Guilty until proven innocent

I cannot believe our legal system, how completely ******* backwards and moronic.

Quote:

---

Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated.

The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no” to recognise situations where women may have been unable to give consent.Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze and say nothing because they are terrified of their attacker.

Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”.
Campaigners described the move as “a huge step forward” in ensuring fewer rapists escape justice.

New guidance will be issued to all police forces and prosecutors as part of a “toolkit” to move rape investigations into the 21st century.

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ape-rules.html

I cannot express how angry I am at this. All I can say is, congrat u ******* lations on creating a legal system where any male accused of rape is now instantly guilty until he can prove his innocence!

Also the red bold, sorry if you're drunk and you consent... you still consent. If you're drunk and don't consent, that's a different matter.

The increasingly Europeanisation of our justice and legal system where our politicians are throwing away what made Britain, the Empire and her Commonwealth a beacon of freedom and liberty across the world, including on the continent.

But we keep voting for the people doing this. From ID cards, to absurd airport security, to random stops and searches to where you can smoke.

This is police force guidance, not a change in laws etc. This is more a change in how they internally handle these sorts of things. You still cannot be prosecuted without evidence. The change is that a woman doesn't have to say no (To make it rape) she has to not say yes (Which makes more sense really). But in terms of burden of proof, the woman still has to prove that she didn't say yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The increasingly Europeanisation of our justice and legal system where our politicians are throwing away what made Britain, the Empire and her Commonwealth a beacon of freedom and liberty across the world, including on the continent.

But we keep voting for the people doing this. From ID cards, to absurd airport security, to random stops and searches to where you can smoke.

---

Dan this has jack all to do with Europe, get the **** out of this thread if you're too lazy to discuss the issue at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

This is police force guidance, not a change in laws etc. This is more a change in how they internally handle these sorts of things. You still cannot be prosecuted without evidence. The change is that a woman doesn't have to say no (To make it rape) she has to not say yes (Which makes more sense really). But in terms of burden of proof, the woman still has to prove that she didn't say yes.

---

Essentially this is turning it into her word vs his (which is usually the case in many rape cases) and there's no doubt now that this is another loophole for the bloke to have to jump through to prove the woman wrong. I've heard stories myself from a friend of a friend who was accused of rape by some crazy ***** and as shown with the high profile sex abuse cases, there's plenty of them about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Dan this has jack all to do with Europe, get the **** out of this thread if you're too lazy to discuss the issue at hand.

---

I didn't say this issue was directly related to Europe, this is an issue of our politicians own making. I made a general comment though, like you would in an essay, how our ancient rights and legal traditions are being suffocated with European-style law either directly from Europe as with the European Arrest Warrant (which is another act that has punched innocent until proven guilty in the stomach) or not directly and home-grown like this latest one with rape.

So don't miscontrue what I meant for brownie points.

We don't have ancient rights and legal traditions, our history is one of "I'm richer than you so I'm legally right" until very recently and you can't pretend otherwise.

Anyway on topic, who else is not surprised at all at the wording of "men must prove" and the wonderful replacing of the word "women" with "rape victims"? If they're going to change how rape is dealt with and attempt to stop victims from feeling like they can't get help, maybe they should start with not erasing the experiences of 50% of the population and make it actually an equal crime for a woman to rape a man.

/r/TumblrInAction will probably be full of threads about this

This is ridiculous, why on earth should someone be guilty if they cannot prove themselves innocent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

We don't have ancient rights and legal traditions, our history is one of "I'm richer than you so I'm legally right" until very recently and you can't pretend otherwise.

Anyway on topic, who else is not surprised at all at the wording of "men must prove" and the wonderful replacing of the word "women" with "rape victims"? If they're going to change how rape is dealt with and attempt to stop victims from feeling like they can't get help, maybe they should start with not erasing the experiences of 50% of the population and make it actually an equal crime for a woman to rape a man.

