Up Front: All Together Now
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
And I can even get us marginally back on topic using Aidan Turner, who has admitted, online, to finding sex in a bathroom covered in blood quite appealing.
-
I sure hope you wouldn't be on any jury sending me to prison for the rest of my life on the basis of what was running through the head of an angry, grieving teenager twenty years ago.
Yeah right. I'd prefer there was fair trial, based on the whole truth.
If you do go on trial though pease feel free to make sure that when the sole prosecution witness stands up and neglects to mention something that totally supports your defence, just make sure that you do nothing. Otherwise you'd be saying someone who omits facts and skews their testimony to the police & the prosecution & the court is a liar. And that it is bad.
-
As things stand, there appears to be no evidence that the complainant wished to have sex with anyone other than the single man with whom she made a date.
Personally I reckon the defence might be able to find six witnesses prepared to swear that she did.
-
And I can even get us marginally back on topic using Aidan Turner, who has admitted, online, to finding sex in a bathroom covered in blood quite appealing.
Golly, he better hope there's no messy rape-murders in Bristol when he's next in town.
-
3410,
Personally I reckon the defence might be able to find six witnesses prepared to swear that she did.
Oh, great. So we may as well not prosecute any gang rapes, then.
-
I'm just finding it hard to get over that Christchurch businessman being reported as saying that:
it was tongue and cheek
[link] (about half way down the page)
-
Otherwise you'd be saying someone who omits facts and skews their testimony
You've been asked directly twice, Angus, this'll be the last time: which facts? Is your problem, like the prosecutor's, the comments about the Irish men?
-
it was tongue and cheek
At the Stuff link, it's good in a different way:
He says that he meant what he said but that it was tongue in cheek.
So we're clear now? He means it, but he's not serious. Or he's serious, but also taking the piss. Or something.
-
Emma
Yes, let's: I think anything that forms the basis of the defence case is indeed connected to the case. I think that a prosecution witness who attempts to omit a previous statement that acts to support the defence case is lying by omission. I think that when the omission is found out any such witness is dismissed as unreliable.
Basically I agree with the prosecutor:
"This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned. We take the view that it would not be appropriate to offer any evidence."
-
I think that a prosecution witness who attempts to omit a previous statement that acts to support the defence case is lying by omission.
And you're assuming that omission is deliberate, or do you just not care?
Do you think, in rape cases generally, statements complainants have made about their sexual desires towards men who are not the defendant(s) are always relevant? How far back in time? In order to not be branded a liar, or unreliable, how far back must I be able to keep and reproduce all my net utterances? (I don't know about MSN, because I don't use it, but some chat programs don't automatically keep logs, you have to tell them to do it, so she may not have had the logs to produce.)
-
Basically I agree with the prosecutor:
So, just to be clear, you're agreeing that statements made about people's sexual fantasies in any sort of public forum mean that they should not be able to have someone taken to trial for sexual assault which resembles those fantasies, because no matter the circumstances, they must have been asking for it.
You do see how close this is to the "she's my wife so I couldn't have raped her" argument, right?
-
Oh, great. So we may as well not prosecute any gang rapes, then.
Gang rapes are surely easier to prosecute, because as everyone knows all women are abhorrently opposed to having sex with a group of men.
-
Personally I reckon the defence might be able to find six witnesses prepared to swear that she did.
And wouldn't it have been nice if a jury had been able to hear from them, and from the complainant, and make an assessment of their respective credibility?
But here's another reason that your idea that the complainant failing to confess her thoughtcrime is "lying" seems like rot to me
You'll have to bear with me, and imagine that the complaint is not, in fact, a dirty lying whore.
She doesn't search through her back pages for the comments, because they were about something she'd mused she might like .
This case was about something she didn't want done to her, and that in fact was a serious criminal offence .
Why was she obliged to connect a consensual wish with a non-consensual assault?
It is certainly a possibility that the complaint of rape was bogus, and maliciously made. But I don't see how a failure to report one's thoughts constitutes a damning lie.
-
Do you think, in rape cases generally, statements complainants have made about their sexual desires towards men who are not the defendant(s) are always relevant? How far back in time?
I think back to puberty would be fair. Anything before that would be well... icky. We're not unreasonable. Just note what revealing clothing you were wearing and any flirting that you partook in.
