Blood Alcohol level to determine ability to consent? MOD Note in Post #1

tipparetops

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, to do this right sex would have to be regulated and regulations would have to be strictly enforced.
First, the two parties would have to fill out standard consent forms and get the signature witnessed, maybe at s Garda station. The handy thing would be, they could also do the mandatory breathalyser test there, since just blowing into a tube could not be officially recognised. The act itself would have to be witnessed by an adjudicator, who would periodically check that consent was still given.
Any new position or change of orifice, the same would apply.
If it is being done like that, the male could get way with 5 years behind bars, because any sex act between a man and a woman will automatically be classed as sexual abuse.

you sound like a right simpleton, hope you dont talk like this in real life.

One eyed Jack

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Lol. Sure you would. I'm sure your were destitute going into that marriage and the only thing holding you back from being a Tibetan monk is your family. Oh if only you could've given it all away before you were trapped into marriage. Maybe you were drunk.

I'd hate to give you the opportunity of suggesting I was 'virtue signalling' again, so I won't. I'll leave you to your ill informed judgements and I'll address what little of your post is actually on topic -

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You come across as both self righteous and self delusional. And your arguments presume the conclusion (you always describe drunken sex as "rape" when that is what needs to be proven).

Whatever about the first sentence, the second sentence is definitely incorrect -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't missed the point of it at all then in that case. I'm well aware of the potential consequences, as should everyone who should be encouraged to think about what they may be letting themselves in for before they think drunken sex seems like a good idea at the time.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think they're at all related. One situation is someone regretting sex. The other is where they have been raped, and if someone commits rape, and they are found by a Court of Law to have committed rape, then they should expect to have sanctions imposed upon them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, they should only be labelled criminals if it is proven in a Court of Law that they committed rape following an allegation of rape made by a complainant. Otherwise, by all means play on, your own business and all that. You're an adult after all, so you're capable of making the choice to have sex while drunk. If someone feels that you have committed rape against them however, and makes an allegation of rape against you, that too is your own business, and if you're telling me to butt out now, then it stands to reason that you shouldn't expect I would have any sympathy for you having put yourself in that position where you were aware of the possible consequences.

....

Nobody's criminalising consensual behaviour that happens hundreds of times every weekend, it's the non-consensual behaviour needs to be criminalised that doesn't happen hundreds of times every weekend. I'd prefer if the law wasn't necessary at all tbh, but because drunken sex is always messy, and because people see their behaviour as completely justifiable, then the law is necessary to indicate where the line has to be drawn.

I presume I don't need to post any more examples of where I am able to differentiate between drunken sex and rape?

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Like all puritans it's not enough for you to live a dull life (which is fine I do so myself) but the fear of the Puritan is that somewhere someone is having fun and must be legislated against. The laws you want would proscribe sexual activity even in long term relationships, after a few drinks, and if strict liability is applied some curtain twitcher will be able to shop his neighbours if he suspects them of having sex after a glass or two of wine. Regardless of their consent, suspicion of drunkeness would jail one of them.

Just because you admit to being a putitan, don't assume anyone who doesn't fcuk drunk girls is a puritan. Someone somewhere who is in no capacity to consent to sex isn't having a lot of fun as you put it if they are not free to give consent. See Patrick's earlier example of the "off his face but coherent" dichotomous position. A defence legal counsel would argue Patrick was coherent and consensual to having sex. The prosecution would then have to prove that Patrick was off his face and in no condition to consent.

The rest of that paragraph is just knee-jerking nonsense as a person has to make a complaint of rape before their ability to consent even comes into question.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

A week or two after the state stopped disallowing gay marriages, two decades after it stopped same sex consensual intercourse (based on spurious moral arguments) you want the State to criminalise all sex except stone cold sober sex based on equally spurious moral arguments about the supposed harm to society of Jack and Jill trying it on after a glass of wine or two, quietly drank at home on their own time.

In case you missed it the... actually numerous times now -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody's criminalising consensual behaviour that happens hundreds of times every weekend, it's the non-consensual behaviour needs to be criminalised that doesn't happen hundreds of times every weekend. I'd prefer if the law wasn't necessary at all tbh, but because drunken sex is always messy, and because people see their behaviour as completely justifiable, then the law is necessary to indicate where the line has to be drawn.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The totalitarians are always with us, they just change their spots every generation.

The self-entitled in every generation never change their spots.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

This is an insane argument on two fronts.

1) it doesn't matter if you think the limit you suggest isn't going become law, you are still arguing for that limit on a discussion thread. Therefore of course people are going to argue against that. Furthermore why would we assume that you didn't think your insane suggestion wouldn't become law? If somebody comes on here and says "skangers should be sterilised" he doesn't get to worm away from that argument by saying "that my opinion but I don't think it could become law, stop picking on me". And you believe that this limit should be law, even if you don't expect it to become law. If you want the law then that's your position. That's what you are arguing for. Regardless of what you expect to happen.

I haven't argued anything. I've offered my opinion as part of a discussion. When I want to actually argue something, it won't be on Boards, it'll be in a place where the discussion may actually influence policy. I've never, ever once said to anyone "stop picking on me", I leave that to the self-entitled types that don't want to hear that having sex with people who are in no position to give consent is a bad idea. Says much more about their attitude than it does mine really, they'll be the same people then that expect sympathy when things go tits up for them. I was never one to say "I fcuking told you so", but I sure as hell won't be reaching for the tea and biscuits.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

2) any possible future law really isn't going to (re)distinguish between marriage, long term relationships and casual sex when it comes to rape. Consent was assumed in marriage but feminists argued against that, correctly. Any subsequent redefinition of rape will apply to marriage, as much as any other sexual relationship.

You really are struggling with a very simple concept -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rape isn't being redefined. Consent is being defined, because for far too long it's been a grey area in sex offence legislation. The new proposals are by no means perfect, but that's all they are at the moment - proposals, which require further discussion. That's why I'm not getting my knickers in a twist about this proposal, because I would support it, but it appears that quite a good many people wouldn't. I imagine more people again don't particularly care either way.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The problem here isn't us. It's you not understanding your own dumb position and crying "hyperbole" and "shifting of goal posts" when the logic of your position is pointed out to you.

