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?

[bankhaunter]

Passengers on this plane didn't consider drunken consent to be real consent.

Leon Quarless, who had been drinking before boarding the flight from Palma to  Blackpool, also dished out sterling from a bag containing thousands in both currencies.

But when people refused to accept the notes, the 45-year-old from Formby, Liverpool, started shouting and swearing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209987/Drunk-businessman-tried-giving-fellow-airline-passen...

Surely there must be some onus on the man to ensure the woman really means yes and is not simply giving in to through their lowered resistance?

Modus operandi? Separate the girl from her companions, ply her with drink and pressure her until she says yes.

That's been going on since I was a teenager though in those days it rarely went as far as full sex, but there is no real difference.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

Passengers on this plane didn't consider drunken consent to be real consent.

Leon Quarless, who had been drinking before boarding the flight from Palma to  Blackpool, also dished out sterling from a bag containing thousands in both currencies.

But when people refused to accept the notes, the 45-year-old from Formby, Liverpool, started shouting and swearing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209987/Drunk-businessman-tried-giving-fellow-airline-passen...

Surely there must be some onus on the man to ensure the woman really means yes and is not simply giving in to through their lowered resistance?

Modus operandi? Separate the girl from her companions, ply her with drink and pressure her until she says yes.

That's been going on since I was a teenager though in those days it rarely went as far as full sex, but there is no real difference.

---

Why?

Isn't suggesting that should be the case demeaning to women and their right to lower their inhibitions by drinking.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

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

---

No, he's guilty.  His barister did argue that the girl gave drunken consent - the jury plainly did not believe this was the case and found him guilty.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

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)?

---

As a barrister he would have to make that claim if his client instructed him to do so - whether the jury believed this was the case would decide the verdict returned.

[cee-dee]

He'd be advising his client of options so that idea would have come from him and the clients "instruction" would be more like agreeing to run with that rather than an instruction thought of by the client.

[astrologica]

Women shouldn't be drinking so much that their inhibitions are lowered enough to prevent them from taking care of their own bodies and looking after themselves. I can just imagine my mother's face if I ever had to go home and tell her that I had been rapped* the night before. 'How did that happen?' She would ask...'Well...I got drunk, and I met a man I didn't know and went back to a hotel room with him'. My suitcase would have been outside the door within minutes.
I was born and brought up in the Welsh valleys, and we were taught to be responsible for ourselves and if we didn't then we would have to deal with the consequences. The valleys are very different these days and self responsibility has gone out the window.

[bankhaunter]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Why?

Isn't suggesting that should be the case demeaning to women and their right to lower their inhibitions by drinking.

---

No more demeaning than to accept there are people who need some protection against high pressure selling or that the age of consent is 18 where one person is in a position of trust.

If a woman drinks with the intention of lowering her inhibitions and there are some who do, the intention to have sex will already be on her mind and no doubt that would be noticeable to their partner at the time.

The man should also know whether or not they are applying undue persausive pressure to get her to agree.

I'll admit there may be grey areas but there are often occasions when judgment has to be made as to another's true intentions where extra factors may have influence.

Hence few people would take money thrust at them by a drunk.

[joamur_gosof]

There are a whole host of laws they should change and don't ,there are a whole host of laws they should stick to and don't..in this scenario ,what are they going to change to ?

It is a reasonable suggestion that through alcohol a person is acting outside their own moral code,hence it's beyond reasonable doubt they were acting within it.

The emphasis should now be on now whether a crime has been committed ...well if a man had non consenting sex with a drunk woman then yes a crime has been committed...was he also drunk and acting outside his norm , if so has a crime been committed ? Well yes but it isn't beyond reasonable doubt who instigated the crime in these conditions...was he in fact defiled (as they like to call it)

All this lawyer guy is saying is how there is a way to have a case to hear against a lynch mob of (guilty) and as others are saying on here

'' if you don't abuse yourself first,,chances are no one else will get the oppertunity to abuse you'' if they do they are bang to rights.

The law is attempting to attain a case to hear and if it didn't have a counter argument there is no way justice can work in law.

I am 100% certain there is a lawyer argument that it's a crime under any circumstances to have non consenting sex with anyone,

and with that I fully agree.

[j_uk643]

I would agree with the view that the title of the 'blog' reveals much.

Is he just stating the law as is? - dream on,  no: he's indulging himself in ranting and wishful thinking as if doing so would transport him back in time. He's just a rather misogynistic elderly male way past his sell-by-date.

[cee-dee]

I think most are missing the point of the whole thing here.

Also, no-one's dealt with the issue of the dying woman having her purse stolen and yes, following the argument of someone being incapable of giving consent means it's OK to proceed, accepting that line means it's just the same.

Turning the issue around again, men get themselves drunk (or get plied with drink), how would they react if they woke up to realise someone had taken advantage of them?

At the root of it all is that the perpetrators know exactly what they're doing and knew exactly what their intentions were, ie, to take advantage of someone who couldn't resist.

You can forget the argument that women should take more care of themselves by not getting drunk because where does that argument end? Someone should have taken more care of their property so that some yob can't break in easily or set their shed or car on fire? Someone should have taken more care when walking down some street where a couple of yobs set about them and steal their phone?

At the end of it all, the perpetrators knew exactly what their intentions were and also, they knew it was wrong and knew exactly what defence they'd use if the victim dared speak out.

