But what if she said yes whilst drunk? Does that count? Also I think she was niave getting herself into this position when she felt she was being pestered before, however that doesn't mean I condon anyones actions.
Knowingly taking advantage of a situation. The responsibility of not waiting until the woman is sober, particularly if the woman had been objectionable to other past behaviours with out the influence of drink. It's like a mate asking you to commit some crazy stunt while drunk and you agree to do it by saying 'Yes' and end up getting injured. If you hadn't of been drunk would you have carried out your mates dare, maybe, maybe not, but you would have given the event more due consideration before agreeing. It's like people that spike your drink for a craic, P's me right off because your clearly trying to take the person to a level of behaviour influenced by drink.
Morally I agree, but I was wondering about the legal ramifactions. Who decides if when the level of intoxication begins to affect the persons ability to consent, and who gets to make the decision when someone becomes "too drunk" to make an informed choice?? This is a huge legal gray area
If both the man and woman have been drinking why is it assumed the man is in the wrong? he could be too drunk to make a reasoned decision. If the woman can't remember the incident how can she claim to have said "NO" As I said before, without all the facts you can't make a decision of right and wrong. If it's proved he is guilty then any punishment is justified.
I just hasten to add at no point am I making a reference to whether someone is guilty or innocent in relation to any current ongoing trial. My opinion is just based on my morality views of scenarios under the influence of drink/drugs combined with any sexual relationships, whether that be hetrosexual/homosexual or non sexual events of men or women sharing the same bed and any consented human assumptions of doing so. I really don't fancy anyone's lawyer on my case.
But this isn't a moral case though brb, this is a matter of law, morals shouldn't come into it. You can't convict someone for doing something immoral
The reason i have referred to my moral view is because I don't know the legal aspects of these things, hence why have excluded commenting on the law. I would need to do some research to give examples of previous legal rulings/outcomes. I'm sure if i googled it there would be a minefield of information.
Exactly. (brb - I posted a 'like' on 727 by mistake ¬!! ) BSG Thankyou for reminding people that this is NOT about morals - but facts relating to an allegation of rape. The law doesn't require the accused to prove himself innocent - it requires that there is sufficient provable facts relating to the 'mechanics' of an offence - so that there is no reasonable chance of a doubt. From what we've been told there is NO provable fact regarding the offence ( as opposed the deed ) - The prosecution would struggle to prove anything - without the 'social' relationship that the two shared prior to the day
You can't give informed consent whilst drunk or under the influence of other mind altering substances
I understand that, but it was a two part question. Ok say she only had one drink, does that count? Or is it two or three?? And what happens of a girl has had a drink and the lad doesn't know, and he thinks she is giving informed consent??
Sorry lads but i still politely disagree. I'm not referring to the case but scenarios. I have already explained what i believe to be morally wrong in a particular situation. Whether that fits with the law is another matter. Some individuals that pass through our law courts may have wished they had adhered to some of these same certain morals. Because regardless of whether found innocent or guilty, the shame of a day in court on a sex charge will live with them and their family forever.
brb no apology required for having a different viewpoint ( you're entitled to express your opinion as your conscience dictates ) I started the thread with the technicality of any provable offence in mind - I never mentioned morals or standards of behaviour etc . I'm not actually sure ( regardless of verdict ) if there will be any REAL shame of a 'day in court' - much in the same way as there is little shame in an ASBO ( badge of honour ) - standards in society have changed ( I would actually say lowered ). There appears little stigma attached to crimes that would not have been acceptable a generation or two back. - just look how we are discussing the 'actions' of the 'victim' as opposed to accepting her word as her bond that she was raped ! Other ways that public opinion has changed in a short period of time - nobody cares if they are declared bankrupt, co-habiting (even same sex) is 'normal' as is the number of children born out of wedlock - not so long ago any girl who got pregnant without wearing a ring was outcast. The list goes on ! We all have an opinion on these matters - for what it's worth ( without condemning individual circumstances ), it appears that 'old fashioned' standards have become too difficult for people to follow - so society lowers the bar - to allow lower standards to seem to be respectable. The trouble with this is that even these 'lower' standards become a target for lowering.
Sorry about the 'pun' - but I thought I'd lighten the mood ( with your consent of course ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26385173 I don't think I've sent a letter since the first class post went up to 60 pence. I do all my correspondence online ( email ) or phone or text. I do all my banking online etc. Birthday, Christmas cards ( if local) are delivered by me whilst in the area - often handed personally during a visit prior to the event ) - so it means that I rarely buy a stamp ( compared to a couple of years ago ) There are major advantages to deal with matters online - not least that it is more reliable and historically recorded - as well as cheap. Am I doing anything wrong !
"I tried to push him away with my head." You couldn't make it up - I nearly wet myself with laughter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26402044
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-26346985 OK - I understand (and can have empathy with) their point - but I bet it would be a different thing if the shirts were 'official' merchandise & the money going to the Brazilian government or their FA. Will it also mean that the Brazilian government do everything to ensure that they don't rip the backside off football fans travelling to the World Cup ? I doubt it - they'll look to fleece the supporters and literally take the shirts off their backs - and now won't allow the fans to replace those shirts with something that doesn't cost upwards of £40 from the club shop.
Going back to an earlier topic in this thread...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-26441513 However, I hasten to add I did say all along my views were NOT based on any trial but based on moral opinion, my view has not changed.
from all pubs, restaurants, work places, eating it open spaces...Protein...it is as bad for your health as smoking... http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...mful-as-smoking-scientists-claim-9169335.html I expect the government to debate in parliament with immediate affect a ban on all meat, eggs, cheese, the bigmac, the whopper etc. Disgusting habit.
brb I did tell you [all] the outcome ! I probably agree with you on the 'likely' morals as they may relate to Ranger - but then, to be fair to him, should we not speculate in the same way about the girl - to discuss her morals in getting herself into the position in which she found herself ? Without knowing the real facts would be slightly unfair to judge one side without the obvious need to look at both sides.