Well Eugene if your contributions just now aren't good examples of hyperbole, I think you're going to have to revise how you define hyperbole, and if your previous effort isn't an example of "shifting the goalposts" with very little on topic of consent, then I'm not sure your ideas of logic are very much up to scratch either. Instead of jumping to ill-informed conclusions, perhaps you could read what I wrote previously and then there wouldn't be any confusion about my position.

dr.fuzzenstein

tipparetops wrote: »

you sound like a right simpleton, hope you dont talk like this in real life.

Yes, thank you very much, that's very nice, but not quite what we're looking for. Thanks for stopping by. Have you learnt Irish in the meantime?

tipparetops

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, thank you very much, that's very nice, but not quite what we're looking for. Thanks for stopping by. Have you learnt Irish in the meantime?

If you spoke like that in real life you would not have to worry about this proposed law, you would not be getting laid drunk or sober.
I assumed therefore that you were a simpleton.

dr.fuzzenstein

tipparetops wrote: »

If you spoke like that in real life you would not have to worry about this proposed law, you would not be getting laid drunk or sober.
I assumed therefore that you were a simpleton.

OK, I try your language. You is having a laugh, innit? :P

orubiru

Would the introduction of such regulations do much to reduce the number of cases of rape in our society?

Surely the goal should be to stop rapes from happening? Or to provide protection to people who may become victims of rape?

How many people in our society don't actually understand the need for consent?

How many people don't understand how to ask for consent? How many don't know how to tell the difference when consent is given and when it is not?

The blood alcohol thing seems like an attempt to "regulate" consent instead of having an actual discussion about it. It also seems to completely avoid any kind of discussion on alcohol abuse.

I am not sure that introducing a law like this would actually protect women. What happens if there are a few high profile cases and it turns out the defense would just be that we can't prove that the alcohol was consumed before the sex took place? A string of acquittals just puts us right back in a situation where woman are afraid to report these incidents because the guys are easily able to defend against the charges?

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that's blatantly what you're implying I said, no 'technically' anything about it. I haven't said any such thing.

I do not need to imply, this is how this law is being framed.
You clearly either do not understand the implications to what this law could mean or are side stepping the issue deliberately due to some other underlying bias.

Looking at a case back in Wales a few years back where a young guy from Donegal was accused of rape, taken to court because a girl claimed she could not remember if they had sex or not but said it was not something she would do. When questioned he said they did indeed have sex but it was consensual sex.

The judge at the time said every case needs to be looked at individually, the case in question was the first of it's kind stating that drunken consent was not consent...

Had this law been in place the judge would have had no other recourse but to
convict this guy, if intoxication could be proved three days after the event!

The idea around this law will not protect people, if anything it is simply stupid and dreamt up by someone who wants the conviction rate to rape allegation cases increased regardless of what actually happened.

Intoxication levels, how are these going to be looked at? This is not like drink driving where police officers will be doing random spot checks at people's bedroom doors. An allegation is always going to be after the fact, I see no scientific way to prove intoxication apart from someone saying they where drunk.

Rape is a very serious and grotesque crime...
It should not include someone who made a mistake, had sex with someone who now wishes he or she did not, but they now have an ace up their sleeve! I was drunk therefore I can say it was rape and the law will now back them up!

NachoBusiness

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Intoxication levels, how are these going to be looked at?

Well, in the report Dame Elish Angiolini calls for back calculation:

Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert’s back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant’s level of alcohol/drugs at the time of the incident.

It's worth noting that the complainant in the Ched Evans case claimed her drink was spiked and her legal team argued that she was too drunk to consent. Blood samples taken from her the following day showed NO alcohol in her system. They did however find traces of cocaine and cannabis. She denied taking either.

CruelCoin

NachoBusiness wrote: »

This seems a ludicrous suggestion to me for many reasons, not least of which is how could they even be sure when the alcohol was consumed, before or after the sex had taken place. Crazy proposal. Hope it's seen as such.

My concern would be what they determine "drunk" to be.

If it's drink-drive limit or the surgeon generals advice on the back of bottles, then its pretty much a no-no to pick anyone up at a pub/club at all.

orubiru

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I do not need to imply, this is how this law is being framed.
You clearly either do not understand the implications to what this law could mean or are side stepping the issue deliberately due to some other underlying bias.

Looking at a case back in Wales a few years back where a young guy from Donegal was accused of rape, taken to court because a girl claimed she could not remember if they had sex or not but said it was not something she would do. When questioned he said they did indeed have sex but it was consensual sex.

The judge at the time said every case needs to be looked at individually, the case in question was the first of it's kind stating that drunken consent was not consent...

Had this law been in place the judge would have had no other recourse but to
convict this guy, if intoxication could be proved three days after the event!

The idea around this law will not protect people, if anything it is simply stupid and dreamt up by someone who wants the conviction rate to rape allegation cases increased regardless of what actually happened.

Intoxication levels, how are these going to be looked at? This is not like drink driving where police officers will be doing random spot checks at people's bedroom doors. An allegation is always going to be after the fact, I see no scientific way to prove intoxication apart from someone saying they where drunk.

Rape is a very serious and grotesque crime...
It should not include someone who made a mistake, had sex with someone who now wishes he or she did not, but they now have an ace up their sleeve! I was drunk therefore I can say it was rape and the law will now back them up!

In a case like that one from Wales I would still say that if the woman was genuinely too drunk to remember if they had sex or not, and also concerned enough about it to report it to the police, then I don't think they guy should have been having sex with her. It certainly raises questions about his morals anyway.

I still think there has to be some kind of other evidence presented. So, if they get a taxi and the driver makes a statement that she was passed out in the back then that would count for something. Combine that with evidence that they had sex and also the accusation of rape then I think there would be a good chance that the man is guilty there.

I don't think there would be cases where a girl is just saying "I had 2 glasses of wine and then had sex with this guy but it wasn't really consensual because I had 2 drinks. Lock him up."

I think there is a genuine fear amongst young men that they will be falsely accused of rape and will be convicted without having a fair chance to defend themselves.

It's something that needs to be discussed and dealt with.

NachoBusiness

CruelCoin wrote: »

My concern would be what they determine "drunk" to be.

