Jon the Hat Posted 27 November 2019 Share Posted 27 November 2019 2 minutes ago, LiberalFox said: How does the status of the Chagos Islands affect you, affect us? It's not even really British seeing as there's a US military base there. I didn't think Corbyn's actions over the Salisbury incident were great but "took Russia's side" isn't exactly true is it? Anyway not my party to defend. It is indicative of the man - he takes the principle over the individuals impacted every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 27 November 2019 Share Posted 27 November 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50567994 Wonder what he'll do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 27 November 2019 Share Posted 27 November 2019 “You shouldn't seek to mislead people" says the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not a single ounce of self awareness. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 27 November 2019 Share Posted 27 November 2019 2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: “You shouldn't seek to mislead people" says the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not a single ounce of self awareness. Accurate as it is, it is a fair bit Donald Trump complaining about a misogynist, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellend Sebastian Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 Wat? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50546184 Increasingly, I despair of the world and live in hope that sea levels will rise sufficiently to drown us all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 15 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said: Wat? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50546184 Increasingly, I despair of the world and live in hope that sea levels will rise sufficiently to drown us all Surprisingly popular though in my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 17 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said: Wat? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50546184 Increasingly, I despair of the world and live in hope that sea levels will rise sufficiently to drown us all FWIW I don't think this represents much of an increase in recent times - such consent violations used to be part and parcel of "being married" for unfortunate women and it simply wasn't talked about. Unfortunately it is also showing that the importance of consent isn't reaching the skulls of a lot of blokes that need to hear it and so perhaps different methods might be needed to accomplish that. 2 minutes ago, MattP said: Surprisingly popular though in my experience. ....except when it's not and it becomes a consent violation, which seems to be more popular. Let's not go down the "some women enjoy it" mitigation route, shall we? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50582708 It's plausible that the bloke is a sex pest, but I'm not sure what that has to do with his current testimony and the validity or lack thereof. Obvious character attack is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 22 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said: Wat? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50546184 Increasingly, I despair of the world and live in hope that sea levels will rise sufficiently to drown us all Too many sad 'alpha male' types spending too much time watching pornhub. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: ...except when it's not and it becomes a consent violation, which seems to be more popular. Let's not go down the "some women enjoy it" mitigation route, shall we? But some do. I don't see the point in pretending otherwise. Why kid ourselves? There are ways to find out and it doesn't take long. Obviously if someone carries on when it's clearly not wanted it's sexual assault, sure we all agree on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, MattP said: But some do. I don't see the point in pretending otherwise. Why kid ourselves? There are ways to find out and it doesn't take long. Obviously if someone carries on when it's clearly not wanted it's sexual assault, sure we all agree on that. You're right, some do. My point is that fact has absolutely zero relevance to those same sexual assaults and I wish that lawyers and laymen both would not seek to bring it into a discussion as because it is irrelevant it serves no more purpose than an attempt to mitigate and often victim-blame (not saying that you are doing that right here btw, you've been clear on that, just that there are manifold examples of it). Edited 28 November 2019 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 11 minutes ago, leicsmac said: You're right, some do. My point is that fact has absolutely zero relevance to those same sexual assaults and I wish that lawyers and laymen both would not seek to bring it into a discussion as because it is irrelevant it serves no more purpose than an attempt to mitigate and often victim-blame (not saying that you are doing that right here btw, you've been clear on that, just that there are manifold examples of it). Surely anything factual should be allowed in a court of law should it not? Why would you hide the truth from a jury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, MattP said: Surely anything factual should be allowed in a court of law should it not? Why would you hide the truth from a jury? It should certainly be allowed in a court of law...followed by a swift objection from prosecution counsel for relevance that is then sustained by the judge. Should take all of a couple of minutes. The defence counsel should use any and all possible tactics to help their client, but that doesn't mean that a judge has to tolerate defences based on irrelevant data (Chewbacca Defence) otherwise each case would be ten times as long as they are. Edited 28 November 2019 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 3 minutes ago, leicsmac said: It should certainly be allowed in a court of law...followed by a swift objection from prosecution counsel for relevance that is then sustained by the judge. Should take all of a couple of minutes. The defence counsel should use any and all possible tactics to help their client, but that doesn't mean