This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| Tue 19 Jan 10, 11:24 AM Degenerate  UK(M), 5 yrs    |
This piece from Peter Tatchell. "Watch out. If you have ever had fantasies about group sex and shared them with another person, you have forfeited your right to say no to sex and can be lawfully raped. " http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001... "When a person does not consent to sex, it is rape, regardless of their gender, social background, sexual history or erotic fantasies. No means no - and there are, or should be, no exceptions. " Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk Edited Tue 19 Jan 10, 11:25 AM by Degenerate | ||
| 19 Jan 10, 11:31 AM MissP UK(EN), 8 yrs |
From that article, after reading her online chats with the alleged rapist, it would seem that hew own solicitor didn't want to go ahead with the rape trial. That would suggest to me that perhaps she'd gone further than just discussing rape fantasies, it looks like she actually organised it and cried wolf afterwards. I am surmising of course, as we don't have the chatlogs to view - but I find it very hard to believe that a prosecuting solicitor would back off so quickly when presented with his client's "fantasies", as he could easily argue them as such. And the judge agreed with him More to this that meets Mr Tatchell's eye or pen I think! | ||
| 19 Jan 10, 11:33 AM skadii UK(W), 5 yrs |
I don't, it sounds like the legal system in progress. The prosecution has to prove so that the jury are sure that it was rape, and I'd infer from the article that both the (male) prosecutor and the (male) judge would align fantasy with reality sufficiently to make certainty of prosecution impossible. "She was a filthy slag who wanted it really and this just proves it m'lud."
| ||
| 19 Jan 10, 11:35 AM SteveDuk UK(CM), 11 yrs  |
Why do they blame the judge? The prosecutors offered no evidence so I don't see what else the judge could have done.
| ||
| 19 Jan 10, 11:43 AM Admin UK, 14 yrs |
Tatchell really is a histrionic Daily-Mail style idiot sometimes  http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/260915/ All the prosecution had was the prejudice that group sex must have been rape because she wouldn't have consented to group sex. Regards, Admin Remember: it's only a website Edited 19 Jan 10, 11:48 AM by Admin | ||
| 19 Jan 10, 11:44 AM MissP UK(EN), 8 yrs |
As judges, solicitors and juries tend not to favour young black men with Nigerian-sounding names, methinks if the prosecution had even the Bob-Hope of getting a prosecution, even on a thought crime (they were also "accused of conspiracy to rape", they would've. But it seems there was no provable crime, and worse still, it *looks* like she organised it all and implicated possibly innocent people.
| ||
| 19 Jan 10, 11:45 AM skadii UK(W), 5 yrs |
He could have accepted it without adding his twopennorth to the condemnation-fest... | ||
| 19 Jan 10, 11:46 AM emark UK, 9 yrs |
It's a worrying case, but I don't think anyone was saying it's okay to rape her or that she must have consented it. Rather the problem was a lack of evidence. Proof is needed beyond reasonable doubt, so saying we don't have that standard isn't saying the person must have consented. The question here is why didn't the prosecution have no evidence? Was it that they had no evidence, or that their only evidence or planned argument was contradicted by the chat logs? | ||
| 19 Jan 10, 11:50 AM Crystal_Eyes UK, 5 yrs   |
I suspected much the same thing. Under any other circumstances revealing a sexual fantasy would not have been a reason to halt the trial, however when ones own solicitor stops it you have to question why. After all, rape fantasies are, I believe, the most common female fantasy, and as any fule no, the difference between the fantasy and the reality is massive. I suspect (though we do like to slate our legal system) that even those on the bench are aware of this fact. ------------------------------------------ | ||
| 19 Jan 10, 12:14 PM SteveDuk UK(CM), 11 yrs |
You obviously have knowledge that we don't, do tell. All I got from the piece was him saying her credibility was shot. From that it appeared that she said something in the web chat that contradicted what she later said.
Edited 19 Jan 10, 12:15 PM by SteveDuk | ||
| 19 Jan 10, 5:00 PM JJBoy UK(SE), 11 yrs |
Oh C'mon, do you really think this? |