Absolutely and to use the complainant in the Ched Evans case as an example again: she was seen walking into a hotel unaided, showing enough lucidity to know she left a pizza outside before setting off to retrieve it. She was also wearing borrowed wedges and seemed to have no bother walking in them at that point. She did struggle in them when they were buying food, but sober women heading off out at night can be seen struggling to walk in heels each and every night before they ever have a drink. It's bizarre that that woman was deemed to in such a state of intoxication that she could not possibly have consented to have sex with Evans.

dr.fuzzenstein

If one were in the habit of picking up women at clubs on a regular basis, I see no way past getting her to sign a consent form, having her blow into a tube (phnar phnar) and maybe recording that consent on video. Whatever else gets recorded is neither here nor there. This may of course put a damper on proceedings. The bottom line is, if a woman had a few drinks and she regrets her one night stand, she can call rape. Unless you can get her to sign a form, blow into a measuring device and state on video that she is doing this willingly.
I wonder what will happen if a man tries to invoke this law?

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

In a case like that one from Wales I would still say that if the woman was genuinely too drunk to remember if they had sex or not, and also concerned enough about it to report it to the police, then I don't think they guy should have been having sex with her. It certainly raises questions about his morals anyway.

She did not report it to the police, she reported it to the uni counselor stating "Something happened". The report said the uni counselor then contacted the police, when questioned she said should could not remember what she agreed too.

Why does it raise questions about his morals? Equally he could of been in a similar state of intoxication the drunk leading the drunk so to speak. Only difference was he appeared to remember what happened she did not.

orubiru wrote: »

I still think there has to be some kind of other evidence presented. So, if they get a taxi and the driver makes a statement that she was passed out in the back then that would count for something. Combine that with evidence that they had sex and also the accusation of rape then I think there would be a good chance that the man is guilty there.

I really think you need to listen to what you are saying......
"I think there would be a good chance the man is guilty"

There can be no reasonable doubt to convicted someone! Are you insane?

orubiru wrote: »

I think there is a genuine fear amongst young men that they will be falsely accused of rape and will be convicted without having a fair chance to defend themselves.

It's something that needs to be discussed and dealt with.

As with all crimes the onus is with the DPP to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has taken place...
As a result there are always going to be people that will not be convicted simply due to the fact it is impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt, as sad as this might be this is a harsh reality especially among rape cases.
However what definitely should not happen is someone being convicted of rape where there is any ambiguity what so ever around what actually transpired.

orubiru

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

She did not report it to the police, she reported it to the uni counselor stating "Something happened". The report said the uni counselor then contacted the police, when questioned she said should could not remember what she agreed too.

Why does it raise questions about his morals? Equally he could of been in a similar state of intoxication the drunk leading the drunk so to speak. Only difference was he appeared to remember what happened she did not.

I really think you need to listen to what you are saying......
"I think there would be a good chance the man is guilty"

There can be no reasonable doubt to convicted someone! Are you insane?

As with all crimes the onus is with the DPP to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has taken place...
As a result there are always going to be people that will not be convicted simply due to the fact it is impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt, as sad as this might be this is a harsh reality especially among rape cases.
However what definitely should not happen is someone being convicted of rape where there is any ambiguity what so ever around what actually transpired.

Surely, a man must realize that if a woman is totally hammered he probably shouldn't have sex with her?

It should be pretty obvious to anyone when consent has or has not been given?

So if you continue when you are unclear on whether or not you have consent to continue then you must know you are potentially heading for trouble.

It's not like these women are trying to trick men into having sex with them so that they can then turn round and accuse them of rape. If an accusation is made then the situation has to be looked at and the question of whether or not the woman was able to consent is a valid one.

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

Surely, a man must realize that if a woman is totally hammered he probably shouldn't have sex with her?

It should be pretty obvious to anyone when consent has or has not been given?

So if you continue when you are unclear on whether or not you have consent to continue then you must know you are potentially heading for trouble.

It's not like these women are trying to trick men into having sex with them so that they can then turn round and accuse them of rape. If an accusation is made then the situation has to be looked at and the question of whether or not the woman was able to consent is a valid one.

I think you are being very naive.
Also this is extremely sexist and biased.

Two people meet in a club they are both drinking and probably drunk, all over each other, they go back to his or her does not matter.

Next morning they wake, sore heads both not really sure what has happened the night before.

I see no mention of "Did the man give consent?" Or she should of known not to have sex with a man when he is drunk, I doubt very much in cases like this it is even talked about.
You also say "Surely, a man must realize that if a woman is totally hammered he probably shouldn't have sex with her?"

The argument around this law is that if you are drunk you cannot give consent so even agreeing to or suggesting you have sex can still result in a rape scenario.

orubiru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If one were in the habit of picking up women at clubs on a regular basis, I see no way past getting her to sign a consent form, having her blow into a tube (phnar phnar) and maybe recording that consent on video. Whatever else gets recorded is neither here nor there. This may of course put a damper on proceedings. The bottom line is, if a woman had a few drinks and she regrets her one night stand, she can call rape. Unless you can get her to sign a form, blow into a measuring device and state on video that she is doing this willingly.
I wonder what will happen if a man tries to invoke this law?

Of course another problem is that there's nothing to stop a woman from telling you that she hasn't been drinking.

I think there is a lot of fear that guys will be "tricked" into sex and will then be accused of rape. I can't imagine that this is something that would happen very often.

You have to see it from the girls point of view. I am a man and there are plenty of times when I've gotten blind drunk on a Saturday night and don't remember getting home and don't remember the exact details of the evening. If I were to wake up one Sunday in some random guys bed with a sore bum then I'd probably freak out. Honestly, I'd feel like I had been taken advantage of and I'd be pretty damn furious and would want to get the police involved.

Now, I think there would be an argument there that I should not have gotten so drunk that this would happen to me. At the same time I would expect some kind of punishment for someone who takes advantage of a person in that kind of state.

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

It's not like these women are trying to trick men into having sex with them so that they can then turn round and accuse them of rape. If an accusation is made then the situation has to be looked at and the question of whether or not the woman was able to consent is a valid one.

I do not think is most cases anyone is out to trick someone, though I bet it happens.

I only ever heard of one case of this kind of thing in my town without going into details an allegation was made Guardi called, people interviewed.
In the end the girl basically told guardi she made the whole thing up, she had been suffering from some mental health issues which I think was the only reason she in turn did not go to jail over making false allegations.

These kind of things do happen!

NachoBusiness

orubiru wrote: »

Surely, a man must realize that if a woman is totally hammered he probably shouldn't have sex with her?

And what of a drunk man who a woman has sex with. Should he be extended the same protection you seem to think women deserve?

It should be pretty obvious to anyone when consent has or has not been given?

So if you continue when you are unclear on whether or not you have consent to continue then you must know you are potentially heading for trouble.

