I cant enlighten you because I wasnt a member of the jury. The fact is (and this is a fact) is that a jury without any known prejudice against the young, the rich or footballers found there was sufficient evidence to bring in a guilty verdict. Ched Evans has the right to appeal but in the meantime he is a convicted rapist. Those who dont want to believe it are going through the normal process: first the girl must be a slag; second the jury must be a load of halfwits; third, and perhaps most incredibly, the police force is full of closet liberal/feminist types - funny never noticed that before.

 

[Crouchy]

No I cant enlighten you because I wasnt a member of the jury. The fact is (and this is a fact) is that a jury without any known prejudice against the young, the rich or footballers found there was sufficient evidence to bring in a guilty verdict. Ched Evans has the right to appeal but in the meantime he is a convicted rapist. Those who dont want to believe it are going through the normal process: first the girl must be a slag; second the jury must be a load of halfwits; third, and perhaps most incredibly, the police force is full of closet liberal/feminist types - funny never noticed that before.

Well said. No-one wants Ched to be a convicted rapist, but he is - possibly only until such time as his appeal is heard. Nevertheless I think we should shut up about it. If this was my site I'd be deleting new threads about it now.

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Those who dont want to believe it are going through the normal process: first the girl must be a slag; second the jury must be a load of halfwits; third, and perhaps most incredibly, the police force is full of closet liberal/feminist types - funny never noticed that before.

Bullshit.

 

[munich]

Bullshit.

All of it?

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Just the bit I quoted.

 

[munich]

Just the bit I quoted.

So you agree with me.

 

[Darren]

indeed.. most of the righteous liberals didn't even turn up for the wars that allow them to speak in the first place.. most liberals were conscientious objectors .. or 'conshys' as my grandfather used to call them

What a load of bollocks, 16,000 people claimed to be CO's in WWW1 and 61,000 in WWII. Compare that to 8.8 million men who fought in WW1 and and about 10 million who fought in WWII and you will see that the vast majority of liberals (however defined) were not CO's.

 

[JohnDenver]

No I cant enlighten you because I wasnt a member of the jury. The fact is (and this is a fact) is that a jury without any known prejudice against the young, the rich or footballers found there was sufficient evidence to bring in a guilty verdict. Ched Evans has the right to appeal but in the meantime he is a convicted rapist. Those who dont want to believe it are going through the normal process: first the girl must be a slag; second the jury must be a load of halfwits; third, and perhaps most incredibly, the police force is full of closet liberal/feminist types - funny never noticed that before.

I agree with most of what you say, but there are also those who have concerns about the verdict based on what they've learned of the case.

The verdict does indeed worry me somewhat, but I'm never going to sign-up to Facebook groups or applaud the bloke. If I had the time and the inclination to fully research the case, and found I still felt the same then I'd join the fray. But I don't claim to know better than the jury so I'm leaving it there.

Ched's wealthy enough to fight his own battles. I'll welcome him back if appeal succeeds. 'til that time......