|
Post by santy on Jan 29, 2015 17:24:56 GMT
Another valid question, if you can be considered too drunk to give consent, does this also mean you would be too drunk to be responsible for drink-driving and other alcohol fueled crimes?
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Jan 29, 2015 17:56:08 GMT
Another valid question, if you can be considered too drunk to give consent, does this also mean you would be too drunk to be responsible for drink-driving and other alcohol fueled crimes? Sir, you are 6 times over the limit. Sorry Officer, I'm too drunk to be responsible for my actions, have a good evening
|
|
|
Post by Nick1984 on Jan 29, 2015 18:02:52 GMT
What if a big woman were to put something up a man's bottom against his will? How would this not be rape?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jan 29, 2015 18:02:57 GMT
Another valid question, if you can be considered too drunk to give consent, does this also mean you would be too drunk to be responsible for drink-driving and other alcohol fueled crimes? Sir, you are 6 times over the limit. Sorry Officer, I'm too drunk to be responsible for my actions, have a good evening I asked pretty much the same question earlier in this thread. If a girl goes out and gets drunk and then has a shag - with her consent. Then she gets into a car and is stopped and breathalysed. The next morning she wakes up and accuses the bloke of rape as she was too trunk to consent. So in evening the law would say she was unable to be responsible for her action of consent, but given the same level of intoxication - she responsible for her decision to drive.
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jan 29, 2015 18:03:59 GMT
Well in one area of law, it's saying a person is too drunk to be responsible for their own actions - why isn't that across the board?
If a woman gets absolutely smashed, has sex with a sober bloke and then drives a car killing that same bloke (and then, just for the sake of negating any rape-justice claim, also smashes into some innocent person further down the line), she's technically a victim of rape due to inability to make sound judgement but responsible for murder due to the ability to make the judgement to drive.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Jan 29, 2015 18:13:23 GMT
These drink driving comments make it even more ridiculous that Ched was found guilty on the basis of her being too drunk to consent. Unless he gave her rohypnol or literally picked up an unconscious woman and raped her then his guilt is so ridiculous as to be scary to every bloke out there
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Feb 2, 2015 23:21:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ************** on Feb 3, 2015 8:00:47 GMT
For fucks sake, give this young lad a chance. Everyone makes mistakes but this is bloody ridiculous.
He's done his time and if everyone who spent time focusing on this lads previous misdemeanors spent 2 mins on their own stuff, I guarantee you that we'd live in a better world.
Oh you perfect human beings you.
Get off this young lads back.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 19:48:14 GMT
Here we go again GD
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 5, 2015 13:23:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 5, 2015 14:29:06 GMT
Great news. I think he will get off. Unfortunately he can't get back time or a list career
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Oct 5, 2015 19:06:30 GMT
Tbh based on what we heard I never thought he raped her and was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
The rules around rape are frankly quite scary and seems to be the case that if you meet someone in a nightclub, both a bit pissed and get lucky then you could be on dicey ground - so best get to the cop shop first!
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 5, 2015 19:58:12 GMT
I just have no idea how the conviction can be deemed safe:
There were three people in the room. 2 said it was consensual, the other couldn't remember.
If she was too drunk to consent to Evans she was too drunk to consent to McDonald.
It was all a bit depraved and horrible, but sufficient evidence for a rape conviction? I just can't see it.
And some of the stuff from both sides since the sordid incident, really doesn't reflect well on humanity at all.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 6, 2015 7:37:24 GMT
Bumped for people who want to discuss this subject in the correct place.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 7:47:25 GMT
Bumped for people who want to discuss this subject in the correct place. Could you not have simply moved it here.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Oct 6, 2015 12:05:38 GMT
Bumped for people who want to discuss this subject in the correct place. In Communist China this is called censorship and repression, in S-o-T it is called editorial licence!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 6, 2015 13:47:07 GMT
Bumped for people who want to discuss this subject in the correct place. In Communist China this is called censorship and repression, in S-o-T it is called editorial licence! To most sensible, tolerant people it's called moderation, the like of which you'll see on millions of forums the world over. If you don't like how we do thing on here, you're welcome to find somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Oct 6, 2015 14:02:30 GMT
In Communist China this is called censorship and repression, in S-o-T it is called editorial licence! To most sensible, tolerant people it's called moderation, the like of which you'll see on millions of forums the world over. If you don't like how we do thing on here, you're welcome to find somewhere else. Censorship is never 'moderation'.!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 6, 2015 14:10:34 GMT
To most sensible, tolerant people it's called moderation, the like of which you'll see on millions of forums the world over. If you don't like how we do thing on here, you're welcome to find somewhere else. Censorship is never 'moderation'.! Nothing is being censored.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 6, 2015 15:24:23 GMT
Great news. I think he will get off. Unfortunately he can't get back time or a list career If he leans to one side when standing he can be listing.
|
|