- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Mon 9th February 2015

UK Barrister: Rape and Consent

Filed under: Gender Politics,Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — Pete @ 9:23 pm

Barrister David Osborne caused outrage with his blog She was gagging for it (the blog has been changed due to public outrage, but the original is included below) where he went as far as an wrote:

I have a very simple solution which I hope you will agree is fair. If the complainant (I do not refer to her as the victim) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, when she was “raped’, this provides the accused with a complete defence. End of story and a victory for fairness, moderation and common sense!

While I disagree with this particular solution, it must be seen in the context of the debate (if there ever were one). So on the one hand we have David Osborn’s “solution” and on the other the feminists who are basically demanding – so far almost unopposed – that the definition of rape should include “sexual activities with a woman who is drugged or drunk“. This solution is every bit as misandristic as Osborn’s is misogynistic. If only for the reason of bringing some balance into the debate, I applaud him for the courage to write these things.

The original blog follows:

I have been following the latest machinations over rape allegations with some interest, as they have serious consequences for all red-bloodied males who are out on the rut. For the past ten years or more, a politically driven agenda has been thrust down the throats of court users about the deplorably low percentage of rape allegations that lead to conviction, and successive governments have been enjoined to do something about it.

My considerable experience tells me that there are basically two defences to an allegation of rape: either “it wasn’t me gov”, or “she was gagging for it”. It is also correct in my own experience that most of those accused of rape are acquitted, not simply as a result of the brilliance of my advocacy, but because the jury did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent.

Into this squirming sack of grubby emotions steps Ms. Alison Saunders, who is apparently the Director of Public Prosecutions, so she should know better. And is it just me, or are women taking over the world? And is it just me, or do you share my dislike for the prefix “Ms’? It’s all to do with political correctness, or so they say, but speaking for my wife, and I suspect millions of other wives, when she agreed to marry me, convention dictated that she took my name and became Mrs. Osborne. She does not wish to be referred to as Ms. Osborne, nor does she wish to be known as my partner. It’s insulting!

Anyway, back to Ms. Saunders and her camp followers. She has decided, or rather it has been decided for her, that anybody who makes an allegation of rape must be believed, and everything possible in the trial process must be bent towards the conviction of the accused. Rape trials from now on are no longer to be prosecution led, but conviction led, and when you add into the mix that prison sentences for rape are getting longer and longer, the opportunities for a serious miscarriage of justice are self-evident. Or should that be “ms.carriage’?

Sarah Vine, or more properly Ms. Sarah Vine the journalist, summed up the feelings not just of red-bloodied males but also the legions of fair minded people. Like me, she deplores the so-called “vagenda’, the all men are rapists brigade advanced by vocal feministas like Harriet Harman and the “femi-fascist’ twitter mob who increasingly seem to hold sway in public policy. Predictably, Ms. Harman, and I use that form of address advisedly, replied to Ms. Vine’s comments with the usual “feminista’ clichés, defending Ms. Saunders for trying to ensure that victims of rape get justice. Gawd help us!

I have always found it distasteful and unattractive the suggestion that as the victim was blind drunk she therefore unable to give her consent to sex, or more to the point, she gave her consent which she would not have given had she been sober. In my book, consent is consent, blind drunk or otherwise, and regret after the event cannot make it rape as Ms. Saunders and Ms. Harman seem to be advocating. Save us from the Mssss!

I have a very simple solution which I hope you will agree is fair. If the complainant (I do not refer to her as the victim) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, when she was “raped’, this provides the accused with a complete defence. End of story and a victory for fairness, moderation and common sense!

7 Responses to “UK Barrister: Rape and Consent”

  1. Ashish says:

    I’m tired of saying this, but I’ll repeat it once again:

    Stay away from all females who are not immediate family. If you have the urge to have sex, pay some money to an escort. It works out cheaper long term.

    Females are not a trustworthy species. They are born with a condition called the sudden mood change syndrome, which can either make you or destroy you. And in the current times, it is the latter.

  2. Lukenz says:

    There are just so many reasons why a woman calls rape when it was not. Be it money, be it shame, be it humiliation, be it the loss of a new relationship after a one night stand. Be it rejection after consensual sex. It could be just a marriage split and a fight over children.