Look, nobody believes a paralytic woman who is pretty much unresponsive, at the stage of talk gibberish, is in a state were she can sexually consent. I don't don't think I have seen anyone argue that in fact. However, the law is starting to suggest (if it hasn't already) that even if consent is given unequivocally, if the woman is deemed to have been drunk, then that consent is an irrelevance.

It's not like these women are trying to trick men into having sex with them so that they can then turn round and accuse them of rape. If an accusation is made then the situation has to be looked at and the question of whether or not the woman was able to consent is a valid one.

The hard cold truth is that in some cases a woman might just be an arsehole, they exist you know and so you can't simply have a law that pretty much makes a man automatically guilty of based on a BAC or even, as has been suggested, an expert's back calculation.

Seems to me that some are trying to make it a situation where men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent.

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

You have to see it from the girls point of view. I am a man and there are plenty of times when I've gotten blind drunk on a Saturday night and don't remember getting home and don't remember the exact details of the evening. If I were to wake up one Sunday in some random guys bed with a sore bum then I'd probably freak out. Honestly, I'd feel like I had been taken advantage of and I'd be pretty damn furious and would want to get the police involved.
.

And what if all evidence shows you are the one that dragged this guy out of the club and that it was all your idea?

osarusan

Thread still populated by posters who either haven't read or chose to ignore for convenience the further information provided by electro-bitch dozens of posts ago.

orubiru

NachoBusiness wrote: »

And what of a drunk man who a woman has sex with. Should he be extended the same protection you seem to think women deserve?

Look, nobody believes a paralytic woman who is pretty much unresponsive, at the stage of talk gibberish, is in a state were she can sexually consent. I don't don't think I have seen anyone argue that in fact. However, the law is starting to suggest (if it hasn't already) that even if consent is given unequivocally, if the woman is deemed to have been drunk, then that consent is an irrelevance.

The hard cold truth is that in some cases a woman might just be an arsehole, they exist you know and so you can't simply have a law that pretty much makes a man automatically guilty of based on a BAC or even, as has been suggested, an expert's back calculation.

Seems to me that some are trying to make it a situation where men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent.

No. I am not saying that at all.

All the evidence should be looked at and judged in an unbiased manner.

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

Thread still populated by posters who either haven't read or chose to ignore for convenience the further information provided by electro-bitch dozens of posts ago.

Unspecific nonsense.

Sure I just linked to the complete report a few posts back.

If there is a point you want to make, make it.

NachoBusiness

orubiru wrote: »

No. I am not saying that at all.

Who said you were? I linked to an article in that line of that post to show specifically what those comments were referring to.

orubiru

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And what if all evidence shows you are the one that dragged this guy out of the club and that it was all your idea?

If it was clearly all my idea then I would expect the case to be thrown out of court.

If I was deliberately making a false accusation then I would expect to be punished for that.

That's for the court to decide though.

The discussion around blood alcohol level as an indicator of consent is happening because something like that will allow the court to make a better and more informed decision.

Someone makes an accusation. It goes to trial. The prosecution may be able to prove that the accuser was so completely wasted that they could not give consent and were subsequently taken advantage of.

I understand the fear of being falsely accused but it's not a reason to throw out potential evidence.

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If there is a point you want to make, make it.

Sure.

The argument still being made is that a girl can have a couple of drinks, sleep with a guy, regret it and cry rape, and if her BAC is above a certain level, then it is rape.

This argument isn't anywhere near an accurate hypothetical based on the recommendations of the report, and electro-bitch explained why.

NachoBusiness

orubiru wrote: »

I understand the fear of being falsely accused but it's not a reason to throw out potential evidence.

Ah here. Who's talking about throwing it out??

As we are NOW courts consider how much alcohol was in the system of a complainant.

What this is about is not making a BAC a smoking gun.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Unspecific nonsense.

Sure I just linked to the complete report a few posts back.

If there is a point you want to make, make it.

The point is Nacho, just when it looked like the discussion might actually go somewhere (you did bring up an interesting point with the drugs consumed in the Ched Evans case), it circles back around to the same mind-numbing shyte that is this -

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Rape is a very serious and grotesque crime...
It should not include someone who made a mistake, had sex with someone who now wishes he or she did not, but they now have an ace up their sleeve! I was drunk therefore I can say it was rape and the law will now back them up!

How many dozen times is regret after having had consensual sex going to be equated to rape?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think they're at all related. One situation is someone regretting sex. The other is where they have been raped, and if someone commits rape, and they are found by a Court of Law to have committed rape, then they should expect to have sanctions imposed upon them.

Do you think getting your balls wet is enough of a basis to risk a woeful case of knob rot?

(I only ask as a guideline for risk assessment in how far you're willing to go to have sex)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And I've never once said that any claim of rape would be legitimate if the person had any alcohol in their system. The proposal relates to consent and the capacity to consent. After that, if it has been established that the person had no capacity to consent, then they could be charged with rape, which would be at the discretion of the DPP, just like the spousal rape laws and the statutory rape laws.

...

What you're talking about is unrelated to the issue of legal capacity to consent, or are you again going to claim that you're not talking about false allegations of rape? You'll have to expand on the above because I'd hate to give you the opportunity to suggest I was putting words in your mouth.

There's not much point in trying to have a discussion if the same predictable as fcuk posts are going to come up again and again to the point where I needn't even type any more, I can just copy and paste what I wrote previously.

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

This argument isn't anywhere near an accurate hypothetical based on the recommendations of the report, and electro-bitch explained why.

Don't mind electro-bitch. What she posted does not mean what she, and a few others, seems to think it does.

Dame Elish Anglioni has called for legal amendments to be embedded into legislation so that someone that is found to have been intoxicated using a (yet to be determined) BAC level (or declared to have been so by an expert using 'back calculation') would lose the capacity to consent to sex.

When someone is deemed by a court to have been unable to consent - that is Rape.

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Dame Elish Anglioni has called for legal amendments to be embedded into legislation so that someone that is found to have been intoxicated using a (yet to be determined) BAC level (or declared to have been so by an expert using 'back calculation') would lose the capacity to consent to sex.

When someone is deemed by a court to have been unable to consent - that is Rape.

This is the argument I think is inaccurate:

The argument still being made is that a girl can have a couple of drinks, sleep with a guy, regret it and cry rape, and if her BAC is above a certain level, then it is rape.