---

I agree, how obvious a comment like that would be made. Any two genders that are different or the same can rape another, simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

We don't have ancient rights and legal traditions, our history is one of "I'm richer than you so I'm legally right" until very recently and you can't pretend otherwise.

---

Wow, could you be more wrong? From the curtailing of the powers of the King by the barons to the replacement of the aristocracy by the merchant and middle classes not even mentioning the triumph of a sovereign parliament over the King - as well as the Commons over the Lords: all mostly done peacefully unlike on the continent. There's no denying this country has been one of the most free countries in the world and it's developed over a thousand years, so don't pretend otherwise and tarnish the history of this country. You only have to look around the world even today at which countries are the most peaceful, protectful of liberties and business friendly: it's all in the Anglosphere countries. We do have ancient rights and we do have legal traditions. Check our basic laws.

Common law/English liberty is our most prized and ancient posessions and are what make this country so great: more so than any buildings, wars or monarchs which is why they should be protected at all costs against sinister witches and ghouls like Theresa May, Tony Blair and Jacqui Smith.

@-:Undertaker:-; Just stop. This has literally nothing to do with Europe. Everyone knows you dislike the EU but let's keep those discussions to the actual relevant threads rather than derailing an extremely important issue such as the deterioration of our legal system.

On topic, this is disgraceful even if it is just a guideline for police to follow and not part of any official legislation. Whilst the victims should be treated with as much care and support as possible the accused should also benefit from the same treatment. Assumed guilt is a terrible precedence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

@-:Undertaker:-; Just stop. This has literally nothing to do with Europe. Everyone knows you dislike the EU but let's keep those discussions to the actual relevant threads rather than derailing an extremely important issue such as the deterioration of our legal system.

---

Again don't lecture me because I didn't even mention the EU. I know you're all dying to scream "OMG ITS NOT EU DAN" whenever I say something related to Europe or with Euro in the word or phrase, but hold your horses becauses the Europeanisation of law // European Union & ECJ or ECHR.

Two different things. Do you get it? Can I make it any clearer before somebody else tries to misunderstand it too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Again don't lecture me because I didn't even mention the EU. I know you're all dying to scream "OMG ITS NOT EU DAN" whenever I say something related to Europe or with Euro in the word or phrase, but hold your horses becauses the Europeanisation of law // European Union & ECJ or ECHR.

Two different things. Do you get it? Can I make it any clearer before somebody else tries to misunderstand it too?

---

Oh no, I said EU rather than Europe. The point still stands and you know it. Stop talking about irrelevant things in threads and people won't criticise you. Stop with the victim mentality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Wow, could you be more wrong? From the curtailing of the powers of the King by the barons to the replacement of the aristocracy by the merchant and middle classes not even mentioning the triumph of a sovereign parliament over the King - as well as the Commons over the Lords: all mostly done peacefully unlike on the continent.

---

And all very recent things, historically speaking. I didn't say that these things hadn't happened ever, I said they are not ancient traditions of some great land that has always known peace and prosperity. Also had to laugh at peaceful... I suppose the Civil War is further back in history than you've ever actually looked since you seem to believe that the Victorians were the only people to ever exist, but there have been absolutely no major changes without bloodshed in our history. So yes, I could be more wrong: being wrong at all would do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

There's no denying this country has been one of the most free countries in the world and it's developed over a thousand years, so don't pretend otherwise and tarnish the history of this country. You only have to look around the world even today at which countries are the most peaceful, protectful of liberties and business friendly: it's all in the Anglosphere countries. We do have ancient rights and we do have legal traditions. Check our basic laws.

---

Again didn't say certain things never happened, but you seem to think "ancient" means within the last couple of hundred years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Common law/English liberty is our most prized and ancient posessions and are what make this country so great: more so than any buildings, wars or monarchs which is why they should be protected at all costs against sinister witches and ghouls like Theresa May, Tony Blair and Jacqui Smith.

