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?

[joamur_gosof]

the only way to sort this is to have non mixed pubs isnt it...as that way missy plastered cant meet mr  sly leg over on the cheap .

All other scenarios can tend to be a court case pending and if the law changes to women are always right if they say so,  then law is open to abuse by women. Which is wrong. So don't get drunk near men is a reasonable argument as a failsafe.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Osborne said “If the complainant (I do not refer to her as the victim) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, when she was "attacked" (I changed the word from the "R" word as it would only get changed by the board censorship), this provides the accused with a complete defence."

Really, men who take advantage of women who are incapable are ignorant, bullying cowards.

---

So do you or do you not think the man in the scenario I posted should be charged with r ape and sent to prison?

Simple question!

[astrologica]

You are right CeeDee...they are ignorant bullying cowards. They are out there, just as there are thieves and pickpockets. That's why women should no more go out getting so plastered that they can't take care of their own bodies, than they should walk around with their handbags open and their purses and phones on show. We do not live in an ideal world, unfortunately.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@astrologica wrote:
You are right CeeDee...they are ignorant bullying cowards. They are out there, just as there are thieves and pickpockets. That's why women should no more go out getting so plastered that they can't take care of their own bodies, than they should walk around with their handbags open and their purses and phones on show. We do not live in an ideal world, unfortunately.

---

How so? - if the man and the woman are equally intoxicated and one asks the other for sex and they agree why is it the man who is the predator?

[cee-dee]

If an intoxicated woman "asked" an equally intoxicated man for it, I wouldn't consider that an offence. It would be unwise for them both and more so for the man because how can he prove beyond reasonable doubt she "asked" him?

The jury system is such that a verdict could go either way depending on the thoughts of those on the jury when the "evidence" is sketchy.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

If an intoxicated woman "asked" an equally intoxicated man for it, I wouldn't consider that an offence. It would be unwise for them both and more so for the man because how can he prove beyond reasonable doubt she "asked" him?

The jury system is such that a verdict could go either way depending on the thoughts of those on the jury when the "evidence" is sketchy.

---

At last - that is the main thrust of Osborne's blog - it is NOT up to the defendant to prove that he didn't commit an offence, it is up to the prosecution to prove he has.  That is the fundamental basis of British justice.

Unless there is proof that the woman was so drunk she was incapable of giving consent, (basically comatose), or that she didn't give consent at all then as Osborne said -

"I have always found it distasteful and unattractive the suggestion that as the victim was blind drunk she was therefore unable to give her consent to sex, or more to the point, she gave her consent which she would not have given had she been sober.

In my book, consent is consent, blind drunk or otherwise, and regret after the event cannot make it r ape."

It would seem from the newspaper reports, (as well as posts on this thread), that many want to shift the onus of proof from the prosecution onto the defence purely because the complainant had been drinking.

[cee-dee]

The point is........ a man, knowing a woman was intoxicated/drunk/incapable knows exactly what he's doing, ie, taking advantage which he knows is an offence and thinks he's got an excellent chance of getting away with it especially if he's going to be defended by someone sharing the viewpoint of Osborne.

"Proof" either way is going to be difficult and in the end, it's down to what a jury thinks of the case as a whole.

Now, the dying woman who had her purse stolen, will that thief be able to claim "she consented" to him taking her purse (If he's caught of course)? There's no proof that she didn't so is he "innocent"? In criminal cases, the balance of probabilities isn't taken in to account so would you allow that thief to go free? It's just the same, no proof she didn't consent.

If caught, the thief could claim she asked him to take care of her purse but when he saw the outcry over the matter, he was "afraid to come forward"...... Prove otherwise?

[joamur_gosof]

well thats it isnt it..prove otherwise ,as law states your innocent until proven guilty...and thats right isnt it ?

If the lawyer or barrister knows their defendant is guilty then they wont argue the case,if they don't then they will argue on the evidence gathered and let the jury decide..and thats right to isnt it ?

[joamur_gosof]

thinking on ,you may be suggesting everyone is put in prison who is accused of something and let them try and prove their innocence

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

The point is........ a man, knowing a woman was intoxicated/drunk/incapable knows exactly what he's doing, ie, taking advantage which he knows is an offence and thinks he's got an excellent chance of getting away with it especially if he's going to be defended by someone sharing the viewpoint of Osborne.

"Proof" either way is going to be difficult and in the end, it's down to what a jury thinks of the case as a whole.