Are you saying that, based on your reading of the report, you think that argument is accurate?

volchitsa

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Rape is a very serious and grotesque crime...
It should not include someone who made a mistake, had sex with someone who now wishes he or she did not, but they now have an ace up their sleeve! I was drunk therefore I can say it was rape and the law will now back them up!

Could you explain how this would improve the woman's situation from a practical point of view?

I mean, I can see why it may have mattered back in the day when any woman who wasn't a virgin was considered unfit for marriage, so perhaps the claim of rape may have reduced the harm done to her reputation. Though in fact even then it could only have been as damage limitation, when the fact was already widely known. A far better plan for the woman was to say nothing at all about it and hope her "fall" was never discovered.

But today?? Seriously - other than the seriously odd suggestion already made here that hordes of women with vendettas against unsuspecting men are just waiting to have innocents slung into jail, what possible "ace" does a woman who got drunk and had sex actually have by being able to say "oh but it doesn't count because I was drunk"?

Who actually gives a damn, these days?

The whole idea is crazy, it really is. Women who have drunken consensual sex have exactly zero to gain by accusing the man of rape. And a lot to lose, even if he's found guilty.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's not much point in trying to have a discussion if the same predictable as fcuk posts are going to come up again and again to the point where I needn't even type any more, I can just copy and paste what I wrote previously.

You're one to talk.

What you and others fail to understand is that a large chunk of cases (which many judges have come out and commented on) hinge on whether or not a woman was too drunk to consent or not. Juries often have to deliberate on that point alone and this report is attempting to take that out of their hands as once an expert has declared (via back calculation) that a woman was in such a state of intoxication that she was unable to consent to sex, it is an open and shut case as to whether she was raped or not. There is no defense possible at that stage.

Now, that would be fine if it was set at a very high level of intoxication but everything about past cases in the UK tell us that it is very unlikely that it will be and why is further legislation even needed here? Courts can currently decide to convict if they find that a woman was not in a fit state to give sexual consent already, as we know. Lets be honest, this is about pressure from lobby groups and the like regrading rape statistics and convictions not being what certain bodies would like them to be. Nothing more. It's politics.

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

If it was clearly all my idea then I would expect the case to be thrown out of court.

Thrown out - I am sure that will make it all OK with the accused.

orubiru wrote: »

If I was deliberately making a false accusation then I would expect to be punished for that.

Well this is the point it was not a false accusation, you simply did not know therefore assumed you where taken advantage of.

orubiru wrote: »

Someone makes an accusation. It goes to trial. The prosecution may be able to prove that the accuser was so completely wasted that they could not give consent and were subsequently taken advantage of.

I understand the fear of being falsely accused but it's not a reason to throw out potential evidence.

This is where it get's dangerous, to legislate correctly around any of this, the idea of intoxication can very so much so that I doubt very much there will be ever any real clear cut cases unless it involves the victim going to the hospital or the evidence of intoxication to be assessed almost immediately after the incident.

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How many dozen times is regret after having had consensual sex going to be equated to rape?

In an ideal world we would be able to tell the difference if an accusation is made, but in nearly all rape cases we have the word of one individual vrs that of another.
electro already point out only 6% (or something like that)of rape cases see convictions because of this.

ShowMeTheCash

volchitsa wrote: »

Could you explain how this would improve the woman's situation from a practical point of view?

I mean, I can see why it may have mattered back in the day when any woman who wasn't a virgin was considered unfit for marriage, so perhaps the claim of rape may have reduced the harm done to her reputation. Though in fact even then it could only have been as damage limitation, when the fact was already widely known. A far better plan for the woman was to say nothing at all about it and hope her "fall" was never discovered.

But today?? Seriously - other than the seriously odd suggestion already made here that hordes of women with vendettas against unsuspecting men are just waiting to have innocents slung into jail, what possible "ace" does a woman who got drunk and had sex actually have by being able to say "oh but it doesn't count because I was drunk"?

Who actually gives a damn, these days?

The whole idea is crazy, it really is. Women who have drunken consensual sex have exactly zero to gain by accusing the man of rape. And a lot to lose, even if he's found guilty.

I was being facetious with the "Ace" comment but deliberate in how this legislation does not prove anything other than attempt to shift liability from one party to the next.

Also I made no mention of limiting this to women, I said he or she could make this claim and use intoxication as a defense.
Your rant on what do women have to gain, marriage reputation and all the rest is a moot point, I show no biased in who can make this claim.

The reason we usually cannot legislate for something is usually because it is far too difficult to legislate clear cut examples or cases for it.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You're one to talk.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/345/169/bc7.png

Seriously though -

NachoBusiness wrote: »

What you and others fail to understand is that a large chunk of cases (which many judges have come out and commented on) hinge on whether or not a woman was too drunk to consent or not. Juries often have to deliberate on that point alone and this report is attempting to take that out of their hands as once an expert has declared (via back calculation) that a woman was in such a state of intoxication that she was unable to consent to sex, it is an open and shut case as to whether she was raped or not. There is no defense possible at that stage.

This issue isn't simply about women who are victims of rape. It's just as much about men who are victims of rape, so when you're presenting scenarios, it'd be helpful if you could at least acknowledge that much, as was done in the report. The report was commissioned by the London MET Police, and was written with the perspective of supporting victims of rape, whether they are men or women.

As it currently stands in legislation regarding rape, legal consent is only one of the issues that contributes to whether a case is actually worth pursuing or not. What this proposed amendment would do, is establish whether or not legal consent was present. It doesn't help that the prosecution has to establish that consent was not present when they have to overcome the legal standard that the defence can argue that the accused was of the reasonable belief that consent was present.

What this proposal is aiming for is that if someone makes a complaint of rape, they would be subject to a BAC test to establish whether they were in a position to consent. That's all. It doesn't mean that the other person will automatically be charged with rape, and it still doesn't secure a conviction. It simply means that the prosecution has established that consent was not present. In laymans terms, yes, that would meet the standard definition of rape. In legal terms however, you're still a long way off securing a conviction as the evidence would still have to be investigated prior to any decision about a case being taken against the accused.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Now, that would be fine if it was set at a very high level of intoxication but everything about past cases in the UK tell us that it is very unlikely that it will be and why is further legislation even needed here? Courts can currently decide to convict if they find that a woman was not in a fit state to give sexual consent already, as we know. Lets be honest, this is about pressure from lobby groups and the like regrading rape statistics and convictions not being what certain bodies would like them to be. Nothing more. It's politics.