---

Not ancient. You're still wrong, and you're still posting off topic.

Whilst it's a great law in theory, oh my god it's terrible in practice. I get they want to stop rapists and such, but can't women and men have a bit of ******* personal responsibility without the state telling them, "Get plastered then come crying to us!"

I understand girls who are actually raped by men who they say no to, like that's straight up a nono but if you're drunk and you say yes, YOU SAID YES. You can't turn around the next day and be like oh no what did I do, I can't have made a bad decision SO IT MUST BE RAPE. You know how to get out of those situations? Don't get drunk to the point you're not in control of yourself.

If I posted this on Reddit I'm sure I'd be downvoted to hell but if you're drunk and end up sleeping with somebody you didn't want to, but went along with it because it was easy at the time and you're drunk, that's not rape, that's just you being an idiot. Guys are just as responsible for raping drunk girls as girls are getting too drunk and not being able to make decisions.

AND THIS ALL APPLIES TO A GUY BEING RAPED BY A GIRL TOO YOU KNOW? It's not god damn rocket science. Footballers are going to have to start asking their one night stands to record videos of them saying I consent to having sex with X person, because else money grabbing ***** are going to be suing them for life.

If I get drunk and drive my car into someone who is sober it's their fault because I cannot be held responsible for my actions after a drink, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

We don't have ancient rights and legal traditions, our history is one of "I'm richer than you so I'm legally right" until very recently and you can't pretend otherwise.

Anyway on topic, who else is not surprised at all at the wording of "men must prove" and the wonderful replacing of the word "women" with "rape victims"? If they're going to change how rape is dealt with and attempt to stop victims from feeling like they can't get help, maybe they should start with not erasing the experiences of 50% of the population and make it actually an equal crime for a woman to rape a man.

---

I don't see why they changed the law in this area when the very real issue you gave that rape should now be genderless on the side of the accused party seems more important than this issue. Especially when a load of men are being violated by women which is essentially rape - going against what they want, lying to them about their identity or abusing them. It would be a far worthwhile use of the DPP or Parliament at large to move and make rape a genderless crime, and add an extra onus on seriousness if the female accused makes herself pregnant or the male accused makes his victim pregnant - or gives them HIV etc etc

To the topic at large:

This new DPP guideline is a bit strange. In fact, I am fairly certain it was and is already bounced around who should provide evidence to eliminate burden of proof. If the victim claims they did not consent, the accused should then provide evidence and then vice versa until it is argued ad nauseam. If anything this just makes it obvious the victim was raped and not consented, as you wouldn't go to a police station and say "I was raped" and ask them to provide proof they didn't consent as the evidence is in the accusation. Saying it was one sided is wrong and is probably the result or poor journalism skills where they read half the guidelines thinking they know the whole story.

If anything, the man has to prove first that he did not rape the victim instead of the victim proving they were raped, which seems a bit strange and a waste of already limited resources as it suggests the victim doesn't do any reporting here whatsoever.

ALSO, society doesn't blame victims for being too drunk to consent. They blame victims who can't remember. The current rules on how to determine consent are largely reliable looking at character and so forth. If the victim says "it doesn't sound like something I would do" they are probably telling the truth. If they foolishly say "I don't remember consenting" that's when you get problems, and of course. How can you rely on the proof by someone who pretty much put themselves in danger by not handling drink if they voluntarily drunk themselves senseless? It's why many rape cases fail if you get victims who act dumb in court.

The bit about freezing in fear has been in the 21st Century for decades so it seems a useless bit of information to add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Oh no, I said EU rather than Europe. The point still stands and you know it. Stop talking about irrelevant things in threads and people won't criticise you. Stop with the victim mentality.

---

And I wasn't talking about the EU, so why bring it up. I support common law (English) over civil law (European). That's my point that I dislike seeing law in this country Europeanised whether it's by our polticians, courts and rotten political parties or via Brussels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

And all very recent things, historically speaking. I didn't say that these things hadn't happened ever, I said they are not ancient traditions of some great land that has always known peace and prosperity. Also had to laugh at peaceful... I suppose the Civil War is further back in history than you've ever actually looked since you seem to believe that the Victorians were the only people to ever exist, but there have been absolutely no major changes without bloodshed in our history. So yes, I could be more wrong: being wrong at all would do that.

---

Who said it was all peace, wine and bread? Not me. But if you compare the Kingdom of England and later Great Britain to the continent, there's not a doubt in hell that this country has been a much more free, peaceful and stable country than those on the continent: something that we owe hugely to the English channel along with the Royal Navy which has kept tyrants from the continent away from threatening our sovereignty and independence, which has allowed us to develop a culture (including legal system) that is vastly different to what is on the continent: one that due to the lesser threat of being invaded, has allowed for a historically smaller and less powerful state than you have on the continent because as we know from history a state will often justify the acquisition of powers when under threat to ensure its own survival both against foreign enemies and enemies on its own soil.

And i'm immensely thankful for it and believe it [English liberty] should be defended at all costs. Don't you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Again didn't say certain things never happened, but you seem to think "ancient" means within the last couple of hundred years.

---

No I don't, didn't I say (I can't be bothered to check) a thousand years of history/independence or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Not ancient. You're still wrong, and you're still posting off topic.

---

I'd say a thousand or 500+ years ago is pretty ancient.

Well you're free to be as wrong as you like, but words mean things and ancient history is a period of study that ends at around the 5th or 6th century at which point England wasn't even a country :P

This whole (off topic) discussion smacks of yet another "it's been that way a long time so it must be right!" kind of argument

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Well you're free to be as wrong as you like, but words mean things and ancient history is a period of study that ends at around the 5th or 6th century at which point England wasn't even a country :P

This whole (off topic) discussion smacks of yet another "it's been that way a long time so it must be right!" kind of argument

---

So English common law and our negative philosophy of freedom is bad and should be abolished?

Well by all means argue for throwing it in the bin and that we should replace it with Europeanised civil law where you can end up locked up for months/years without being found guilty of anything - but the thing that sticks in my gullet is that our politicians won't argue that though and instead will either throw their hands up when it's Brussels imposing it like the weak lilliputians they are or will do it themselves [as in this case] based on emotional arguments like the imagined 'rape culture' or the fearmongering that there's a terrorist on every corner.

Pretty sure I never said anything like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

If I get drunk and drive my car into someone who is sober it's their fault because I cannot be held responsible for my actions after a drink, right?

---

That's a false analogy.

Something closer to the truth would be forcing someone who is extremely drunk into their car and intentionally crashing into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

That's a false analogy.

Something closer to the truth would be forcing someone who is extremely drunk into their car and intentionally crashing into them.

---

No it isn't because it's about how a woman's responsibility is legally totally removed from her when she gets drunk and anything that happens to her is the fault of someone else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

No it isn't because it's about how a woman's responsibility is legally totally removed from her when she gets drunk and anything that happens to her is the fault of someone else

---

It's not totally removed. But if someone is taking advantage of them in their drunken state then that is clearly not their fault.

App name: I agree to get banged
Description: Just before two people have sex they open the app, get one another to sign it, save with the current date and time.


Am i a genius or what.



O/T: A bit ridiculous but is there really that many people in the world that fake rape? thats a serious accusation.

It's an extremely serious accusation yeah but it does seem increasingly more prevalent. There are several high profile cases (usually involving sportsmen and nights out) where it's been proven without doubt or even later admitted to be completely fabricated, and not only does this make things more difficult for genuine victims but it also puts these totally innocent men in danger of becoming victims themselves, especially in America where prison rape occurrences actually outnumber all non-prison rapes - that's a real "rape culture" and is actually where the term came from before feminists stole it to talk about being catcalled.