Now, the dying woman who had her purse stolen, will that thief be able to claim "she consented" to him taking her purse (If he's caught of course)? There's no proof that she didn't so is he "innocent"? In criminal cases, the balance of probabilities isn't taken in to account so would you allow that thief to go free? It's just the same, no proof she didn't consent.

If caught, the thief could claim she asked him to take care of her purse but when he saw the outcry over the matter, he was "afraid to come forward"...... Prove otherwise?

---

You have lumped together three stages of the effects of alcohol, only one of which prevents the woman from giving legal consent to sex - in addition you make two assumptions, first that the man is taking advantage of the woman and secondly that doing so is an offence - neither of which are reasonable.

You are taking a very strange view of women by suggesting that because they have had a drink, indeed may even be drunk, that any sexual activity they may then indulge in is not what they really want.  Why shouldn't a woman go out on the town, get drunk and enjoy a sexual encounter?

As for the thief and the purse - this is getting tedious - so much would depend on the actions of the person following the taking posession of the purse.  Whether or not they stayed at the scene, whether or not the contents of the purse had been used/spent, how long it was before they were 'caught' and proffered the defence you suggest.  Let's face it, if they stayed at the scene, if they didn't tamper with the contents of the purse, if they handed over the purse when questioned about it shortly after taking it then no offence has been committed. Theft is the taking of property with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it - in the situation I outline that would not be possible.

[cee-dee]

If the woman "wanted it" and "enjoyed it", she wouldn't be complaining afterwards?

As for what's tedious it's overlooked that guilty or innocent, nothing has to be "proved", "evidence" doesn't have to be produced, what has to be done is that either the defence or the prosecution has to convince a jury that what they say is "correct".

Proving the thief's intent depends on so many things and even if the thief can't produce the purse saying he threw it away after becoming afraid after the furore over the matter, you've still got to convince the jury of his intent.

Over time, in cases where it almost came down to one word against that of another, many juries have been convinced that the guilty were innocent or the innocent were guilty. Proof, evidence or not, it's a convincing argument which decides the fate of the accused, nothing else.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

If the woman "wanted it" and "enjoyed it", she wouldn't be complaining afterwards?

---

Not true though is it? - Have you never done something you wanted to do at the time and regretted it later? - I certainly have.

[cee-dee]

Heck, my mistake, I thought you were a bloke............

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Heck, my mistake, I thought you were a bloke............

---

I am 🙂

I've also done things when drunk that I wouldn't do when sober but that doesn't mean I'm not responsible for my own actions!

Imagine someone putting forward a defence in an assault case that because they were drunk at the time blame and/or responsibility can't be attached to them for the way they acted - just wouldn't work.

[cee-dee]

Well, I've never been drunk so I wouldn't know what it's like and after seeing what people do when they are, there's no way I'm going to find out now.

[j_uk643]

If the complainant is confirming she consented, then there is no case - so it's disingenuous using a false construct to somehow suggest the other party could still face prison because one or both were drunk even though both agree consent was present.

The law does not say consent cannot be given even when a certain level of intoxication has occurred
What it does say is there may come a stage where the complainant no longer has the capacity to consent.That's to be determined by the jury from the evidence, not by some sliding measured scale of intake. If both parties agree consent was present there is still no case.

The blog is a worthless piece of misogynistic drivel. Several QC's working in criminal law called it 'vile' others varied from 'mad' to ill-informed legally, morally anarchistic, and several used the theft analogy

The blog is a  blatant piece of r**e apology, designed partly no doubt as a form of controversial advertising, partly as a rant confirming the notion that any fool can start a blog, and often do.

It's intent is to preserve what the blogger calls the right of every 'red-blooded male out on the rut'
and any stage of drunkeness is a 'complete defence' - legal rubbish!

It tries to perpetuate the myth that actually, somehow most of these cases are just 'regretful sex' the mythology of mra misogynists, and that males cannot help themselves, have little to no responsibility, and females should stay indoors where they belong.

As he says, there are two types of cases - 'it wasn't me' and 'she was gagging for it'

They should try working with some of the victims.

[joamur_gosof]

There is quite a lot of your interpretations in that so I cannot see a lot of what your saying being actual truths on the barrister.I am reading it from the point of what he is addressing. (You maybe spot on about him,but you may be miles off too)

Regardless of views, the point seems to be 'no case to answer or a case to be had. I prefer the second scenario Working with victims doesn't change my view that everyone is entitled to have their say of what they felt occurred..