So you don't know yet what level they would set the BAC at, and yet you're already getting your knickers in a twist about it? It could actually be set at a high enough level that it could still be high enough to suggest that even though the victim had consumed alcohol, they were still lucid enough to meet the legal standard for consent. The reason for further legislation and clarification of the standard required to prove consent was or was not present is precisely because current standards are only based upon past cases. This metric would do away with that uncertainty. Courts currently base the decision to acquit (or in Scotland "not guilty" or "not proven"), or convict on the basis of a judgement call on which side were able to make the better case. Often, that's simply down to a judgement call based on character assessment drawn from evidence presented. The defence can literally shred an alleged rape victim on the stand, and make them look like they're making the whole thing up. It's their job, and they're pretty damn good at it.

The prosecution however, has to overcome all sorts of prejudices in order to even make a reasonable case and often times a case simply isn't worth pursuing because the chances of a conviction are simply slim to none. This report didn't come from lobby groups, and wasn't commissioned by lobby groups. It was commissioned by the MET Police of London to see what more could they be doing to better help the victims of rape. It isn't about increasing criminal convictions for rape, the whole report is about improving standards and making sure that victims of rape are taken seriously and not just dismissed as having had sex and simply regretted it the next morning and are only now crying rape because their feelings are hurt.

If it were simply about politics, I'd be the first to say it were about politics, as I find all too often the whole gender politics and quotas and bullsh1t twisting of statistics by any lobby group or any fcuknut with an agenda, is the first thing that pisses me off as IMO so many of these self-interested lobby groups and fcuknuts have their heads firmly rammed up their own asses and can't see the bigger picture for everyone involved. They often reduce everything down to big conspiracy theories and everyone's against them, etc, etc.

That's not what's happening here.

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What this proposal is aiming for is that if someone makes a complaint of rape, they would be subject to a BAC test to establish whether they were in a position to consent. That's all. It doesn't mean that the other person will automatically be charged with rape, and it still doesn't secure a conviction. It simply means that the prosecution has established that consent was not present. In laymans terms, yes, that would meet the standard definition of rape. In legal terms however, you're still a long way off securing a conviction as the evidence would still have to be investigated prior to any decision about a case being taken against the accused.

This is what you think it means...
And let me clarify you don't yet know what it means neither does anyone else. There is too much ambiguity around this.
1. BAC test what is going to be deemed an intoxication level?
2. Did they drink alcohol after they had sex or before?
3. How long after would this test need to be carried out for it to determine anything useful?

I have read the proposal around this, the minute we legislate around a BAC number for consent then the law will need to be adhered too it.
I see no other way this can be interpreted...

I wonder how bloods would be interpreted if all this were to come to pass. I'd be face down in my own drool after a glass of wine, but presumably my blood levels would be interpreted as so minimal that I could consent to anything.

ShowMeTheCash

Candie wrote: »

I wonder how bloods would be interpreted if all this were to come to pass. I'd be face down in my own drool after a glass of wine, but presumably my blood levels would be interpreted as so minimal that I could consent to anything.

One glass of wine?
Interesting - I got these tickets to a wine tasting night next fri...........

dr.fuzzenstein

orubiru wrote: »

Of course another problem is that there's nothing to stop a woman from telling you that she hasn't been drinking.

I think there is a lot of fear that guys will be "tricked" into sex and will then be accused of rape. I can't imagine that this is something that would happen very often.

You have to see it from the girls point of view. I am a man and there are plenty of times when I've gotten blind drunk on a Saturday night and don't remember getting home and don't remember the exact details of the evening. If I were to wake up one Sunday in some random guys bed with a sore bum then I'd probably freak out. Honestly, I'd feel like I had been taken advantage of and I'd be pretty damn furious and would want to get the police involved.

Now, I think there would be an argument there that I should not have gotten so drunk that this would happen to me. At the same time I would expect some kind of punishment for someone who takes advantage of a person in that kind of state.

Not quite like that. A woman could have a few drinks, maybe wear beer goggles to an extend but be by no means absolutely plastered and unable to make the call.
She then wakes up beside a guy and he doesn't quite look as dishy in the cold light of day. Some could freak or regret it and now when she accuses him of rape, he has to prove she was sober and consented. That is impossible, unless he has some evidence. How is he going to get that?
My comments about breathalyzing your partner and getting them to sign a consent form were only half joking. Because that would be the only way to prove it.
Other than that this would mean a woman who had a few drinks (we're not talking blind drunk here) and wakes up beside someone who may have looked different at 2am in the club, can now put all the onus on proving his innocence on the male. It is guilty unless proven otherwise.
And again, if a man came forward? He'd be laughed out the police station.

I also want to make clear that no one in their right mind should go and sleep with anyone who is to drunk to stand up and that goes for all sexes, but now bringing in permitted levels and automatic assumption of male guilt is just nonsense. And again, what are those limits? If they are the drink driving limits I will be guilty of rape if the missus had 2 glasses of wine. Can she have me done for rape or the other way round? Technically yes. In that case we're both guilty and would get life without parole.

volchitsa

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Not quite like that. A woman could have a few drinks, maybe wear beer goggles to an extend but be by no means absolutely plastered and unable to make the call.
She then wakes up beside a guy and he doesn't quite look as dishy in the cold light of day. Some could freak or regret it and now when she accuses him of rape, he has to prove she was sober and consented.

But again, no-one has attempted to explain why a sane woman would do that to a man she never met before and had no particular beef with?

She wakes beside a guy she is ashamed of having slept with, OK, and does what? Goes to the police and stands up in court so that as many people as possible know that she did that??

Or gets the hell out of there as fast as possible and tries to forget all about it, or at most, shamefacedly admits the sordid truth to her best mate?

The idea that the first option might seem preferable is about as plausible as the idea that marital rape laws are dangerous because they inevitably lead to false rape accusations between loving couples.

One eyed Jack

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is what you think it means...

It's not just what I think it means. That is how the laws are interpreted by the Justices in the UK and Ireland -

The one thing the law in neither country says, however, is that if a man has sex with a woman who is not consenting it is always rape.

Source: The Law of Rape in the UK and Ireland

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And let me clarify you don't yet know what it means neither does anyone else. There is too much ambiguity around this.

Let me clarify for you - I know what it means. You on the other hand, clearly don't.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

1. BAC test what is going to be deemed an intoxication level?
2. Did they drink alcohol after they had sex or before?
3. How long after would this test need to be carried out for it to determine anything useful?

