my opinion on reading this will be "another false allegation". NO - it's not; he sounds EXACTLY typical of a UK Policeman to me.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7064411...faces-life-jail.html

I didnt know you could put vodka in the freezer. Isn't ordinary glass liable to crack?

Actually, I call bullshit on this one too.

It looks like the girl got blind drunk and horny then, when she sobered up remembered she's supposed to be a Christian virgin, regretted it in the morning. So instead of taking responsibility for her own choices, she blames a nasty rapeman instead.

There seems little to support her account. If she was too drunk to consent (if drunkenness vitiates consent in Antiguan law) where is the blood alcohol test? There's no mention of a medical report for the injuries described. And anyway, who hasn't picked up a couple of mystery bruises after a boozy night? Who hasn't had difficulty walking with a hangover?

I also smell a rat about the continued WhatsApp contact, which was apparently perfectly cordial. Her explanation of this, that she was trying to entrap him into admitting something, sounds like a pretext she came up with when challenged to explain the post coital conversations.

The man might well be a nasty piece of work, and perhaps one of those asshole cops we all dislike. But I don't care. He still gets the presumption of innocence from me.

Hostility to the police aside, the key issue here is the accused asked the alleged victim for sex again. This could be evidence he thought he had consent the first time round, all other things being equal. (I am assuming he is not confessing to using a date rape drug and he is claiming they just had sex after drinking). I have seen things like this before in reported rape cases. In the recent case of the convicted cricketer, the victim said that the rapist probably thought she was doing her 'a favour' by having sex with her. In law a jury has to decide if a belief in consent is reasonable, not just whether the accused believed they had consent (something a bit hard to prove short of ESP anyway). But wishful thinking can make the unreasonable seem reasonable. Maybe there is actually a case for the much derided consent classes for young people. I know men get wound up by them but there are obviously men (and some women perhaps) out there who don't have a grasp of consent issues and it's better to go to a class than to a prison.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I didnt know you could put vodka in the freezer. Isn't ordinary glass liable to crack?

In Ukraine we had to get a bigger freezer compartment!

Back to the article..

'The student, a devout Christian who was a virgin, remembered screaming ‘no’ but her memory was so blank she had to ask Martin-Cramp if they had sex.'

I got that far,then realised that the chance of this guy getting a fair trial out there would not be easy...

So all allegations are false, unless it is the plod.

No I don't think so; many are partially true; some are misunderstandings; some are deliberate greed or desire for sympathy or malice; some are completely accurate - but the vast majority are exaggerated at least. This, however, sounds like typical police mentality behaviour.

JK2006 wrote:
No I don't think so; many are partially true; some are misunderstandings; some are deliberate greed or desire for sympathy or malice; some are completely accurate - but the vast majority are exaggerated at least. This, however, sounds like typical police mentality behaviour.

But this is like saying that your "behaviour" (that never happened) was typical of arrogant stars. (You are arrogant, and its jolly good job you are)
It doesn't imply guilt.

Fair point Honey. We're all closet bigots.

anon wrote:
In law a jury has to decide if a belief in consent is reasonable, not just whether the accused believed they had consent (something a bit hard to prove short of ESP anyway). But wishful thinking can make the unreasonable seem reasonable. Maybe there is actually a case for the much derided consent classes for young people. I know men get wound up by them but there are obviously men (and some women perhaps) out there who don't have a grasp of consent issues and it's better to go to a class than to a prison.

In a recent thread, several of us had a long discussion about whether rape and other so-called sexual offences should be retained in law. And if they should, then what would be the rationale for prohibiting deeds that cause no tangible harm or loss.


A narrower part of that discussion is the issue of consent, that has made its way to the centre of most rape trials. As anon pointed out, a jury is asked to discern whether the defendant thought the other person was consenting. That is, the jury is expected to read what the defendant thinks about his own reading of the complainant's thoughts. Bonkers. They're expected to do this years later, without having been there, usually with absolutely no evidence other than two opposing and uncorroborated accounts. They're also expected to read the complainant's mind about whether she did indeed want sex years ago. Not only that, but they're expected to form a view about whether she communicated her consent or lack thereof in a way that the defendant would have understood in the situation (that they have little idea of) at the time.


Yes, people are confused about the legal concept of consent and rightly so. As a criterion on which to make a determination beyond reasonable doubt, it's fundamentally misconceived, or "fucking bollocks" in technical terms.

JK2006 wrote:
Fair point Honey. We're all closet bigots.

I'm the forum bigot Doctor King....you can have the closet....unless of course Hedda wants it?

Randall wrote:
Actually, I call bullshit on this one too.

It looks like the girl got blind drunk and horny then, when she sobered up remembered she's supposed to be a Christian virgin, regretted it in the morning. So instead of taking responsibility for her own choices, she blames a nasty rapeman instead.

There seems little to support her account. If she was too drunk to consent (if drunkenness vitiates consent in Antiguan law) where is the blood alcohol test? There's no mention of a medical report for the injuries described. And anyway, who hasn't picked up a couple of mystery bruises after a boozy night? Who hasn't had difficulty walking with a hangover?

I also smell a rat about the continued WhatsApp contact, which was apparently perfectly cordial. Her explanation of this, that she was trying to entrap him into admitting something, sounds like a pretext she came up with when challenged to explain the post coital conversations.

The man might well be a nasty piece of work, and perhaps one of those asshole cops we all dislike. But I don't care. He still gets the presumption of innocence from me.

Randall you are correct this is reported entirely as the girl's "word only". Why no test for a drug in the blood the next day, Ideal situation for real evidence that is independent (John Worboy's case the Greenwich student reported and eventually a much more in depth test of blood sample provided previously discovered drug use evidence.) What did the accused say happened? ~This is evidence of what happens when the UK ignores it's own rules and allows juries to hear stories, a person's word only. Then there is no challenge to the extradition as the key questions like what drug tests and alcohol test were done. And would a jury or judge be unbiased or emotionally swayed. Randall I agree that story wise with no evidence of tests but the girls's version of conversations etc all point away from rape and a failure on her part to live up to her own standards and if she did she would not be drinking or just one glass with a great reluctance to be alone in her hotel room with a guy who is a near stranger. Also it is a case of guys beware and watch out for the lure and dangers of excessive drinking. Don't say you haven't been warned but who ever listens!!!!!!! Of course (doubt it) that the tests were done and his story was much in line with hers and just not included in the news reports I read.

I think what's missing from the debate is common sense. At the moment in the UK either you think that all accusers must be believed no matter what the evidence or credibility of their story or, a very minority view, you believe that everyone's a liar. The believe everyone line exists because, like most crimes, most sexual abuse goes unpunished at the moment. The conviction rate for rape is not much different from the rate for things like wounding with intent. Most violent crimes (other than murder) and most property crimes do no lead to conviction. Now this difficult truth is always going to lead some to call for getting rid of due process and bringing in incredibly harsh penalties for all sorts of crime-gun crime, knife crime, drug-dealing etc. With other crimes there are always liberals who will challenge this-e.g. challenge the 'war on drugs'. Fe dare challenge the calls for due process dumping in sex offences, though. (Only those who have already been convicted or accused and therefore have little to lose). And there we have it. I can personally assure Johnathan that dirty old men do go after teenagers, both boys and girls and there are not a completely tiny number of them. However, the overthrow of all principles of justice is a) not a price worth paying to stop it and b) won't stop it anyway. I am now going to commit suicide by announcing this fact to the world under my own name. Actually I won't...

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I didnt know you could put vodka in the freezer. Isn't ordinary glass liable to crack?

Silent (he isn't) Majority (he's not) is correct..you always keep Vodka in the freezer.

Never thought about the glass breaking..but it doesn't.

hedda wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I didnt know you could put vodka in the freezer. Isn't ordinary glass liable to crack?

Silent (he isn't) Majority (he's not) is correct..you always keep Vodka in the freezer.

Never thought about the glass breaking..but it doesn't.

Funny how vodka is frozen stored,but other spirits are not....

....and vodka is most often drunk neat in the former CCCP...but then again I've eaten ice cream outside in -20 degs...they should have won the Cold War with all that practice