Off Topic The Politics Thread

[rangercol]

Then explain what you did say, that was in any way a proper reply to my post. Because I can’t see any other way to interpret your post.

You said that the things I described as rape were in your eyes sexual offences. Presuming not rape then. Unless you failed to be clear, which wouldn’t be a first...

FFS Willy!!
Rape IS a sexual offence.
All the examples you gave were varying kinds of sexual offences and it would be up to the legal system to decide to what extent.

None of the examples are the same as the example I mentioned. You implied that the example I gave of a woman or man willingly having sex to further their career was still rape.

You're such hard work.
I really won't mind if you don't bother to reply!!

 

[West London Willy]

FFS Willy!!
Rape IS a sexual offence.
All the examples you gave were varying kinds of sexual offences and it would be up to the legal system to decide to what extent.

None of the examples are the same as the example I mentioned. You implied that the example I gave of a woman or man willingly having sex to further their career was still rape.

You're such hard work.
I really won't mind if you don't bother to reply!!

To coin a phrase: FFS!

I didn’t imply anything! I wrote four scenarios and you said they were all sexual offences. Michael Fallon touching a reporters knee is a sexual offence in law, but hardly rape. By not defining the kind of offence, you’re lumping all manner and levels of offence together, whereas I was clearly talking about rape. If you don’t agree that those scenarios are rape, then al least have the balls to say so. If you DO think they are rape, then stop trying to stir up arguments and say so.

Please do answer, because telling someone not to respond isn’t good board etiquette...

 

[rangercol]

To coin a phrase: FFS!

I didn’t imply anything! I wrote four scenarios and you said they were all sexual offences. Michael Fallon touching a reporters knee is a sexual offence in law, but hardly rape. By not defining the kind of offence, you’re lumping all manner and levels of offence together, whereas I was clearly talking about rape. If you don’t agree that those scenarios are rape, then al least have the balls to say so. If you DO think they are rape, then stop trying to stir up arguments and say so.

Please do answer, because telling someone not to respond isn’t good board etiquette...

You're right Willy. You're always right. Happy?

 

[West London Willy]

You're right Willy. You're always right. Happy?

No, because you’re on the wind up instead of having a debate. Please answer the question.

 

[rangercol]

No, because you’re on the wind up instead of having a debate. Please answer the question.

IMO B,C & D are all rape. In A, the guy is a low-life, but I don't think he'd be convicted of rape if the sex was consensual. If she said "no", then it would definitely be rape.
IMO there are many grey areas. I'm not going to debate them all with you.

 

[West London Willy]

We disagree on A then, but was it that hard to answer?

FWIW, a friend of mine is a copper who has been involved in many cases, and the top three are all actual cases (obviously I don’t know names and dates). All three bought convictions for rape. In A, when a woman is clearly incapable of understanding consent, then the man should not assume she knows what she is saying.

 

[rangercol]

We disagree on A then, but was it that hard to answer?

FWIW, a friend of mine is a copper who has been involved in many cases, and the top three are all actual cases (obviously I don’t know names and dates). All three bought convictions for rape. In A, when a woman is clearly incapable of understanding consent, then the man should not assume she knows what she is saying.

Well done.

 

[colognehornet]

IMO B,C & D are all rape. In A, the guy is a low-life, but I don't think he'd be convicted of rape if the sex was consensual. If she said "no", then it would definitely be rape.
IMO there are many grey areas. I'm not going to debate them all with you.

A difficult one this - the next step could be to say that it is illegal to have sex with a drunken woman, which would be ridiculous. I would say that if she is drunk and you aren't then the wise thing is to walk away. To suggest that she cannot have given legal consent being not in a rational state to do so is a poor defence - because if she wasn't in her own mind then it's her own fault. So A would not be rape. B would also not be rape if the man did not know that her drink had been spiked by someone else. C would be a completely different matter being clearly rape. Encouraging someone to sleep with you to save their career is the lowest of the low but it is not rape unless force was involved - though it certainly comes under other, equally serious, legal catagories.