[joamur_gosof]

first I wasn't saying this lawyer was right wrong or just an old git..I was saying hes saying there is an argument because there has to be for the sake of justice...if his argument won over a jury then the jury (as always) is to blame if the larger jury (ie the population) thinks differently.

Second ,I wasnt missing the 'disgraceful purse theft' scenario,as thats cut and dry imo and the thief is going to jail..I hope for a long time when they catch him (if they haven't already.

Lastly well yes cd ,if the person committing an offence knows its an offence then yes they are guilty,no two ways about it. If they get off with said offence via the justice systems argument approach ,then yes that doesn't seem right or fair...so as I said..what do you change the law to ?

[margaret*e]

I've just been reading the article in aa newspaper, he sounds like a thoroughly nasty character, and a relic from the last century, saying women should cover up or it's their own fault.     

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

He'd be advising his client of options so that idea would have come from him and the clients "instruction" would be more like agreeing to run with that rather than an instruction thought of by the client.

---

Totally specious argument!

A barrister is committing an offence if they knowingly mislead a court.  Likewise they commit an offence if they know their client is guilty of the offence with which they are charged and makes any statement suggesting they are innocent.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@marg*e wrote:

I've just been reading the article in aa newspaper, he sounds like a thoroughly nasty character, and a relic from the last century, saying women should cover up or it's their own fault.     

---

It would be better if people went back to the source of these newspaper articles!

I see nothing wrong with what he has written.

http://www.david-osborne.com/blog/?p=275

[cee-dee]

"A barrister is committing an offence if they knowingly mislead a court.  Likewise they commit an offence if they know their client is guilty of the offence with which they are charged and makes any statement suggesting they are innocent."

You're absolutely correct. However, a bloke charged with an offence like that in those circumstances is going to say he didn't commit an offence because......... So, the barrister will press on presenting a case of defence as his client has told him he didn't force himself on the woman.

Also, such a barrister knows full well what the circumstances were and knows he has a fair chance of "getting the accused off" particularly if he pours scorn on "such a woman" and blackens her character as much as he can.

Has that blog been edited from when it first appeared?

I read the blog first, not the newspaper reports. After reading his words, it's quite obvious what his opinion of drunk women is and that (from his choice of words) they're fair game to be taken advantage of by men "out on the rut", charming choice of words?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

"A barrister is committing an offence if they knowingly mislead a court.  Likewise they commit an offence if they know their client is guilty of the offence with which they are charged and makes any statement suggesting they are innocent."

You're absolutely correct. However, a bloke charged with an offence like that in those circumstances is going to say he didn't commit an offence because......... So, the barrister will press on presenting a case of defence as his client has told him he didn't force himself on the woman.

Also, such a barrister knows full well what the circumstances were and knows he has a fair chance of "getting the accused off" particularly if he pours scorn on "such a woman" and blackens her character as much as he can.

---

. . . but of course, as you know, a defence lawyer cannot 'blacken' a complainants name, indeed cannot refer to her character at all let alone pour scorn on "such a woman" UNLESS the prosecution first use her character as evidence for the prosecution.

[joamur_gosof]

''after reading his words it's quite obvious''.....that's an assumption by you on him and cannot be proved he thinks or condones that...so basically thats the same as he's doing..using assumptions to blacken a character

No doubt however in this guys case your right about him...but same said scenario cannot be used in court as it's an assumption. He is letting you know how you can defend a case of a vs b  with a reasonable doubt ,in a situation that a or b may have not had all their rational facilities.

Whether he believes women are at fault or not does not rule ,the jury does.

If you can prove he thinks its ok for a man to commit a crime against a drunk woman,then you can have him disbarred for aiding someone to commit crime. My own thoughts on whether he does doesn't would depend on how and where he said it and what his intention of saying it to who was.

Now I am lost lol.

[cee-dee]

Quite so but ah-ha, but there's ways of discrediting someone without actually coming straight out with "her willingness to get paralytic drunk in the company of men she didn't previously know shows she's a woman of loose morals....."

A question could be asked of the defendant "Did you honestly believe that her acceptance from you of a large quantity of alcohol was an indication of her willingness for sexual activity later?"

Should the prosecution try to claim the defence was leading the witness/defendant, it's too late, the idea has already been planted in the minds of the jury.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Quite so but ah-ha, but there's ways of discrediting someone without actually coming straight out with "her willingness to get paralytic drunk in the company of men she didn't previously know shows she's a woman of loose morals....."

A question could be asked of the defendant "Did you honestly believe that her acceptance from you of a large quantity of alcohol was an indication of her willingness for sexual activity later?"

Should the prosecution try to claim the defence was leading the witness/defendant, it's too late, the idea has already been planted in the minds of the jury.

---

How is that question a problem?  It is a perfectly fair one - any activity directly linked to the charge can be tested.  What can't be asked is a question such as, "do you often drink large amounts of alcohol?"

[cee-dee]

The question's not a problem but the prosecution might try to make out that it was and depending on the Judge, it might be viewed that way but no matter, like I said, there are ways to imply something without actually saying it.

When/if the defence comes to cross examine the complainant, they could ask what their alcohol tolerance level was or how often they went for nights out where alcohol was consumed.

Anyway, I think we've moved away from the blog where he's indicated that he has a very low opinion of women and that as far as he's concerned, any woman who's had too much to drink is fair game to be taken advantage of and afterwards, shouldn't make a claim that they didn't consent.