Originally posted by FrontEnder
View Post
- 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!
More police sexism
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
Originally posted by woohoo View PostWe aren't talking about punishing someone for not being able to prove a rape allegation. In this example the women lied for 2 years, told her friends how much she enjoyed sex with him and sent him a number of messages saying she wanted sex. It should never have got to court.
She had the option to stop lying and hold her hands up. At some level there needs to be personal responsibility.
Black and white cases are rare. False allegations are rare. I don't think it's worth changing an important law that provides absolute protection to victims to counter a practically non existent problem.
Originally posted by woohoo View PostIn this example the women lied for 2 years, told her friends how much she enjoyed sex with him and sent him a number of messages saying she wanted sex. It should never have got to court.Comment
-
Originally posted by SueEllen View PostActually the defence gets the evidence the police gives them so it is definitely not their fault.
The problem here is with the police and the system of handing over evidence.
In an ideal world a neutral party would decide what evidence is crucial for a case, so both parties have it and not leave it up to an individual police officer to decide in an allegation of rape that evidence of a relationship between both parties which involved sexual fantasies was not relevant.
The idea any teenager / twenty something didn't discuss their life electronically is almost impossible to believe nowadays. The defence should have insisted as they did under new management.Comment
-
Originally posted by FrontEnder View PostI understand that isn't anyones intention. However I firmly believe that would be how some rape victims would perceive things.
Black and white cases are rare. False allegations are rare. I don't think it's worth changing an important law that provides absolute protection to victims to counter a practically non existent problem.
It's quite possible to withdraw consent at any time you know.
The lady committed a crime, she was not raped, she made it up to hurt her ex partner. She lied and made rape convictions less likely. Her behaviour will now be referenced on any marginal cases. She is still not being named.
Should we not prosecute divorcees that falsely accuse their partners of domestic violence to get advantage in case we upset rape victims? Or shoplifters or muggers?Comment
-
Originally posted by northernladyuk View PostWhen did you become a pro-rape activist? Is it part of the whole F4J misogyny thing?
Hate blossoms on the Internet when people can't just say "I disagree". Brillo posted a news story along with his own robust views on the matter. I agree with some of those, except this bit: "Women are allowed to get drunk, consent to sex, then retrospectively change their minds of course". I disagree with that, because I think it is an exaggerated generalisation. So I just say "I disagree". It is enough.
Calling someone a devil because they have an alternative view is wrong and leads nowhere, except to a horrible place where people dare not speak, or to the "culture war" that blights modern discourse. Our own views are just views, no more. If you disagree with someone, don't use smears and labels, just say "I disagree".Comment
-
Originally posted by unixman View PostOne of the worst comments I have seen on CUK.
Hate blossoms on the Internet when people can't just say "I disagree". Brillo posted a news story along with his own robust views on the matter. I agree with some of those, except this bit: "Women are allowed to get drunk, consent to sex, then retrospectively change their minds of course". I disagree with that, because I think it is an exaggerated generalisation. So I just say "I disagree". It is enough.
Calling someone a devil because they have an alternative view is wrong and leads nowhere, except to a horrible place where people dare not speak, or to the "culture war" that blights modern discourse. Our own views are just views, no more. If you disagree with someone, don't use smears and labels, just say "I disagree".Comment
-
Originally posted by FrontEnder View PostIt's quite possible to withdraw consent at any time you know.Comment
-
Originally posted by GJABS View PostThis went far beyond being unable to prove it - the woman was proven to have lied about it.Comment
-
Originally posted by unixman View PostOne of the worst comments I have seen on CUK.
Hate blossoms on the Internet when people can't just say "I disagree". Brillo posted a news story along with his own robust views on the matter. I agree with some of those, except this bit: "Women are allowed to get drunk, consent to sex, then retrospectively change their minds of course". I disagree with that, because I think it is an exaggerated generalisation. So I just say "I disagree". It is enough.
Calling someone a devil because they have an alternative view is wrong and leads nowhere, except to a horrible place where people dare not speak, or to the "culture war" that blights modern discourse. Our own views are just views, no more. If you disagree with someone, don't use smears and labels, just say "I disagree".
Comment
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostAny time. So after the event then. And we have our HMRC mole!
The point I was making is that you can consent 99 times, but if you say no on the 100th time and are forced into it, it's rape.Comment
Topic is closed
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Andrew Griffith MP says Tories would reform IR35 Oct 7 00:41
- New umbrella company JSL rules: a 2026 guide for contractors Oct 5 22:50
- Top 5 contractor compliance challenges, as 2025-26 nears Oct 3 08:53
- Joint and Several Liability ‘won’t retire HMRC's naughty list’ Oct 2 05:28
- What contractors can take from the Industria Umbrella Ltd case Sep 30 23:05
- Is ‘Open To Work’ on LinkedIn due an IR35 dropdown menu? Sep 30 05:57
- IR35: Control — updated for 2025-26 Sep 28 21:28
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 20:17
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 08:17
- ‘Subdued’ IT contractor jobs market took third tumble in a row in August Sep 25 08:07
Comment