"We MUST increase convictions - 30% rise year on year is not good enough". I totally agree. If there ARE more rapes. But nobody seems to consider there may be a rise in misunderstandings, false allegations. "If someone is drunk or drugged", they say, "they CANNOT give consent". I would agree with that too and would say that society needs to lower the quantity of drink and drugs consumed. And protect those stupid enough to get into that state. That would be MY priority. Whilst a pissed girl begging to be penetrated might attract some (not me I hasten to say; the smell alone would put me off), it is far better to stop the situation happening than to prosecute stupid men who DO fancy drunken women from obeying the instructions. But perhaps I'm being unreasonable. Perhaps I am the stupid one since when, exactly, is DRUNK reached? Two glasses of wine? One joint? "Oh I love you - please have sex"… "but I was DRUNK - I couldn't consent".

Thank God for our fine legal leaders and police chiefs who understand these complex situations far better than we do.

recipe for disaster and in a foul swoop nutcase Saunders have overturned the law- now men must prove they have consent rather than rape be proved.

what is she thinking of? why isn't the legal community up in arms?

the hysterics and fantasists have succeeded.

any wife can now claim her husband raped her. Any girlfriend can say her boyfriend raped her.

and why shouldn't a woman have to prove the man gave consent?

madness

JK2006 wrote:
"We MUST increase convictions - 30% rise year on year is not good enough". I totally agree. If there ARE more rapes. But nobody seems to consider there may be a rise in misunderstandings, false allegations. "If someone is drunk or drugged", they say, "they CANNOT give consent". I would agree with that too and would say that society needs to lower the quantity of drink and drugs consumed. And protect those stupid enough to get into that state. That would be MY priority. Whilst a pissed girl begging to be penetrated might attract some (not me I hasten to say; the smell alone would put me off), it is far better to stop the situation happening than to prosecute stupid men who DO fancy drunken women from obeying the instructions. But perhaps I'm being unreasonable. Perhaps I am the stupid one since when, exactly, is DRUNK reached? Two glasses of wine? One joint? "Oh I love you - please have sex"… "but I was DRUNK - I couldn't consent".

Thank God for our fine legal leaders and police chiefs who understand these complex situations far better than we do.

When is drunk reached? It depends if you are a man or woman. Women can be drunk enough to behave badly and out of character and appear to give give consent, but men (no matter how many pints they have had) are never drunk enough to not know what they are doing or to think that when someone says they want sex they do.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

When is drunk reached? It depends if you are a man or woman. Women can be drunk enough to behave badly and out of character and appear to give give consent, but men (no matter how many pints they have had) are never drunk enough to not know what they are doing or to think that when someone says they want sex they do.

There comes a point, honey! (don't know this myself - andrew told me !!!) that when you have consumed a certain number of pints, rape is no longer possible !

As well as the drink question, the most dangerous aspect of this is perhaps the "mental illness problems" clause.
If we were talking diagnosed serious mental illness then there should be responsibility on the woman to disclose this, but "mental health problems"? Don't many women suffer with these unspecified problems - are we talking any woman on anti-depressants can't consent? Anti-psychotics? Or just some girl who "thinks" she's depressed or something increasingly "trendy" like declaring they're bipolar (lots of drama queens claiming to be this when they're not?)
A lot of real mental illness involves a manic appetite for sex - but any man taking advantage of a woman coming on strong is a rapist?

Unlike rare brave femme-lawyer for TRUTH & JUSTICE, Babs Hewson Q.C.

Populist FemiNazis like Saunders can't even spell the word "Justice" let alone dispense it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483390...woman-barrister.html

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/search_res...2d4ac9ce32d210bcfc4/

In The Know (as always) wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

When is drunk reached? It depends if you are a man or woman. Women can be drunk enough to behave badly and out of character and appear to give give consent, but men (no matter how many pints they have had) are never drunk enough to not know what they are doing or to think that when someone says they want sex they do.

There comes a point, honey! (don't know this myself - andrew told me !!!) that when you have consumed a certain number of pints, rape is no longer possible !

When people are jailed for touching breasts in public over a jumper and blazer it doesn't matter if penetration happens or not.

There's got to be an ulterior motive here - i'm sure it's always been the case (in recent times) that rapes were prosecuted and people convicted we're at all possible i.e where evidence will allow - you can't convict someone with no evidence and encouraging people to try and fabricate it to try and increase conviction rates is hardly a logical solution...

A serious sexual assault will probably leave physical evidence if reported promptly, sure encourage people to report these things if they happen and promptly, but why the hysterics over crimes they only imagine to be happening? If reports of rape were going down that would actually make perfect sense to me due to more people staying in on their computer/facebook than ever before...

JK2006 wrote:
"We MUST increase convictions - 30% rise year on year is not good enough". I totally agree. If there ARE more rapes. But nobody seems to consider there may be a rise in misunderstandings, false allegations. "If someone is drunk or drugged", they say, "they CANNOT give consent". I would agree with that too and would say that society needs to lower the quantity of drink and drugs consumed. And protect those stupid enough to get into that state. That would be MY priority. Whilst a pissed girl begging to be penetrated might attract some (not me I hasten to say; the smell alone would put me off), it is far better to stop the situation happening than to prosecute stupid men who DO fancy drunken women from obeying the instructions. But perhaps I'm being unreasonable. Perhaps I am the stupid one since when, exactly, is DRUNK reached? Two glasses of wine? One joint? "Oh I love you - please have sex"… "but I was DRUNK - I couldn't consent".

Thank God for our fine legal leaders and police chiefs who understand these complex situations far better than we do.

A woman or man getting drunk and begging for sex (which happens a lot) is making a nucience of themselves and they should be the ones sorry for their behaviour the next day and take responsibility for the state they got themselves into not pass it onto the other person they pestered just because sober them regrets it or can't remember it.

If they were actually out cold and know for a fact they never concented to sex (difficult if you get so rat arsed you can't remember a thing) then that's a different story. But indivduals need to take responsibility for their own drinking habits not automatically pass the buck elsewhere they first sign of not remembering or regret, which it appears they are being encouraged to do now. Often in these to drunk to remember cases it is actually the drunken (or more often slightly more drunken party) party that was the sex pest in the first place, and i'm sure regretting their behaviour in the morning is perfectly natural.

If these guys had taken this woman up on her drunken offer and this woman woke up the next day with a hazy memory but only the vague recollection that she had sex with the plumbers at some point but not really able to remember how that whole scenario came about and she related the story to someone else, I bet some people would speculate that she had probably be raped:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2870389...ng-two-PLUMBERS.html

Anon wrote:
There's got to be an ulterior motive here - i'm sure it's always been the case (in recent times) that rapes were prosecuted and people convicted we're at all possible i.e where evidence will allow - you can't convict someone with no evidence and encouraging people to try and fabricate it to try and increase conviction rates is hardly a logical solution...

A serious sexual assault will probably leave physical evidence if reported promptly, sure encourage people to report these things if they happen and promptly, but why the hysterics over crimes they only imagine to be happening? If reports of rape were going down that would actually make perfect sense to me due to more people staying in on their computer/facebook than ever before...

no ulterior motive...just the fanatics are out of control and running the show aided by some gormless politicians and the law community & majority of lawyers are too terrified to speak out.

the media win either way so they ramp up the hysteria.

But it will backfire when enough politicians, newspaper editors , a judge or two are accused.