that a judge has to tolerate defences based on irrelevant data (Chewbacca Defence) otherwise each case would be ten times as long as they are. If it's relevant to a case it should be heard, you can't rig a court hearing in favour of one side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 2 minutes ago, MattP said: If it's relevant to a case it should be heard, you can't rig a court hearing in favour of one side. But it's not relevant. And this is my third post saying this - I'm curious as to why you seemingly think that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkie1999 Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50579077 Interesting that each household buys on average 54 bags for life per year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 Posted by Donald on his twitter account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiberalFox Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 1 hour ago, MattP said: If it's relevant to a case it should be heard, you can't rig a court hearing in favour of one side. 1 hour ago, leicsmac said: But it's not relevant. And this is my third post saying this - I'm curious as to why you seemingly think that it is. I kind of agree with both of you. Ideally a jury wouldn't be taken in by bollocks defences but where there's indication that this is happening what should be done about it? We don't want people getting away with sexual assault do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 34 minutes ago, LiberalFox said: I kind of agree with both of you. Ideally a jury wouldn't be taken in by bollocks defences but where there's indication that this is happening what should be done about it? We don't want people getting away with sexual assault do we? Can you clarify what you mean by "this" in this context as I'm a little confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiberalFox Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Can you clarify what you mean by "this" in this context as I'm a little confused? Sorry jumped a little ahead. I mean people who commit sexual assault getting away with it because of how easy to claim something was consensual. Seen some really shocking examples. Maybe I'm not putting it across quite right. Edited 28 November 2019 by LiberalFox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, LiberalFox said: Sorry jumped a little ahead. I mean people who commit sexual assault getting away with it because of how easy to claim something was consensual. Seen some really shocking examples. Oh yeah, now I get it. And the only reason they do that is because for some reason some folks are bound and determined to draw links between consensual kink and grotesque consent violations of this type when the former has absolutely zero relevance to the latter and any such argument should really be shot down for relevance by a prosecution lawyer and judge the moment it is delivered. It's the "well, she was wearing X" argument in rape cases all over again. Edited 28 November 2019 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiberalFox Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Oh yeah, now I get it. And the only reason they do that is because for some reason some folks are bound and determined to draw links between consensual kink and grotesque consent violations of this type when the former has absolutely zero relevance to the latter and any such argument should really be shot down for relevance by a prosecution lawyer and judge the moment it is delivered. It's the "well, she was wearing X" argument in rape cases all over again. Yeah exactly, you wouldn't get a "well some women like sex" argument in a rape case. The acts aren't relevant it's the consent that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 2 hours ago, leicsmac said: But it's not relevant. And this is my third post saying this - I'm curious as to why you seemingly think that it is. But sometimes it is relevant. That's the point. We are talking about cases here where people can be locked up for years - the jury should know everything before coming to that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 2 minutes ago, MattP said: But sometimes it is relevant. That's the point. We are talking about cases here where people can be locked up for years - the jury should know everything before coming to that conclusion. I'm curious as to when it is relevant, then. When a bloke decides to give a woman a black eye and a broken nose because she said that she might be up for something a bit spicier but didn't specify further? When a bloke kills his other half and then claims that it was some dreadful accident because apparently she gave consent to having her windpipe crushed for over three minutes? What, exactly, does the conditions of consent as they pertain to one person or another have to do with that consent being clearly and willfully violated? As LF above says, it's the violation of consent that matters, exactly where that line of consent exists with whoever was unlucky enough to be the victim is immaterial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 November 2019 Share Posted 28 November 2019 10 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I'm curious as to when it is relevant, then. When a bloke decides to give a woman a black eye and a broken nose because she said that she might be up for something a bit spicier but didn't specify further? When a bloke kills his other half and then claims that it was some dreadful accident because apparently she gave consent to having her windpipe crushed for over three minutes? What, exactly, does the conditions of consent as they pertain to one person or another have to do with that consent being clearly and willfully violated? As LF above says, it's the violation of consent that matters, exactly where that line of consent exists with whoever was unlucky enough to be the victim is immaterial. The fact you immediately have to go to the extent of black eyes and a broken nose shows just how it's impossible to even talk about this sensibly. A court of law should have every piece of information available to it - you shouldn't not hear things because you want to influence a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts