desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Up until you finish having sex. Not the next day when you don't return her texts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Just out of interest, up until what point do you think a woman has the right to say "no"? Until you can get your hand over her mouth? Until she falls asleep? Ask Desmongo, he seems to have all the answers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Your absolutely correct. The chances are that she went there for sex. The law doesn't work on assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 It does when you a jury of 10 people assuming she's lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 No it doesn't man, the jury didn't all just sit there and go "well there you go they went into a hotel room together so it's 100% certain they both were consenting". Also the initial point was you saying the police shouldn't have took the case further and pressed charges against her because of footage of them going to a hotel room together, which is would have been using an assumption, which they didn't because the law doesn't work on assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 But the jury made assumptions it is plain to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17645 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Up until you finish having sex. Not the next day when you don't return her texts You'll have to explain this one a bit clearer Des, to me this sounds very, very dodgy indeed...women get to say no after the sexual act?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 But the jury made assumptions it is plain to see No they assessed all of the evidence of the trial and passed a judgement, they didn't just take an assumption that because they went into a hotel room together they were both consenting to sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 That's not what I said. They assumed she did give consent didn't they! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) No, an assumption is without proof, the defence will have had to prove it was consensual and the prosecution will have had to prove it wasn't, they don't just go off assumptions. The going to the hotel room together would have been used as one part of the defences case to prove consent, it wouldn't have been a the only point or else it would have been an assumption and too weak. Edited March 12, 2014 by Howay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 But that's the whole point they do not know for certain they make an assumption of one case against another. Only 2 people actually know the truth. Hence they assume. I'm not explaining it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31195 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 That's not what I said. They assumed she did give consent didn't they! No they didn't. Please do not try and speak on points of law when you clearly have no clue as to how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Again that simply isn't how the law works, judgement's are not passed on assumptions, you have to prove your case. If the defence solicitor turned up and used them going to a hotel room and the assumption that they were consenting to have sex as his only evidence his case would have lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Again that simply isn't how the law works, judgement's are not passed on assumptions, you have to prove your case. If the defence solicitor turned up and used them going to a hotel room and the assumption that they were consenting to have sex as his only evidence his case would have lost. But your not listening. I didnt say the defence, i said the jury. The Jury believed the defence case over the prosecutions. It really is that simple. Edited March 12, 2014 by desmondTUTU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31195 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Again, you're a fucking idiot. The jury does not have to believe the defence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not give consent. It is a very difficult thing to do given the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Again, you're a fucking idiot. The jury does not have to believe the defence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not give consent. It is a very difficult thing to do given the circumstances. Where did i say that the jury had to believe the defence? They chose to believe them, nobody said they had to believe them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) But your not listening. I didnt say the defence, i said the jury. The Jury believed the defence case over the prosecutions. It really is that simple. They didn't believe the defences case though, it's simply that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent. Edited March 12, 2014 by Howay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 They didn't believe the defences case though, it's simply that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent. How do you know they did not believe the defence, that's you making an assumption there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31195 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Dessie, you're not a clever man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADP 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 The jury does not have to believe the defence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not give consent. It is a very difficult thing to do given the circumstances. I'd also add to that that the 'reasonable doubt' aspect of UK law coupled with this is the reason why such cases result in so few convictions. The defence merely has to present enough room in the victim's claim for a hint of consent, and it then becomes incredibly difficult for the prosecution to patch that up - simply due to the fact that measuring consent and by extension sexual desire in hindsight becomes a 'his word against hers'. The jury's job in this situation is an easy one, as they cannot say that the evidence results in a guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. I'd like to put in as a caveat that I think the UK justice system is by and large the best system in the world, for many reasons. However, the 'reasonable doubt' aspect that is so often a wonderful element to the law can create a grey area in instances of sexual assault. Anyway, aye, Loic Remy is a really good footballer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Dessie, you're not a clever man. Fuck knows where that leaves you then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I'd also add to that that the 'reasonable doubt' aspect of UK law coupled with this is the reason why such cases result in so few convictions. The defence merely has to present enough room in the victim's claim for a hint of consent, and it then becomes incredibly difficult for the prosecution to patch that up - simply due to the fact that measuring consent and by extension sexual desire in hindsight becomes a 'his word against hers'. The jury's job in this situation is an easy one, as they cannot say that the evidence results in a guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. I'd like to put in as a caveat that I think the UK justice system is by and large the best system in the world, for many reasons. However, the 'reasonable doubt' aspect that is so often a wonderful element to the law can create a grey area in instances of sexual assault. Anyway, aye, Loic Remy is a really good footballer. Good summary, we are lucky we have a jury of 10 rather than SA where they have one judge in a kangaroo court deciding the score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31195 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Good summary, we are lucky we have a jury of 10 rather than SA where they have one judge in a kangaroo court deciding the score. You realise that in certain parts of the UK the same court setup existed until 2007? You also realise why they use Diplock style courts in SA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 How do you know they did not believe the defence, that's you making an assumption there Because that's not how the law works, the defences job isn't to have the jury believe them, it's to weaken the prosecutions case to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It's not about assumptions or beliefs it is about proof and evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33834 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Des is in the minority here but it's a bit depressing that there are fucking thousands of Des's out there sitting in their work canteens, offices wherever spouting the same kind of shit when some headline in the 'Current bun' outrages them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now