 

[rangercol]

A difficult one this - the next step could be to say that it is illegal to have sex with a drunken woman, which would be ridiculous. I would say that if she is drunk and you aren't then the wise thing is to walk away. To suggest that she cannot have given legal consent being not in a rational state to do so is a poor defence - because if she wasn't in her own mind then it's her own fault. So A would not be rape. B would also not be rape if the man did not know that her drink had been spiked by someone else. C would be a completely different matter being clearly rape. Encouraging someone to sleep with you to save their career is the lowest of the low but it is not rape unless force was involved - though it certainly comes under other, equally serious, legal catagories.

Exactly what I was trying to say..............many grey areas. I presumed that, if her drink had been spiked, she was unconscious or very near to it.

 

[West London Willy]

In all of these cases, the responsibility needs to be on the man to realise the woman may not be aware or able to consent, and so if they carry on, there’s a risk of rape charges.

 

[colognehornet]

Exactly what I was trying to say..............many grey areas. I presumed that, if her drink had been spiked, she was unconscious or very near to it.

Is spiking a person's drink a criminal offence in itself ? Something like attempted poisoning.

 

[rangercol]

In all of these cases, the responsibility needs to be on the man to realise the woman may not be aware or able to consent, and so if they carry on, there’s a risk of rape charges.

What if they're both drunk?

 

[rangercol]

Is spiking a person's drink a criminal offence in itself ? Something like attempted poisoning.

Pretty sure it is.

 

[West London Willy]

What if they're both drunk?

Law protects the victim, so in that scenario it wouldn’t matter.

 

[rangercol]

Law protects the victim, so in that scenario it wouldn’t matter.

Two people are drunk..........they have sex...........no one said that they didn't want to, although one of them regrets it in the morning. Where's a victim?

 

[durbar2003]

Two people are drunk..........they have sex...........no one said that they didn't want to, although one of them regrets it in the morning. Where's a victim?

The baby

 

[West London Willy]

Two people are drunk..........they have sex...........no one said that they didn't want to, although one of them regrets it in the morning. Where's a victim?

A woman who is incapable of saying no should never have it assumed that she meant yes. Even if she says yes at the time.

Consent, by law, has to be given and clearly meant.

So she would be the victim. You can’t assume consent.

 

[rangercol]

A woman who is incapable of saying no should never have it assumed that she meant yes. Even if she says yes at the time.

Consent, by law, has to be given and clearly meant.

So she would be the victim. You can’t assume consent.

Rather contradictory that. If she said yes then it's fair to assume that she meant yes surely? Also, they were both drunk so he may not have wanted to either.

So, by your logic, every time two drunk people have sex and there hasn't been a clear sign of consent, there has been a rape? Even if no one said that they wanted it to stop? You're tying yourself up in knots by being so black and white about it. There are many grey areas.

 

[West London Willy]

Rather contradictory that. If she said yes then it's fair to assume that she meant yes surely? Also, they were both drunk so he may not have wanted to either.

So, by your logic, every time two drunk people have sex and there hasn't been a clear sign of consent, there has been a rape? Even if no one said that they wanted it to stop? You're tying yourself up in knots by being so black and white about it. There are many grey areas.

Tell you what, you go pick up a drunk woman and have sex. Unless she says no, that’ll be ok, right?

WRONG

The law is very clear. Consent cannot be assumed, not can a woman’s capacity for understanding consent when she is drunk.

Sorry if you don’t like that, but it’s the law.

The ‘grey areas’ you love to mention no doubt contribute to the very low rate of rapes being reported or convicted. But the law is clear - it has to be - despite how lawyers and incompetent judges abuse it.

 

[rangercol]

Tell you what, you go pick up a drunk woman and have sex. Unless she says no, that’ll be ok, right?

WRONG

The law is very clear. Consent cannot be assumed, not can a woman’s capacity for understanding consent when she is drunk.

Sorry if you don’t like that, but it’s the law.

The ‘grey areas’ you love to mention no doubt contribute to the very low rate of rapes being reported or convicted. But the law is clear - it has to be - despite how lawyers and incompetent judges abuse it.

Tell you what............I'll get back to the match day thread. Haven't seen you on it.

So, every drunk couple having sex are in danger of one of them being called a rapist?

We'll agree to disagree I think.