Guilty until proven innocent

[The Don]

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.

[FlyingJesus]

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.

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.

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.

[RyRy]

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.

[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?

[GommeInc]

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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?

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?

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.

[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

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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.

[FlyingJesus]

Pretty sure I never said anything like that

[Chippiewill]

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.