When I read this guys blog I see a stance against favouritism in law and I wholly agree with that. The issue with the barrister seems to stem from his arguments on how to not let yourself get into that situation (common sense) and mainly using male orientated spouted bull he's heard in court to put the onus on the woman (which I disagree with) but I haven't seen it as fact yet that he advocates the defence (only there is one.)

[tommy.irene]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953401/Three-men-jailed-**bleep**-woman-admitted-drunk-t-re... Three men jailed for **bleep** woman who admitted she was so drunk she can't remember if she had consented to sex or not •Pawel Chudzicki, 49, Michael Armitage, 44, and Rafal Segiet, 40, jailed •They were imprisoned for total of 18 years for **bleep** 23-year-old woman •They raped the woman at a flat in Lincoln after meeting her in a nightclub •Court heard she had 12 shots of vodka and had little memory of ordeal •Men convicted despite judge trying to halt trial due to a lack of evidence •Prosecution challenged decision and Court of Appeal overruled the judge By Thomas Burrows for MailOnline Published: 10:25 GMT, 14 February 2015 | Updated: 15:20 GMT, 14 February 2015 30 shares 93 View comments Three men have been jailed for **bleep** a 23-year-old woman who admitted she could not remember if she had consented to sex or not. Pawel Chudzicki, 49, former soldier Michael Armitage, 44, and Rafal Segiet, 40, raped the woman at a flat in Lincoln in 2012. They were imprisoned for six years each despite Judge John Pini QC, who jailed the men at Lincoln Crown Court, attempting to halt the trial halfway through because of a lack of evidence. Pawel Chudzicki (left), 49, former soldier Michael Armitage (centre), 44, and Rafal Segiet (right), 40, raped the woman at a flat in Lincoln in 2012 subjecting her to a 20-hour ordeal Pawel Chudzicki (left), 49, former soldier Michael Armitage (centre), 44, and Rafal Segiet (right), 40, raped the woman at a flat in Lincoln in 2012 subjecting her to a 20-hour ordeal The issue central to the prosecution case was that the victim lacked the capacity to consent to the sexual activity. The victim, who had been drinking with friends, was taken by the men in a taxi to the flat when she was subjected to a 20 hour ordeal. RELATED ARTICLES Previous 1 Next Teenage **bleep** victim was 'extremely foolish and unwise' for... A reveler stops to help her friend after leaving a bar in Bristol City Centre. Pubs and clubs are preparing for the new Licensing laws due to come into force on 24 November 2005, which will allow pubs and clubs longer and more flexible opening hours. Opponents of the law believe this will lead to more binge-drinking with increased alcohol related crime, violence and disorder while health experts fear an increase in alcohol related illnesses and alcoholism. One in four people believe drunk **bleep** victims are partly to... Share this article Share The trial, which began on January 5, was suspended for a number of days when the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to put before a jury on the basis that a lack of memory does not amount to a lack of capacity to consent. Judge Pini told the court at the time: 'I've found this case extremely interesting and extremely difficult. 'In my judgment there is insufficient evidence from which the jury could determine lack of capacity and I will withdraw the case from the jury.' He added: 'We are left in the position that there is no evidence from which the jury could say she lacked capacity as opposed to simply having no recollection of events which may have been consented to. 'This is a uniquely difficult situation where, as opposed to (the case which is one of the leading legal authorities on these issues) there is a total absence of any evidence as to consent. 'I do not want this ruling to be misunderstood - I am absolutely not saying that a woman in drink cannot say no. 'I am not saying that lack of memory equals consent.' But in an unusual move, the prosecution sought a ruling from the Court of Appeal, arguing that the full context needed to be taken into consideration when considering the issue of consent. This included mobile phone footage taken by one of the defendants and blood tests showing a high level of alcohol in the victim's blood. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the prosecution and so the trial continued. The jury went on to convict the three men earlier this week. Judge John Pini QC (pictured) halted the trial at Lincoln Crown Court saying it could not be proved the woman did not have the capacity to consent Judge John Pini QC (pictured) halted the trial at Lincoln Crown Court saying it could not be proved the woman did not have the capacity to consent Judge Pini made no reference to the Court of Appeal intervention when he sentenced the three men at court yesterday. He described how the woman had already had a lot to drink when she was picked up by three men, including two of the defendants, outside a Lincoln nightclub in October 2012 and taken to a party. The judge said the woman consumed more alcohol at the party where she had sex with each of the three men in turn. Her sexual activity with Armitage was filmed on a phone. Judge Pini said she was 'used as a shared commodity' by the defendants. He told them: 'All three of you had sex with her when she was so intoxicated she was helpless. 