eastandmike...............please stop saying sheff utd will come good.................you really are starting to grip my shit! Go and support a Sheff Team if ya that much in love with em...
As SHG says chill fella, its a running joke on a lot of threads, beats the hell out of all the moaning thats going on
eastandmike...............please stop saying sheff utd will come good.................you really are starting to grip my shit! Go and support a Sheff Team if ya that much in love with em...
I don't want to get in trouble so I will quote directly from the BBC article:
The jury was shown two videos of police interviews in which the woman, who was 19 at the time of the alleged attack, described drinking four double vodkas and lemonade and a shot of Sambucca at Rhyl's Zu Bar in May 2011.
The woman said she did not remember leaving, but had a "vague recollection of being in a kebab shop".
I don't want to get in trouble so I will quote directly from the BBC article:
The jury was shown two videos of police interviews in which the woman, who was 19 at the time of the alleged attack, described drinking four double vodkas and lemonade and a shot of Sambucca at Rhyl's Zu Bar in May 2011.
The woman said she did not remember leaving, but had a "vague recollection of being in a kebab shop".
That is all
That wasn't all she had drunk. Also from the bbc site
During cross-examination by Mr McDonald's barrister, Lloyd Morgan, the woman agreed she had drunk two-thirds of a bottle of wine and the other alcohol that night.".
For those remotely interested in the legal side of the offence of rape it is defined as follows: (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
This means that if 'B' is drunk and 'A' is aware that 'B' is drunk and 'A' does not reasonably believe that 'B' either has or would (if sober) give consent, then the offence of rape is committed. As usual the issues come down to 'how drunk was a victim' and did the defendant have reasonable grounds to believe that she consented. This is of course a general observation and not intended to reflect the case of R v Evans and another...........
For those remotely interested in the legal side of the offence of rape it is defined as follows: (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
This means that if 'B' is drunk and 'A' is aware that 'B' is drunk and 'A' does not reasonably believe that 'B' either has or would (if sober) give consent, then the offence of rape is committed. As usual the issues come down to 'how drunk was a victim' and did the defendant have reasonable grounds to believe that she consented. This is of course a general observation and not intended to reflect the case of R v Evans and another...........
But is it not also the case that if person 'A' commits the above offence, then other persons present, for example a lookout or someone restraining the victim, is just as guilty of rape as person 'A', even though they have not actually penetrated the victim?
Yes indeedy cafcfan. It is the principle known as 'joint enterprise' BUT simply being present is not quite enough - there has to be something else such as encouragement or assisting eg by physical restraint. Even moving an item of clothing to make the offence easier to commit will be enough.
DRF The definition I quoted is from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.1. A woman can be charged with rape only on the same basis as I set out in my discussion with cafcfan above (ie as involved in a joint enterprise.) Those of a certain vintage will remember the case of Joyce McKinney who got friends to restrain a Mormon who she fancied while she bonked him. (She legged it back to America and the DPP decided she was so batty it wasn't worth seeking her extradirion. Look her up on Google as she made the news again fairly recently on an unrelated matter) She was charged 'only' with indecent assault because the offence of rape required (as it still does) the insertion of the male penis. (Please don't ask me about cross or trans-gender:-))
eastandmike...............please stop saying sheff utd will come good.................you really are starting to grip my shit! Go and support a Sheff Team if ya that much in love with em...
I agree mate - Sheffield Wednesday will come good.
Comments
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16206704
19 yr olds these days have years of drinking experience under their belt
Don't bother me but won't go down well in court.
Snigger......
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
This means that if 'B' is drunk and 'A' is aware that 'B' is drunk and 'A' does not reasonably believe that 'B' either has or would (if sober) give consent, then the offence of rape is committed. As usual the issues come down to 'how drunk was a victim' and did the defendant have reasonable grounds to believe that she consented. This is of course a general observation and not intended to reflect the case of R v Evans and another...........
I don't think he SHOULD play.
As for those talking about how much the woman drank, lets just rememebr she's not on trial for here.
And Legal, out of interest I thought the definitions had changed to remove the use of the word penis to allow women to be charged with rape as well?
The definition I quoted is from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.1. A woman can be charged with rape only on the same basis as I set out in my discussion with cafcfan above (ie as involved in a joint enterprise.) Those of a certain vintage will remember the case of Joyce McKinney who got friends to restrain a Mormon who she fancied while she bonked him. (She legged it back to America and the DPP decided she was so batty it wasn't worth seeking her extradirion. Look her up on Google as she made the news again fairly recently on an unrelated matter) She was charged 'only' with indecent assault because the offence of rape required (as it still does) the insertion of the male penis. (Please don't ask me about cross or trans-gender:-))
I agree mate - Sheffield Wednesday will come good.