A DTF app idea isn't bad actually, but you can bet you'd get people saying they'd been forced to sign it or whatever :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

It's an extremely serious accusation yeah but it does seem increasingly more prevalent. There are several high profile cases (usually involving sportsmen and nights out) where it's been proven without doubt or even later admitted to be completely fabricated, and not only does this make things more difficult for genuine victims but it also puts these totally innocent men in danger of becoming victims themselves, especially in America where prison rape occurrences actually outnumber all non-prison rapes - that's a real "rape culture" and is actually where the term came from before feminists stole it to talk about being catcalled.

A DTF app idea isn't bad actually, but you can bet you'd get people saying they'd been forced to sign it or whatever :P

---

The person could just do a different signature, i know people could just do it deliberately but i doubt people go out on the lash, hook up and think 'oh i'm going to say i was raped' it's usually regret after the night out lol

I agree with FlyingJesus.

Anybody, women included, caught drink driving, are held responsible for their actions. As in, it doesn't MATTER that you got too drunk to remember it clearly, you still made that decision to drive despite being drunk.

If you attacked someone while drunk you are still responsible for those actions and will still face the time for the crime.

Why should it be any different when it comes to sexual consent? If the man is as drunk as the woman then how can it be argued he had any more control over his actions than she did. I.e. Woman invites man back to hers after night out, they kiss and end up in bed having sex; should the man be assumed guilty of rape if she cried it because a) he didn't verbally ask b) he doesn't have it in writing despite her not having said no. How does a man defend himself if she claims she didn't want to have sex despite having instigated it herself, the entire case reliant on his word against hers.

Quite frankly I just don't see how it can be argued that consent is automatically revoked through the involvement of alcohol. I've been very drunk on many an occasion, but to be so drunk you cannot understand what is happening around you is to be so drunk you have trouble even standing up. Alcohol does not invoke amnesia unless you get wasted to the point you need looking after. If a lady was still standing without issue at the end of a night out then surely enough brain capacity remains to make a decision on sexual consent. This excludes the possibility of a drink being spiked, but if that was assumed then evidence for that could be acquired through a blood or urine sample.

Does alcohol increase libido? Almost certainly. Does it diminish responsibility? Not according to the law when applied to other crimes; so why this one?

What's more, if a man tried to argue he was raped because he was too drunk to give consent he would be laughed out of town.

So how exactly do you prove a woman gave consent? Are we now supposed to record everything on video just to cover our backs?

False rape claims are not uncommon, yet are very rarely prosecuted. There are no robust statistics as most cases that are thought to be false accusations simply get dropped, the figures quoted by various articles range from 10 to 40% of all claims being false accusations. Being falsely accused of rape is incredibly serious, it can completely ruin someone's life, and these new rules seem to make it very easy for this to happen.

TLDR: If you have a penis it must be presumed you are the only responsible party in making a decision to have sex, and women should now all be assumed to be under the age of consent and unable to make their own decisions.

Does anybody see the hypocrisy coming from the women's "equality" groups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

I agree with FlyingJesus.

Anybody, women included, caught drink driving, are held responsible for their actions. As in, it doesn't MATTER that you got too drunk to remember it clearly, you still made that decision to drive despite being drunk.

If you attacked someone while drunk you are still responsible for those actions and will still face the time for the crime.

Why should it be any different when it comes to sexual consent? If the man is as drunk as the woman then how can it be argued he had any more control over his actions than she did. I.e. Woman invites man back to hers after night out, they kiss and end up in bed having sex; should the man be assumed guilty of rape if she cried it because a) he didn't verbally ask b) he doesn't have it in writing despite her not having said no. How does a man defend himself if she claims she didn't want to have sex despite having instigated it herself, the entire case reliant on his word against hers.

Quite frankly I just don't see how it can be argued that consent is automatically revoked through the involvement of alcohol. I've been very drunk on many an occasion, but to be so drunk you cannot understand what is happening around you is to be so drunk you have trouble even standing up. Alcohol does not invoke amnesia unless you get wasted to the point you need looking after. If a lady was still standing without issue at the end of a night out then surely enough brain capacity remains to make a decision on sexual consent. This excludes the possibility of a drink being spiked, but if that was assumed then evidence for that could be acquired through a blood or urine sample.

Does alcohol increase libido? Almost certainly. Does it diminish responsibility? Not according to the law when applied to other crimes; so why this one?

What's more, if a man tried to argue he was raped because he was too drunk to give consent he would be laughed out of town.

So how exactly do you prove a woman gave consent? Are we now supposed to record everything on video just to cover our backs?

False rape claims are not uncommon, yet are very rarely prosecuted. There are no robust statistics as most cases that are thought to be false accusations simply get dropped, the figures quoted by various articles range from 10 to 40% of all claims being false accusations. Being falsely accused of rape is incredibly serious, it can completely ruin someone's life, and these new rules seem to make it very easy for this to happen.

TLDR: If you have a penis it must be presumed you are the only responsible party in making a decision to have sex, and women should now all be assumed to be under the age of consent and unable to make their own decisions.

Does anybody see the hypocrisy coming from the women's "equality" groups?

---

I agree with you that we should hold accountability for the actions we take whilst drunk. I disagree with the bit i've bolded though. I frequently blackout whilst drinking, as in I can't remember the night out despite seeming functional to the friends I was out with. I'm not saying that means I should get a pass for my actions (because I shouldn't), but just because someone isn't led in a pile of their own sick being looked after doesn't mean they are in a right frame of mind to make rational decisions. They still hold accountability for them, but suggesting that because they're standing and walking fine they aren't that drunk isn't the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I agree with you that we should hold accountability for the actions we take whilst drunk. I disagree with the bit i've bolded though. I frequently blackout whilst drinking, as in I can't remember the night out despite seeming functional to the friends I was out with. I'm not saying that means I should get a pass for my actions (because I shouldn't), but just because someone isn't led in a pile of their own sick being looked after doesn't mean they are in a right frame of mind to make rational decisions. They still hold accountability for them, but suggesting that because they're standing and walking fine they aren't that drunk isn't the case.

---

It's very rare however, and comes about when one drinks too much in a short space of time. If you pace your drinks your BAC won't rise so dangerously fast and you won't experience blackouts so easily. Most people who do drink this fast are likely to find themselves expelling the contents of their stomachs soon afterwards, at which point I'd say they are in a state where they need looking after.

I would also argue you should only have highlighted the second sentence in the quote, as even if you cannot remember something it doesn't mean you didn't understand what was happening at the time albeit in a drunken state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

It's very rare however, and comes about when one drinks too much in a short space of time. If you pace your drinks your BAC won't rise so dangerously fast and you won't experience blackouts so easily. Most people who do drink this fast are likely to find themselves expelling the contents of their stomachs soon afterwards, at which point I'd say they are in a state where they need looking after.

I would also argue you should only have highlighted the second sentence in the quote, as even if you cannot remember something it doesn't mean you didn't understand what was happening at the time albeit in a drunken state.

---

I should have elaborated on the first sentence rather than solely the second one. Drinking can and does cloud peoples judgements which I would argue renders them unable to properly understand what's going on around them. Obviously they are still responsible for the actions and choices they take whilst drunk (within reason) but there's a good reason drunk people are generally deemed unable to enter legally binding agreements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richie

App name: I agree to get banged
Description: Just before two people have sex they open the app, get one another to sign it, save with the current date and time.


Am i a genius or what.



O/T: A bit ridiculous but is there really that many people in the world that fake rape? thats a serious accusation.

---

Even better idea, open the app on both phones (passcode protected). Tap them against each other and it does all that with NFC.

Tap your phone if you wanna get tapped