'She had lost the capacity to evaluate, discriminate and make meaningful choices. She had no capacity to consent. You all had no reasonable belief she was consenting.' The court was told divorced father-of-two Armitage served with distinction in the British Army for 10 years, including in the first Gulf War. Segiet and Chudzicki are both Polish nationals who came to the UK to work. Chudzicki is a father-of-three and forklift truck driver Segiet is a father-of-two. After the case, the victim said: 'I'm just glad it's over now.' She said the judge's decision to halt the trial and the subsequent appeal worried her and her family. She said: 'I thought it was all over. It was very worrying. I was very upset, the whole family were. And we weren't allowed to know exactly what was going on. 'They knew the evidence they had. They could have made that decision already, before getting to that point.' The trial heard how the victim had never met any of the men before that night and all the defendants told police they had consensual sex with her at the party. The jury was told the woman left the nightclub at about 2.10am after drinking around 12 shots of vodka. She went to the flat, where the three defendants were drinking vodka with at least four other men, and did not leave until 11pm that night. When she complained to the police later, a blood sample was taken from her. A toxicologist gave expert evidence at the trial, saying that at the time the victim was leaving the club she would have had a concentration of between 108 and 238 milligrams per 100 mls of blood with the most likely concentration 173. The drink driving limit is 80. Michael Armitage, Pawel Chudzicki and Rafal Segiet were convicted of **bleep** and jailed for a total of 18 years at Lincoln Crown Court (pictured) after the Crown Prosecution Service appealed the judge's decision Michael Armitage, Pawel Chudzicki and Rafal Segiet were convicted of **bleep** and jailed for a total of 18 years at Lincoln Crown Court (pictured) after the Crown Prosecution Service appealed the judge's decision In a statement read to the court, the victim described how the ordeal had left her unable to form relationships and suffering from panic attacks. The statement issued through Lincolnshire Police said: 'This has taken a long time - two years and three months from when this happened to the conclusion of the court case. 'I would like to say thank you to the teams who helped me - the police, GPs, health professionals and counsellors, among others. Not one person has made a judgement and they have been incredibly supportive. 'After this happened I went on anti-depressants, I got panic attacks, I didn't have a relationship for over a year because I had trouble with trust and intimacy. It was all very stressful, as was the court case. 'The sentence for each of these men is a good one, I am pleased with it, and it's a bit more than I thought they might get. 'I'll never forget what happened but I will move on. I'm now in a steady and happy relationship and looking to the future. I wouldn't have got through any of this without the help, love and support of my family and friends. 'I'd like to say to everyone that if you ever find yourself in the position that the men involved in this did that you should really think about what you're doing and make sure you know the person you're with is fully aware of what they are doing. Being drunk is not an excuse. 'To any girl who has been in my situation - if something has happened and you think that something isn't right then talk to people, the authorities or family and friends and hopefully they can help. 'It would be nice if something good came out of all of this and it could help someone else.' The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the victim was subjected to 'a protracted attack' which 'lasted 20 hours'. Lawrence English, CPS East Midlands Senior District Crown Prosecutor, said: 'This was **bleep** as it was clear the woman was in no state to consent to sex. 'While it is, of course, true that lack of memory, on its own, does not prove lack of consent, the context in this case showed that this victim was taken advantage of because she was incapacitated, and that she could not have consented to sexual activity. 'It is against the law to engage in sexual activity with someone who is clearly unable, through drink, to give their consent. We are pleased that the Court of Appeal ruled in the way it did and the case proceeded to the jury for a verdict. 'The victim in this case has shown tremendous courage in this case. She suffered an horrific ordeal because of the actions of these three men and we are satisfied to see justice has been served.' Detective Inspector Simon Lovett said: 'Capacity and consent have been at the very heart of this case. The victim was in no way able to consent to engaging in any kind of sexual activity with these men, she was vulnerable and incapable of giving any kind of consent. 