| So Cheds latest statement was more lies then on 12:16 - Jan 17 with 910 views | LeonisGod |
| So Cheds latest statement was more lies then on 11:51 - Jan 17 by Catullus |
Equally, it doesn't mean she wasn't raped.
Both these people have told lies then. I wonder why? Two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't know all the evidence and I'm no legal expert. But what I do know, and what I know about the definition of rape, makes me look at this case very cynically.
The law needs looking at again. And as I said earlier (or was it in a PM to Perch?) people have to think very carefully before drinking too much. There are consequences, it's not like it was 30 years ago.
30 years back, if a woman got too drunk and realised the next day she'd been taken advantage of she just thought she'd been stupid and got on with it......most of the time.
I'm not saying that's right either by the way. But now it seems almost like a witch hunt. It almost seems like women are being encouraged to cry rape if they have little or no memory of the night before (or before that even!)
And now a woman saying she does not remember giving consent is enough to make a case.
Well when you have a drunk woman and a drunk man, if she is too drunk to reasonably consent, what about the mans situation? Him being drunk too, is he able to reasonably understand he should walk away?
The rules seem lop sided to me. A drunken man is expected to be able to make a sensible decision, when a drunken woman can't. Is that really a safe way to convict someone of something that will ruin their life?
People need to take more responsibility for their own actions. We can start by not getting so drunk that we can be taken advantage of.
The world is a different place now and people need to live in the time they are in.
I'm really glad I rarely drink anymore and will never have to worry about this. I'm sure there are plenty like me, who can look back on their lives and think that under todays rules we could possibly have been charged with rape too, for things we did 30 years ago that were accepted back then.
Times have changed, but a lot of people haven't. |
"People need to take more responsibility for their own actions. We can start by not getting so drunk that we can be taken advantage of. "
Not wrong there, but in this litigation age (thank you America for propagating THAT trend), someone else always has to be blamed. More self-responsibility would be a good thing in all areas of life. |  | |  |
| So Cheds latest statement was more lies then on 12:27 - Jan 17 with 893 views | Parlay |
| So Cheds latest statement was more lies then on 12:15 - Jan 17 by Catullus |
Well yes, it would. But having years of legal experience and knowledge doesn't mean they'll get it right all the time. And Lawyers also defend people they know are guilty. Top lawyers regularly get people acquitted on technicalities who are guilty as sin.
Always remember, the law is an ass. Innocent are sometimes found guilty and the guilty sometimes get off.
And questioning Evans verdict doesn't mean we are apologists for rape. It means we are concerned about justice being done.
If he's guilty, he should still be in prison (for at least 10 years) as far as I'm concerned. But the little I do know gives me cause for concern over the validity of his conviction. |
Sense. |  |
| |
| So Cheds latest statement was more lies then on 12:35 - Jan 17 with 887 views | Parlay |
| So Cheds latest statement was more lies then on 11:51 - Jan 17 by Catullus |
Equally, it doesn't mean she wasn't raped.
Both these people have told lies then. I wonder why? Two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't know all the evidence and I'm no legal expert. But what I do know, and what I know about the definition of rape, makes me look at this case very cynically.
The law needs looking at again. And as I said earlier (or was it in a PM to Perch?) people have to think very carefully before drinking too much. There are consequences, it's not like it was 30 years ago.
30 years back, if a woman got too drunk and realised the next day she'd been taken advantage of she just thought she'd been stupid and got on with it......most of the time.
I'm not saying that's right either by the way. But now it seems almost like a witch hunt. It almost seems like women are being encouraged to cry rape if they have little or no memory of the night before (or before that even!)
And now a woman saying she does not remember giving consent is enough to make a case.
Well when you have a drunk woman and a drunk man, if she is too drunk to reasonably consent, what about the mans situation? Him being drunk too, is he able to reasonably understand he should walk away?
The rules seem lop sided to me. A drunken man is expected to be able to make a sensible decision, when a drunken woman can't. Is that really a safe way to convict someone of something that will ruin their life?
People need to take more responsibility for their own actions. We can start by not getting so drunk that we can be taken advantage of.
The world is a different place now and people need to live in the time they are in.
I'm really glad I rarely drink anymore and will never have to worry about this. I'm sure there are plenty like me, who can look back on their lives and think that under todays rules we could possibly have been charged with rape too, for things we did 30 years ago that were accepted back then.
Times have changed, but a lot of people haven't. |
I completely agree with you and wasnt suggesting that in the slightest. I was making the point that this tread doesnt prove ched raped anyone, that of course goes for the woman too, her lying doesnt prove that she wasnt.
Id like to think the evidence would decide that and make it clear for everybody who casts a glance at the case, although it seems the more people look at it the more concerns are raised about the verdict. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
