• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    FFS Just go to the Quayside in Newcastle any Friday or Saturday night, getting shagged by someone you never met before whilst pissed out of your mind is expected behaviour for most Geordie lasses.

    HTH
    I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. [Christopher Hitchens]

    Comment


      #92
      Originally posted by vwdan View Post
      Jesus - I guess this is why people like Ched are ending up in jail. This isn't new legislation - if someone is not deemed in a state to legally consent then you're raping them. Proving it is obviously much harder, but that's the crux.
      I think this is the problem with this conviction... 2 people were accused of rape. She is deemed to have been coherent enough to consent to the first one, and without consuming any additional alcohol she was deemed too drunk to consent to the second one. I don't think there is adequate proof in this case.

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by sartois View Post
        I think this is the problem with this conviction... 2 people were accused of rape. She is deemed to have been coherent enough to consent to the first one, and without consuming any additional alcohol she was deemed too drunk to consent to the second one. I don't think there is adequate proof in this case.
        Ah, but she met and knowingly went to the hotel with Number 1. Number 2 rocked up later on - that seems to be the crux of it all. Did you read the whole appeal - they spoke about this there.

        Comment


          #94
          Originally posted by vwdan View Post
          No, **** off.
          Why not?

          Had I answered first your question then would you say the same?

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by AtW View Post
            Why not?

            Had I answered first your question then would you say the same?
            I didn't think you'd answer and I didn't care either - your question was so silly that it deserved to be ignored. My question was also, deliberately, silly because the facts of the case don't change just because you're related to someone or not. It's pretty clear your opinion would be very different - but then that's why we don't ask the immediate family to sit on the jury or pass the sentence.

            Comment


              #96
              Originally posted by vwdan View Post
              I didn't think you'd answer
              But if I answer it with all honestly then you'd do, in good faith, the same to answer my question?

              Comment


                #97
                Originally posted by vwdan View Post
                No, he hasn't. He has served half his time (Or whatever the exact maths may be) and has been gifted the privilege of serving the rest outside of prison on license. He his still a convicted criminal and is still within the justice system - to say he has served his time completed his punishment is a total misnomer.
                True or false, people released in this way are allowed to work?
                Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                Originally posted by vetran
                Urine is quite nourishing

                Comment


                  #98
                  Originally posted by vwdan View Post
                  Ah, but she met and knowingly went to the hotel with Number 1. Number 2 rocked up later on - that seems to be the crux of it all. Did you read the whole appeal - they spoke about this there.
                  Yeah I've read the whole thing... still not enough for me though to be honest. Then again there is also stuff that wasn't presented to the jury such as the 'when I win big' tweets that the victim posted shortly after the events that maybe also sway my opinion.

                  Comment


                    #99
                    When he arrived at the room it was immediately apparent to him that
                    McDonald and the complainant were engaged in enthusiastic consensual sex. When she was
                    asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes". McDonald stopped.
                    The complainant asked the applicant to perform oral sex on her. He did so and then they had
                    sexual intercourse. Throughout all the activities with him she was enthusiastic, wide awake and
                    she consented to everything that happened. He agreed that he had left the hotel using the fire
                    exit.
                    17. The expert called by the defence calculated that the complainant's likely blood-alcohol level
                    at about 4am would have approximated to something like 2½ times the legal driving limit. He
                    gave evidence that she would have suffered from slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, but he
                    would not have expected any memory loss. It was an essential part of his expert evidence that
                    there were significant doubts about the claim made by the complainant that she had suffered a
                    memory loss. In effect, it was suggested that her assertion was false.
                    Doubt?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                      True or false, people released in this way are allowed to work?
                      Yes. And employers are allowed to say no. And the public are allowed to protest.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X