'We hope this serves as a warning and reminder to everyone that before engaging in any kind of sexual activity you must be absolutely sure that the other person has the capacity to fully consent and does so. 'I would like to pay tribute to the victim in this case. She has shown immense courage; from giving live evidence in court to seeing this case through to the end. We are grateful to her for her help and hope today's sentences offer some closure so that she can really begin rebuilding her life.' Share or comment on this article 30 shares ... by Taboola Sponsored Links A New Method Can Naturally Restore Your Vision Vision Protocol Guide TOP 15 Athlete Wardrobe Malfunctions TheBleacherSeats.com Unbelievable transformation! Cute Child Star to Ugly Adult SportFluff What YOUR Name Says About You... Numerology Report OMG. Best College in the World! Universities.AC BOTCHED: Plastic Surgery Gone WRONG FitTips4Life MOST WATCHED NEWS VIDEOS Previous 1 2 3 Next Police looking for woman filmed in Tube incident Bear Grylls CRASHES into This Morning through windows One person killed and up to 50 injured in pile-up on M40 ISIS parades caged Peshmerga prisoners through street Grandmother bravely stands up to ISIS telling them to stop Give him a tenner! Opera singer amazes passengers on train Motorist horrified as dashcam reveals joyriding Shocking moment two Irish travellers brutally assault man The Wolfpack recreates The Dark Knight Rises using yoga mats Shocking moment exploding manhole launches boy into air Eighty-year-old woman makes judge crack up in court Shocking footage of public flogging ISIS give to young boy . HALF-TERM CRASH HORROR: Four dead and nearly 50 injured in... Paraded in cages 'to be burned alive' like Jordanian pilot:... PARK CITY, UT - JANUARY 23: Director Crystal Moselle (C) with Mukunda Angulo, Govinda Angulo, Bhagavan Angulo, Narayana Angulo, Jagadisa Angulo and Krsna Angulo from "The Wolfpack" pose for a portrait at the Village at the Lift Presented by McDonald's McCafe during the 2015 Sundance Film Festival on January 23, 2015 in Park City, Utah. (Photo by Larry Busacca/Getty Images) Growing up recluse: The kids who 'never' left their tiny NYC... Sacked for being too good: Defying bolshie teaching unions... Triumph of the spirit: Tormented at school for her facial... dmvidpics 2015-02-13 at 18.16.02.png 'You guys used to be slaves': Police probe video of 'racist'... Go on a diet... or lose your benefits: PM vows £500million... My brother is the father of my son Horatio, reveals Mary... The door was open you know! The moment survival expert Bear... I was very numb when I saw her," says Leolah Brown, Bobbi Kristina Brown's aunt, in a sit-down interview with Atlanta's Fox 5 TV station. Leolah, speaking on Tuesday afternoon to Fox 5's Aungelique Proctor, recalled how hard it was to see her niece when she first went to the hospital. And it has been a difficult time for the family as they stay gathered around Bobbi Kristina in Emory University Hospital. Bobbi Kristina has been on a ventilator since Jan. 31, when she was found face down in a bathtub. Bobbi Kristina's organs 'are shutting down but Bobby Brown... Is this the rudest rejection letter ever? Jobseeker shocked... Mechanics took my car for a 118mph joyride: Motorist put his... MOST READ NEWS Previous Next ● ● ● Comments (93) Share what you think Newest Oldest Best rated Worst rated . View all . The comments below have been moderated in advance. RichardFromNZ, Auckland, New Zealand, about 4 hours ago And if the men couldn't remember the incident either because they were drunk, does that mean she should also have been charged? ReplyNew 133 329Click to rate . bob, Sudbury Suffolk, about 4 hours ago How can it be **bleep** if she may have given consent?! So-called British justice system! ReplyNew 164 257Click to rate . neil durham, skopelos greece, about 4 hours ago Bright looking guys would they Know the difference between consenting or not ? ReplyNew 41 162Click to rate . wavestar, Birmingham, about 4 hours ago so they've been jailed because they "might" have raped someone? ReplyNew 104 267Click to rate . Calsiamla, North London, about 4 hours ago If she doesn't remember then it could have been consensual? ReplyNew 102 206Click to rate . Grant Sutton, Gainsborough, United Kingdom, about 4 hours ago SIMPLE use LIE Detector test and truth injection as part of evidence I would want it EVERY DAY if I WAS INNOCENT WOULD YOU? for both parties and the liar gets the same sentence as would the offender!!!!!!!!!!!! ReplyNew 68 89Click to rate . rosemdew, blackpool, about 4 hours ago Does this work both ways are men able to claim harassment in sex claims ReplyNew 42 160Click to rate . Taz79, Manchester, United Kingdom, about 4 hours ago Let's assume, for arguments sake that she consented. How drunk is too drunk? And how is one to know, especially (but not only) if they are equally drunk? ReplyNew 38 167C Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953401/Three-men-jailed-**bleep**-woman-admitted-drunk-t-re... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[malacandran]

Could you break your post into paragraphs - thanks, an earnest reader