You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?
May 30 2024 4.50am

Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 20 of 33 < 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >

 

View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 21 Sep 23 2.59pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Photographs are no more relevant than names.

You donít have to pretend anything. I am arguing that to use labels is unhelpful and serves no one.

Same applies to the Germans, many of whom now hate the Nazis even more than we do and are ashamed that is part of their history.

That the BNP has any particular demographic is also irrelevant. They would hold unacceptable opinions whoever they were. Same with the far left. Iíll ignore the rest as it is beyond stupid.

Nothing is relevant to you except your pathological need to post utter nonsense.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 21 Sep 23 4.52pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

A court case arising out of this could be a pivotal moment in our understanding of what constitutes sexual consent.

It seems to me that some people, like Brand, believe that a lack of objection equals consent.

Others donít. They believe that positive agreement must be given on every occasion. Even if the first 100 times was consensual there still needs to be a positive agreement on the 101st.

People can be intimidated, overwhelmed, in awe, fearful of violent reaction, have changed their mind or be inexperienced, just freeze and not voice any objections.

Going ahead without certainty that the partner also wants to can be regarded as rape. The standard required must be, ask first and if in doubt, donít.

Judged on Brandís admitted attitude I donít think he is capable of such a standard, let alone recognising itís necessity.


There was a date rape case involving 2 students. The victim agreed that she willingly went back to his flat stripped naked and took part in mutual oral sex (69). However when he penetrated her she withdraw consent.

The jury rightly in my opinion decided it wasn't rape. Lawyers and politicians can argue about how many angels there are on a pin head but a jury will use commonsense when deciding if a person consented or not.

It has been suggested that people should sign consent forms but that wont work either as a victim can argue that they withdraw consent after signing the form.

It's a minefield with no easy answers.

Edited by Badger11 (21 Sep 2023 4.53pm)

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 21 Sep 23 5.00pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

There was a date rape case involving 2 students. The victim agreed that she willingly went back to his flat stripped naked and took part in mutual oral sex (69). However when he penetrated her she withdraw consent.

The jury rightly in my opinion decided it wasn't rape. Lawyers and politicians can argue about how many angels there are on a pin head but a jury will use commonsense when deciding if a person consented or not.

It has been suggested that people should sign consent forms but that wont work either as a victim can argue that they withdraw consent after signing the form.

It's a minefield with no easy answers.

Edited by Badger11 (21 Sep 2023 4.53pm)

Defo depends on the context of the case.

If you're suggesting that because someone is engaged in one sexual act that means that all sexual acts are on the table, i.e. because of the oral consent that means full penetrative consent then it's not that straightforward.

Which is your point about a minefield, which is correct. However, some mines are more easily identifiable than others. Not all cases are the same

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 21 Sep 23 5.11pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Defo depends on the context of the case.

If you're suggesting that because someone is engaged in one sexual act that means that all sexual acts are on the table, i.e. because of the oral consent that means full penetrative consent then it's not that straightforward.

Which is your point about a minefield, which is correct. However, some mines are more easily identifiable than others. Not all cases are the same

Sure but my main point was that lawyers and politicians need to use commonsense when defining consent otherwise they jury has an impossible task. In theory if a man is in the process of ejaculating the woman can withdraw her consent at that point.

In the absence of witnesses and other evidence Jury's have to go on the balance of probabilities do they believe victim or accused. And when they often say not guilty due to lack of compelling evidence then the politicians and activists complain.

As I said a minefield where responsibility gets dumped on the jury.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 21 Sep 23 5.21pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Defo depends on the context of the case.

If you're suggesting that because someone is engaged in one sexual act that means that all sexual acts are on the table, i.e. because of the oral consent that means full penetrative consent then it's not that straightforward.

Which is your point about a minefield, which is correct. However, some mines are more easily identifiable than others. Not all cases are the same

It is a minefield, which is why judgements should be cautious.

For me, with stuff like that, it's about physical coercion or violence.....But that's also sometimes not so easy to prove.

If a women puts herself into a sexual situation and then starts treating the events like a running commentary consent form it's unrealistic.

How would anyone of us know the likely truth. I think we would have to personally know the people involved to gauge how honest they are as individuals....and even that's not perfect.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 21 Sep 23 5.23pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Sure but my main point was that lawyers and politicians need to use commonsense when defining consent otherwise they jury has an impossible task. In theory if a man is in the process of ejaculating the woman can withdraw her consent at that point.

In the absence of witnesses and other evidence Jury's have to go on the balance of probabilities do they believe victim or accused. And when they often say not guilty due to lack of compelling evidence then the politicians and activists complain.

As I said a minefield where responsibility gets dumped on the jury.