I have read the proposal around this, the minute we legislate around a BAC number for consent then the law will need to be adhered too it.
I see no other way this can be interpreted...

I don't think you have, otherwise you wouldn't have interpreted it the way you did and you would have understood why the proposal was made.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Not quite like that. A woman could have a few drinks, maybe wear beer goggles to an extend but be by no means absolutely plastered and unable to make the call.
She then wakes up beside a guy and he doesn't quite look as dishy in the cold light of day. Some could freak or regret it and now when she accuses him of rape, he has to prove she was sober and consented. That is impossible, unless he has some evidence. How is he going to get that?
My comments about breathalyzing your partner and getting them to sign a consent form were only half joking. Because that would be the only way to prove it.
Other than that this would mean a woman who had a few drinks (we're not talking blind drunk here) and wakes up beside someone who may have looked different at 2am in the club, can now put all the onus on proving his innocence on the male. It is guilty unless proven otherwise.

No, he doesn't, and no, she can't, and no, he is innocent until proven otherwise -

In the UK as in Ireland the issue of ‘reasonable belief’ is present. In all three pieces of legislation the term reasonable belief was specifically inserted to rectify the fact that previously any belief that she consented was sufficient. If a man knew the woman did not consent, or was reckless about it, it was rape but if he believed she did it was not rape, irrespective of what the victim actually wanted. In the case of Morgan, where a man invited 3 men to his house to have sex with his wife, saying that she would struggle and resist but that was all part of her enjoyment, the judge direct the jury that a genuine belief as to consent was sufficient. It was felt in reforming the law that if the belief had to be reasonable this would remedy the problem. The UK law goes further than the Irish law however and indicates a series of scenarios in which consent will be presumed to be absent irrespective of the accused’s belief, reasonable or otherwise. So if the victim was asleep or unconscious, was drugged, had a physical disability meaning they couldn’t convey consent, was unlawfully detained and so on, the accused cannot claim a reasonable belief as to consent. And rightly so.

Source: The Law of Rape in the UK and Ireland

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And again, if a man came forward? He'd be laughed out the police station.

No, he wouldn't, I guess if you've never needed to use many of the support systems available for male victims of rape in Ireland, you wouldn't be aware of the support within An Garda Siochana already. This is from a recent submission by the Rape Crisis Network Ireland to the Garda Policing Plan for 2015 -

RCNI recognizes that An Garda Siochana has put in place some measures to address the difficult area of sexual crime, and that there are many officers at all levels sincerely committed to improving the experience of survivors and also to efficient and timely investigation of these crimes. Recent very positive developments include the incorporation of many “Rape and Justice in Ireland” recommendations into the Garda Policy on the Investigation of Sexual Crime, Crimes against Children and Child Welfare (2010). These relate to ongoing contact between victims and An Garda Siochana, the provision of accurate information to the victim, a prohibition on dissuasive behaviour by members of An Garda Siochana, an emphasis throughout on compassion and sensitivity, including on the timing of the formal Garda statement by the victim. In addition, the Policy addresses the management of sex offenders, sets out the procedure to be followed in sexual cases by all members but especially those who are specially trained Special Victim Interviewers, and sets out a policy of regular contact between designated liaison officers and relevant NGO’s at local level.

Garda Special Victim Interviewers’ role is to interview in specially structured and reassuring surroundings, victims who are children under the age of 14 and vulnerable adults (primarily). All SVI’s are required to complete an intensive training course before they can take up their duties, and numbers of these officers have now grown significantly. General training for all members now takes account of sexual violence issues to a greater extent, and there are high level interviewing courses available which are aimed at officers interviewing victims of serious crimes, including sexual crimes.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I also want to make clear that no one in their right mind should go and sleep with anyone who is to drunk to stand up and that goes for all sexes, but now bringing in permitted levels and automatic assumption of male guilt is just nonsense. And again, what are those limits? If they are the drink driving limits I will be guilty of rape if the missus had 2 glasses of wine. Can she have me done for rape or the other way round? Technically yes. In that case we're both guilty and would get life without parole.

No, and no. The only nonsense being put forward here is your own ill informed assumptions.

ShowMeTheCash

volchitsa wrote: »

But again, no-one has attempted to explain why a sane woman would do that to a man she never met before and had no particular beef with?

The why does not matter! You are getting caught up in semantics!

volchitsa wrote: »

She wakes beside a guy she is ashamed of having slept with, OK, and does what? Goes to the police and stands up in court so that as many people as possible know that she did that??

OK again semantics... Are you saying every allegation ever made came from mentally stable individuals?

volchitsa wrote: »

Or gets the hell out of there as fast as possible and tries to forget all about it, or at most, shamefacedly admits the sordid truth to her best mate?

The idea that the first option might seem preferable is about as plausible as the idea that marital rape laws are dangerous because they inevitably lead to false rape accusations between loving couples.

What are you on about?
You seem to be in some kind of spin with yourself.
No one is saying that this would be the norm, no one is saying a normal well adjusted person will go out get smashed have sex then accused the participant for rape.

But you cannot legislate for only the happy path or plausible.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

But again, no-one has attempted to explain why a sane woman would do that to a man she never met before and had no particular beef with?

She wakes beside a guy she is ashamed of having slept with, OK, and does what? Goes to the police and stands up in court so that as many people as possible know that she did that??

Or gets the hell out of there as fast as possible and tries to forget all about it, or at most, shamefacedly admits the sordid truth to her best mate?

The idea that the first option might seem preferable is about as plausible as the idea that marital rape laws are dangerous because they inevitably lead to false rape accusations between loving couples.

I despair at posts like the above. Are you really that naive? I could post hundreds of cases over the years here were women did precisely what you are suggesting above isn't plausible. Even just looking at today's news there is one such case. Seriously, wake up and quit acting like anyone that dares to voice a concern about the proposed laws potentially leading to a rise in false rape convictions, are really just some kind of paranoid misogynist. Cases like the one below might not seem very "plausible" to you, but for the men falsely accused they are not only plausible but very much a reality.

Woman cried rape after man she had first date train sex with ran away at his stop

A woman falsely told police she had been raped after having sex with a man on a train after their first date.

Karen Farmer, 35, made the complaint after the man ran away from her once they got off the train at his stop.

