Russell Brand.

[[FnG]magnolia]

Imagine being a mod and having to read this utter shambles of a thread.

 

[jigger]

Do I need to quote you again? Or are you going to persist with your delusion and make yourself look like a clown?

Post 2066 for reference.

You don’t need to quote me at all it seems. You know everything already…

 

[imtoooldforthis]

Imagine being a mod and having to read this utter shambles of a thread.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I assume you struggle with counting seeing as you've actually listed multiple points in your quote.

• Whether V was drinking alcohol, and/or in what quantities,
• Whether V can actually remember what happened and if so, how clear that memory is,
• Whether V had shown any initial interest in the accused e.g. dancing with or kissing the accused, or agreeing to share a taxi home,
• Whether V’s first report to a third party (either police, friend or relative) contained any errors and, if so, why?
• Why V did not report the matter to police promptly,
• Why V sent a message, or posted online, something which looks inconsistent with the offence,
• Whether and/or why V contacted the accused after the offence was committed.

Highlighted the very pertinent one.

Yes the 1 you mentioned. You said many you mentioned.

 

[Dis86]

You don’t need to quote me at all it seems. You know everything already…

Well yes that's because, unlike you, I know what I'm writing and don't have a memory that retains that information for only a short period.

 

[Dis86]

Yes the 1 you mentioned. You said many you mentioned.

No I didn't. Try reading.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Imagine being a mod and having to read this utter shambles of a thread.

Yep I can see it either getting locked or massive amounts being delated. I'm stepping away for the evening.

 

[One More Solo]

That's not how a civilised society should operate in my eyes.

Next we just go around spraying nonce on garden walls, rapist on cars, smash a few windows, get a good mob going and force people to move town because we heard some drunk person down the pub say something we didn't like.

The victim, the accused and the police should handle things before I want to hear about them

So do we just scrap the entire field of investigative journalism then?

 

[Dis86]

Yep I can see it either getting locked or massive amounts being delated. I'm stepping away for the evening.

Is that because you've just realised you can't read? I'm sure we've had this conversation before.

 

[Hedge]

So do we just scrap the entire field of investigative journalism then?

Read my further post to see my thoughts on "investigative journalism"

 

[Dis86]

So do we just scrap the entire field of investigative journalism then?

What stops journalists providing the information to the police? Also investigative journalism doesn't have to just be on criminal matters.

 

[FoxEye]

Really? I can see 1. Where are the many in this

Reading some of that... how is a bloke supposed to protect themselves from allegations of non-consensual sex after the fact?

We joke about having forms signed in triplicate, but reading some of that makes it abundantly clear that consent cannot be inferred from the woman's behaviour.

Logically then, if we are to disregard the entire body of evidence that is the woman's behaviour prior to the event, then it must always necessarily come down to a question of "he said/she said" and there we have a real problem.

Specifically this bit from your quoted article:

To take a scenario (not linked to the above case):- a significant minority of jurors might think that if a woman gets drunk with a man, flirts with him, kisses him, and then goes back to his bedroom at 2am, then it is a reasonable assumption that she is consenting to sex - regardless of what is said once they were inside that room. So they are likely to conclude that his belief she was consenting was a reasonable one. It is not suggested that all jurors of a certain age hold this view. But if 25% of the jury have a very old-fashioned attitude of how sexual consent is communicated, the reality is that some rape prosecutions are finished before they have even begun.

Any and all flirtation, kissing, hugging, etc, must all be ignored (prior to the event).

Assuming she does consent - this happens in private and there is no evidence if she later alleges rape.

And then they somehow blame the jurors for not passing a guilty verdict...

It's very problematic if your end goal is fairness (but if your end goal is simply having more prosecutions...)

 

[Dis86]

Reading some of that... how is a bloke supposed to protect themselves from allegations of non-consensual sex after the fact?

We joke about having forms signed in triplicate, but reading some of that makes it abundantly clear that consent cannot be inferred from the woman's behaviour.

Logically then, if we are to disregard the entire body of evidence that is the woman's behaviour prior to the event, then it must always necessarily come down to a question of "he said/she said" and there we have a real problem.

That's why sources of doubt are a significant issue and the behaviour isn't ignored.

 

[FoxEye]

That's why sources of doubt are a significant issue and the behaviour isn't ignored.

It seemed to me that the tone of the article, and the paragraph I quoted in my edit, suggests we should (jurors should) ignore any evidence from which consent could be inferred.

 

[Gerard]

vid not working =/

 

[FoxEye]

Your video isn't consenting to being watched (it's private!).

 

[jigger]

Reading some of that... how is a bloke supposed to protect themselves from allegations of non-consensual sex after the fact?

We joke about having forms signed in triplicate, but reading some of that makes it abundantly clear that consent cannot be inferred from the woman's behaviour.

Logically then, if we are to disregard the entire body of evidence that is the woman's behaviour prior to the event, then it must always necessarily come down to a question of "he said/she said" and there we have a real problem.

Specifically this bit from your quoted article:



Any and all flirtation, kissing, hugging, etc, must all be ignored (prior to the event).

Assuming she does consent - this happens in private and there is no evidence if she later alleges rape.

And then they somehow blame the jurors for not passing a guilty verdict...

It's very problematic if your end goal is fairness (but if your end goal is simply having more prosecutions...)

Good judgment and self control?

She’s plastered, danger Will Robinson.

 

[Gerard]

Your video isn't consenting to being watched (it's private!).

Strange, was visible for me a moment ago. oh well.

 

[hurfdurf]

What stops journalists providing the information to the police? Also investigative journalism doesn't have to just be on criminal matters.

The information was passed to the police, victims have to go to the police for the police to be able to do anything, hence the police putting out a statement and offering assurances to victims coming forward.

Do you think the Police would have stopped Saville? NOTW Hacking? Weinstein? (here is a hint, they didn't, ACAB)

 

[FoxEye]

Good judgment and self control?

She’s plastered, danger Will Robinson.

Yeah but it does imply that she could consent when it says, "regardless of what is said once they were inside that room".

So again, it must necessarily come down to his word vs hers.

But yeah, I guess being drunk is a massive source of risk. But then reality would like a word, wouldn't it? How often do you pick up girls completely sober... Um, in certain circles, I mean. Obviously, OcUK pikes up girls on their private yachts by flashing their Gucci belts. The act being performed on a corner sofa below decks.