Yeah, I heard that one once and it's nuts.

If you forgive the pun.

There are certain announcements from public bodies that just have you questioning the common sense of the people involved.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 21 Sep 23 5.31pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

As a social conservative I too also find the idea of a male who is significantly older than 16 shagging a 16 year old female as distasteful.

The father would be in his rights to be angry....If this happened then the father is either not in their lives or just a poor one.

However, I also get a bit frustrated with this contention when I hear it brought up.

Something should either be legal or not.....Attaching shame to something legal is just an indication to me that that law is inadequate.

Raise the age of consent or add some age difference barrier or remove the criticism. Everything should be clear because if Brand did this and it was consensual then he did nothing illegal.

Just make it very clear what's ok to do and what isn't ok to do.


Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Sep 2023 5.32pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View eagleman13's Profile eagleman13 Flag On The Road To Hell & Alicante 21 Sep 23 5.34pm Send a Private Message to eagleman13 Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add eagleman13 as a friend

Anyway, has Russell Brand been arrested & charged for what the usual suspects want him to be? Asking for the world.

 


I'm a blind man, i'm a blind man, now my room is cold,
When a blind man cries, Lord, he feels it from his soul.
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 5.48pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

It wasn't raised or mentioned but is still the reason. The narrative has changed then, originally your claim was that the police were biding their time and working with social services to build their cases. If resources were the problem what would they have prioritised over the on going abuse of thousands of young people?
The political unacceptability is the whole point.

They werenít biding their time. They were adopting a softly softly strategy that appears, due to it being applied in several places, to have been devised centrally. Whether that was an acknowledgement of a lack of resources is unknown. No one argues that the abuse of thousands of children ought not be a priority but itís how to achieve the best outcome with the available resources that the commanders had to decide. Who knows what was said by them to their political masters.

Alongside that is the fact that poor recruitment, poor pay and poor training results in a poor quality of service. Underfunding is the root cause of that.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 21 Sep 23 5.57pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

As a social conservative I too also find the idea of a male who is significantly older than 16 shagging a 16 year old female as distasteful.

The father would be in his rights to be angry....If this happened then the father is either not in their lives or just a poor one.

However, I also get a bit frustrated with this contention when I hear it brought up.

Something should either be legal or not.....Attaching shame to something legal is just an indication to me that that law is inadequate.

Raise the age of consent or add some age difference barrier or remove the criticism. Everything should be clear because if Brand did this and it was consensual then he did nothing illegal.

Just make it very clear what's ok to do and what isn't ok to do.


Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Sep 2023 5.32pm)

Any law which has an age requirement will always have this problem. The LA police made a big deal about finding a p*** magazine at MJ's house called Barely Legal which of course meant it was legal.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 21 Sep 23 6.03pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

As a social conservative I too also find the idea of a male who is significantly older than 16 shagging a 16 year old female as distasteful.

The father would be in his rights to be angry....If this happened then the father is either not in their lives or just a poor one.

However, I also get a bit frustrated with this contention when I hear it brought up.

Something should either be legal or not.....Attaching shame to something legal is just an indication to me that that law is inadequate.

Raise the age of consent or add some age difference barrier or remove the criticism. Everything should be clear because if Brand did this and it was consensual then he did nothing illegal.

Just make it very clear what's ok to do and what isn't ok to do.


Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Sep 2023 5.32pm)

There's a lot of focus about illegality here as though if nothing has been proven to be illegal, then move on, nothing to see here. Savile would be delighted.

I'd argue that public social and moral critique of a public figure held up to be some sort of past national treasure is just as valid and note that this can quite rightly lead to various individuals and institutions creating distance between someone without any illegality needing to be involved.

If I'm a brand (of the corporate type) and the sordid details of someone I pay to be associated with sleeping with hundreds of women, some borderline children come out in the papers without legal challenge, along with everything else plus actual factual reminders of how cringe and creepy I used to actually be come to light, I think I'd know what I'd do.

He has right to reply Ė give an interview. Follow up statement. Get the lawyers involved if untrue.

I'm afraid all I hear so far is... silence.

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 21 Sep 23 6.04pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

They werenít biding their time. They were adopting a softly softly strategy that appears, due to it being applied in several places, to have been devised centrally. Whether that was an acknowledgement of a lack of resources is unknown. No one argues that the abuse of thousands of children ought not be a priority but itís how to achieve the best outcome with the available resources that the commanders had to decide. Who knows what was said by them to their political masters.

Alongside that is the fact that poor recruitment, poor pay and poor training results in a poor quality of service. Underfunding is the root cause of that.

OK. I'll stick with the fear of being thought racist idea as stated by various police chiefs and others.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 20 of 33 < 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?