An alarming viewpoint?

[cee-dee]

First have a look here:-

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/lawyer-sparks-outcry-claiming-men-5119595

Then have a look for a similar report on sky news:-

http://news.sky.com/uk

Scroll down a little way on that link. I can't add the link to the article here because a word in the link will be bleeped out and the link won't work. Have a read of it carefully?

So, that man thinks that if a woman is drunk, it's quite OK to pinch her handbag or steal her mobile phone? It's not as serious as the main crime mentioned there but they're still crimes?

He means that if someone stole a drunken womens handbag, she was asking for it and the thief shouldn't be prosecuted?

What do you think about his comments?

[mustard-tree]

If a person is drunk, consent is not considered appropriate for many things

Getting married

Consent to own medical procedures

Having a tattoo or piercing

To name a few that come to mind.

So why should it be considered appropriate for anything else

[astrologica]

It's difficult to muster up any sympathy at all for any woman who gets so drunk that she is not able to be responsible for her own body and belongings. And that does NOT mean that I agree with this judge.

[upthecreekyetagain]

What I read from those articles is that the judge is saying that if a woman is drunk, (not unconscious), then she can't/shouldn't be able to claim she was sexually assaulted if she gives no indication that she didn't consent.

“The last rap e trial I did we had much the same defence and much the same set of circumstances.

“They were at a party. She was drunk. He invited her out. They went round the back.

“It was all rather unromantic but these things tend to be rather unromantic I’m afraid.

“He invited her round the back of a bicycle shed, had his way with her and she didn’t enjoy it so she cried **bleep**.

“She was saying ‘I didn’t consent’ and I said ‘well what did you say to him that suggested to him that you weren’t consenting’.

“And she replied ‘nothing’.

How many women would accept an excuse from their man that it wasn't his fault he'd had sex when he was drunk!

[cee-dee]

The bloke who wrote the blog, David Osborne, is a barrister, not a judge.

If people think it's OK to take advantage of a woman when she's had too much to drink, I'm surprised that no-one's picked up on the fact that stealing something from a drunk is just the same? I suppose the "defendant" there would say "she consented, she gave it to me" and that would make it all OK, he's not guilty of theft?

There's the current case at the moment where an 82 year old womn was struck by a lorry and as she lay dying, a bloke stole her purse so I suppose he's not guilty of theft if he claims "She gave it to me" even though she was incapable of giving her consent?

What's the difference?

[otherego]

CD:

So, that man thinks that if a woman is drunk, it's quite OK to pinch her handbag or steal her mobile phone? It's not as serious as the main crime mentioned there but they're still crimes?

He means that if someone stole a drunken womens handbag, she was asking for it and the thief shouldn't be prosecuted?

I suspect that an important consideration in the examples you mention is that the lady would be unlikely to evince or imply any enthusiasm for the theft of her her handbag ...

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

The bloke who wrote the blog, David Osborne, is a barrister, not a judge.

If people think it's OK to take advantage of a woman when she's had too much to drink, I'm surprised that no-one's picked up on the fact that stealing something from a drunk is just the same? I suppose the "defendant" there would say "she consented, she gave it to me" and that would make it all OK, he's not guilty of theft?

There's the current case at the moment where an 82 year old womn was struck by a lorry and as she lay dying, a bloke stole her purse so I suppose he's not guilty of theft if he claims "She gave it to me" even though she was incapable of giving her consent?

What's the difference?

---

BIG difference.

One act is perfectly legal between consenting adults - theft is a crime.

[cee-dee]

The "lady would be unlikely to evince or imply any enthusiasm for the....." act of violation either?

[cee-dee]

Ah, but was it theft if the thief claimed she'd given it to him? Did she consent or was she too incapable of giving consent?

[upthecreekyetagain]

David Osborne does not appear to be saying anything that is not already the case under the law - it is already the case that drunken consent is still consent.

What he is arguing against is the demand that if a man takes 'advantage' of a woman that is drunk. (i.e. loosening of inhibition and relaxation of their normal moral standards), then he is guilty of rap e.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Ah, but was it theft if the thief claimed she'd given it to him? Did she consent or was she too incapable of giving consent?

---

In any court case it would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't.

[otherego]

That's the whole problem, isn't it? Act of violation or act of volition.

Whether or not drunken women are able to give consent in law, it seems more than a little inconsistent for the men concerned here to be convicted after engaging in drunken "whoopee" with ladies who went out and drank too much, knowing (surely) what might happen. They might even have gone out in hope of finding a partner and (gasp) have dressed provocatively - sending out all sorts of non-verbal messages.(My sympathy for the "We'll dress as we like" crowd isn't non-existent, but I really think they should think a little more and even, O horror, accept some responsibility for their actions - especially if these involve a drunken, "Oh, why not" somewhere along the line. I honestly worry that  next-morning regrets do not necessarily make an assault.)

Let's face it, making it illegal for drunk women to engage in sexual intercourse would probably have a beneficial effect on the population explosion.

Thankfully, the women I know tend to be highly effective individuals who take responsibility for their actions. This includes not going out with the intention of ending up totally blootered, and knowing in advance what the possible consequences of that might be. And accepting their share of responsibility when human frailty prevails.

It's an emotive question, and I do think that the "contrary" view needs to be considered. The barrister in question seems to me to make a great deal of sense.

(Retires nervously from the thread - I never get involved in anything more scary than how to get rid of adware on one's computer...)

[otherego]

Yikes, where did all those posts come from?

Scuttles back to the safety of gadgetry and forums discussing  shutting down the wrong engine following an engine failure in a two engined aircraft ... but thanks for letting me visit.

[cee-dee]

If that's so, how is it that we're having all these cases of "historical abuse" that happened up to 40 years ago? Where's the evidence? It seems to me that people are picking and choosing what part of the Law applies when it suits them?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

If that's so, how is it that we're having all these cases of "historical abuse" that happened up to 40 years ago? Where's the evidence? It seems to me that people are picking and choosing what part of the Law applies when it suits them?

---

By definition, where found guilty, the jury in these cases feel that the prosecution have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the individuals are guilty of the offences they have been accused of.

[cee-dee]

That might be so, but what would you be saying if a defending barrister had been making comments about such cases in the same vein as David Osborne? Isn't that predjudicial to such cases and putting ideas in to the minds of future jurors?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

That might be so, but what would you be saying if a defending barrister had been making comments about such cases in the same vein as David Osborne? Isn't that predjudicial to such cases and putting ideas in to the minds of future jurors?

---

How so - David Osborne is only stating the current legal position.

[margaret*e]

The title of his blog in the first link says it all about him.

However, I'm in two minds about what he says, it's not a new thing,  men shouldn't take advantage of a girl/woman who doesn't know what she's doing, but it's a womans/girls responsibility not to let themselves get in that state.

[tommy.irene]

Then Ched Evans is innocent... http://community.ebay.co.uk/t5/The-Round-Table/Ched-Evans/td-p/3887415

[cee-dee]

Would he take on one of those historical abuse cases and dare say the same sort of thing because there's no hard evidence?

By "stating his position", future jurors could be influenced by such a biased opinion and his comment about "men out on the rut" shows that he's of similar ilk and given the opportunity, he'd take advantage of a woman who'd had (or been plied with) too much drink.

Now what about the old lady who had her purse stolen as she lay dying? If called to defend the thief (presuming he gets caught), would he be claiming that the lady gave her consent to the"thief" taking her purse because there's no evidence to prove that she didn't (give consent)?