She told officers the 23-year-old man had been 'aggressive and controlling' but CCTV footage showed the pair having consensual sex on the train from Glasgow to Blantyre.

Farmer, from Paisley now faces jail after pleading guilty at Glasgow Sheriff Court to falsely claiming she was raped and causing police to devote their time and services in an investigation she knew was false.

The court heard that on August 14, 2012, Farmer and a the man went on a date in Glasgow city centre.

Procurator fiscal depute Collette Fallon said that Farmer was under the impression that she would be staying the night with the man.

The pair later boarded a train at Glasgow Central station that was going to Blantyre - where her date lived.

While on the rain, they were captured on CCTV "engaging in consensual sex".

Miss Fallon said that when they got off of the train at Blantyre, the man told Farmer he needed the toilet but ran away from the station.

Farmer, visibly upset, looked for him and eventually asked to borrow someone's phone to text her date.

In the message she said: "Thanks for the night that I paid for for you to leave me in Blantyre."

The message also said: "For you to use me like that has made me feel so low.

When she got to Central station she told police she had been sexually assaulted on the train and taken to a police station.

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I despair at posts like the above. Are you really that naive? I could post hundreds of cases over the years here were women did precisely what you are suggesting above isn't plausible. Even just looking at today's news there is one such case. Seriously, wake up and quit acting like anyone that dares to voice a concern about the proposed laws potentially leading to a rise in false rape convictions, are really just some kind of paranoid misogynist. Cases like the one below might not seem very "plausible" to you, but for the men falsely accused they are not only plausible but very much a reality.

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. Those women weren't drunk, and it wasn't just a case of regretting having had sex with the man (the beer goggles effect mentioned earlier). I never said no woman would ever try to get revenge on a man. That isn't the scenario that I was replying to, which was about someone getting drunk and sleeping with someone they wouldn't otherwise have given the time to day to.

The woman on the train, for example, didn't know the guy was going to run off, so she was hardly going to go and get drunk before having sex with him so that if he did run off - well, surely the problem with your attempt at extrapolation is clear to anyone with half a brain?

Lagraso

volchitsa wrote: »

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. Those women weren't drunk, and it wasn't just a case of regretting having had sex with the man (the beer goggles effect mentioned earlier). I never said no woman would ever try to get revenge on a man. That isn't the scenario that I was replying to, which was about someone getting drunk and sleeping with someone they wouldn't otherwise have given the time to day to.

The woman on the train, for example, didn't know the guy was going to run off, so she was hardly going to go and get drunk before having sex with him so that if he did run off - well, surely the problem with your attempt at extrapolation is clear to anyone with half a brain?

It seems the woman on the train regretted having sex and was so angry with him that she falsely accused him if rape. These things do happen. People need to be protected by the law against false rape accusers.

dr.fuzzenstein

volchitsa wrote: »

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. Those women weren't drunk, and it wasn't just a case of regretting having had sex with the man (the beer goggles effect mentioned earlier). I never said no woman would ever try to get revenge on a man. That isn't the scenario that I was replying to, which was about someone getting drunk and sleeping with someone they wouldn't otherwise have given the time to day to.

The woman on the train, for example, didn't know the guy was going to run off, so she was hardly going to go and get drunk before having sex with him so that if he did run off - well, surely the problem with your attempt at extrapolation is clear to anyone with half a brain?

But if a woman like that now has a few drinks, the man is guilty of rape. Under the proposed legislation he is guilty.

volchitsa

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But if a woman like that now has a few drinks, the man is guilty of rape. Under the proposed legislation he is guilty.

No, not unless he goes back a second time and thinks she is up for it again, despite his appalling treatment of her the first time around. First time, she wasn't drunk, and if she had been, then the situation would have been different anyway, closer to the girl in Wales where the footballer was found guilty of rape.

In other words, if she's drunk, then the question of consent is a real one, whether or not this law is passed. That some men refuse to see that there can actually be an issue of consent when the woman is drunk is a bit shocking to be frank.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. Those women weren't drunk, and it wasn't just a case of regretting having had sex with the man (the beer goggles effect mentioned earlier). I never said no woman would ever try to get revenge on a man.

Yes you did. Here is what you wrote:

volchitsa wrote: »

But again, no-one has attempted to explain why a sane woman would do that to a man she never met before and had no particular beef with?

She wakes beside a guy she is ashamed of having slept with, OK, and does what? Goes to the police and stands up in court so that as many people as possible know that she did that??

That woman was drinking and did feel ashamed at what she did. She felt used and decided to flasely claim he raped her because he was not "chivalrous" to her.

Either way, the point which you seem to be missing is that this woman wanted to make this man pay for clearing off after she shagged him and so falsely claimed he raped her as a means of vengeance. Had there been a BAC law in place and she was over it (I get that we have no idea what that is yet) she could just have given a sample and said to the Police that she doesn't that she was sober enough to give consent in the first place.

Thank God the CCTV on that train was working by the way.

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yes you did. Here is what you wrote:



That woman was drinking and did feel ashamed at what she did. She felt used and decided to flasely claim he raped her because he was not "chivalrous" to her.

Either way, the point which you seem to be missing is that this woman wanted to make this man pay for clearing off after she shagged him and so falsely claimed he raped her as a means of vengeance. Had there been a BAC law in place and she was over it (I get that we have no idea what that is yet) she could just have given a sample and said to the Police that she doesn't that she was sober enough to give consent in the first place.

Thank God the CCTV on that train was working by the way.

Go back to the beer goggles scenario, which was the one I was responding to. That's nothing like the train example, where the woman didn't regret having sex with a guy she didn't like, she regretted having been treated like dirt by a man she did like - and decided to punish him for that. That has nothing to do with alcohol, and if she had been drunk, the question of consent and judgment would indeed have been raised by her defence, and she might well have won, even without this law - like the girl in Wales and the footballer.

You really seem worried by the idea that picking up an unknown drunk woman might cause you legal problems. I'd suggest that the proposed law isn't the only way that sort of behaviour causes problems, and like OEJ said way back, the only solution to that is a change in society's attitudes, as there was with drink driving me or with smoking in public.

One eyed Jack

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But if a woman like that now has a few drinks, the man is guilty of rape. Under the proposed legislation he is guilty.

What part of this are you having difficulty with?

The one thing the law in neither country says, however, is that if a man has sex with a woman who is not consenting it is always rape.

Under the proposed amendment to current legislation, it is simply a means to establish the presence or absence of consent. Nothing more.