If you're a guy however, just back to the last time you sobered up. Or just after your woman burnt your eggs. Or y'know, whatever.
-
3410,
Gang rapes are surely easier to prosecute, because as everyone knows all women are abhorrently opposed to having sex with a group of men.
Easier than what? (Also, your sarcasm here seems faulty).
-
Gang rapes are surely easier to prosecute, because as everyone knows all women are abhorrently opposed to having sex with a group of men.
Oh, I'm sorry; you were actually aiming at the "can't rape a whore" argument. My mistake.
-
I should add, without knowing how things happened in this case, you can see things from the prosecution's point of view in practical terms.
On one side they've got a woman alleging rape, on the other side they've probably got six people saying that it was consensual, and then a related transcript of a conversation between the woman and one of the guys saying that she might be interested in group sex. Even if the prosecutor believes the woman, they will be looking at the jury and thinking "there's no way I'm going to get a conviction with this". Crappy, but if there's no chance of conviction... would be a waste of everyone's time and money.
It does seem that the ways that rapes are treated in court hasn't yet caught up with where they should be, though some progress has been made over the past 50 years. It seems to me that the two components for something to be rape (or sexual assault) is:
1. The sexual activity taking place.
2. No explicit or implicit consent given (or that consent withdrawn).Other matters, particularly what a person said or did beforehand, how they were dressed, doesn't really matter, and our laws should reflect that. If a woman turns up for sex with one guy, and finds five more in the bedroom, all she needs to say is 'no' and the law should support that (as much as 1. evidence, and 2. conflicting stories from both sides, allow).
-
So, just to be clear, you're agreeing that statements made about people's sexual fantasies in any sort of public forum mean that they should not be able to have someone taken to trial for sexual assault which resembles those fantasies, because no matter the circumstances, they must have been asking for it.
No, I mean she should not lie about her fantasies. She should inform the police/prosecution. The fantasy of itself should make this prosecution for pack rape no more difficult than prosecution for any date rape, because the info removes societal preconception of her preferences. She is now seen to be willing to indulge in group sex, but this does not mean she is willing to indulge in group sex with any group. Just like that because the average woman is assumed to be willing to have sex with a man, does not mean she is willing have sex with any man.
However the whole case hangs on her credibility and since she decided not to inform the police/prosecutor/court(?) of her fantasy she is trading on the notion that women are generally opposed to group sex to achieve an easier conviction. She is lying by omission, she has been caught lying - therefore her testimony is unreliable.
-
However the whole case hangs on her credibility and since she decided not to inform the police/prosecutor/court(?) of her fantasy she is trading on the notion that women are generally opposed to group sex to achieve an easier conviction. She is lying by omission, she has been caught lying - therefore her testimony is unreliable.
But you're assuming a) that she lied deliberately, rather than not realising it would be treated as crucial to the case or, indeed, relevant at all and b) that she *was* playing off the notion that women are opposed to group sex.
Both of which are entirely unsupported.
-
she is trading on the notion that women are generally opposed to group sex to achieve an easier conviction
Ah: a *conniving* whore, then.
-
3410,
since she decided not to inform the police/prosecutor/court(?) of her fantasy she is trading on the notion that women are generally opposed to group sex to achieve an easier conviction.
So, if I'm the victim of an unprovoked assault in the street, I have to inform the police/prosecutor/court that I'd previously fantasised about being the heavyweight champion of the world?
That's insane.
-
Easier than what? (Also, your sarcasm here seems faulty).
I think what's confusing you is that this is that rarely-seen thing, the funny funny rape joke, calling card of the Brave Speaker of Truth to Power. You have to listen quite hard because their call sounds a lot like that of the Greater Crested Fuckwad.
-
the Greater Crested Fuckwad
Emma, have I expressed my deep love for you recently? Because I don't think I do it enough.
-
No, I mean she should not lie about her fantasies.
And as far as you know, Angus, she did not lie.If you're going to continue to push this 'she didn't present it therefore she's being deliberately misleading' angle, I think you should respond to some of the criticism of it. Russell's, perhaps.
-
their call sounds a lot like that of the Greater Crested Fuckwad.
Most popular but least played bird on Morning Report ever.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.