    Whatever the reason was the prosecutors allow thinly built cases to court and the figures show almost 90% are found not guilty. You even start to wonder if it’s the prosecutors just making employment for themselves.

    Now ask yourself this one question. Why are men found not guilty of rape? Well the simple answer to that is a jury or 12 men and woman from the community just don’t buy it.

    That’s not good enough shouts UK Alison Saunders. We must change the law to say ‘if a woman is drunk then it’s the man has to prove it wasn’t rape’.

    Even in NZ the new view or angle is to outlaw rape jury trials. That is to say remove the community input who find men not guilty 87% of the time and replace them with a special court and a single specialised judge. Something that would go well beyond the maga carta.

    Today around the world men have who are charged with rape have little or no name suppression. I suspect legal fees may well be up to $100,000 to defend such a charge plus the fall out of all the other things a man would have to go through. Things like losing a job or being stepped down, media shame, loss of family, friends or access to their own children. The damage to men unconsidered and is life changing and excessively severe. And that’s before 87% of them are found not guilty.

    If you get to live long enough on this planet you work out that people, that is to say both men and woman see an opportunity to get even, make a quick buck, or pay-out or just looking for consideration.

    Men. You own a smart phone! Get consent on video first or take a cold shower. And since you can be charged with rape 50 years later, store that video forever.

  3. Man X Norton says:

    Lukenz (#2): Insightful comments. Mainstream media should be publishing this but we hardly ever see any such thing.

    Many false allegations of rape (and other sexual crimes) are believed by the woman more or less genuinely. We know that memory is very malleable and that people come to believe all manner of things that were never true. When she becomes unhappy with the man for whatever reason, she comes to ‘feel exploited’ when she thinks of the sexual encounter they had and her memory of what happened changes to fit in with the exploited feeling. That’s why it’s so important to maintain a normal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in any decision about the veracity of the allegations. Although that standard still applies, fundamental protections against wrongful conviction have been steadily eroded specifically for sexual offence trials, due to feminists convincing society that women are somehow treated unfairly if they have to deal with the same system that male accusers do. Now, the feminists want to discard more basic aspects of justice such as the standard of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’, assuming innocence until proof of guilt, and the right for an accused to cross-examine the accuser.

    It truly is an incredible spectacle unfolding before our eyes, but few in society seem to notice it. They will.

  4. Man X Norton says:

    When a male gets stabbed, the judge sees fit to claim he ‘provoked’ the offender even though the feminists made ‘provocation’ an unacceptable concept when it comes to violence towards women. Apparently, this male stabbing victim disagreed that he provoked the assailant, but that didn’t discourage either the judge from that piece of victim blaming or the news media from publishing it. The offender got 3 years and 10 months for taking a knife to a meeting with the victim then thrusting that knife into the victim’s body. Lucky he didn’t commit a truly serious crime for which he would have received a harsh sentence, like gently touching a female in a way that she felt offended by!

  5. OMG! You're $%&*^^(& says:

    Men. You own a smart phone! Get consent on video first or take a cold shower. And since you can be charged with rape 50 years later, store that video forever.

    Lukenz – firstly, I agree with what you’re saying.
    Now picture this:
    “mmmm mmmm uh-uh-honey ….
    “All right babe, before we go any further, I just need to ask you: Are you consenting to consensual copulation?”
    “Yes!”
    “You are sober, sane, not coerced, not stressed, not manipulated (etc etc)?
    “yes – just do it!”
    “just a moment; (pulls out cellphone) I’m informing you that I’m making an intimate audio recording (Intimate Recordings Act), I might have to share this recording with appropriate authorities, police, lawyers etc (Privacy of Information Act). (calls into the room two independent witnesses)
    “Now again, are you entirely sober, not drunk, under the influence or drugs or medication; sane, not feeling pressured, manipulated, coerced etc etc , and freely consenting to an act of physical copulation; No strings attached, no relational commitment; I will respect you in the morning; what was your name again; said physical act will last approximately 20 minutes; after that you are free to leave, or to remain with me the night; the following actions are expressly precluded (or included, delete those that are not applicable) physical harm, bondage, golden shower, slapping, fetishism (specify your here). Of course you are free to revoke your consent and leave, or remain without further coitus, at any time up to and including the moment before ejaculation. I undertake not to impregnate you; will obligatorily use prophylactics of your choice. You have the right to consult a doctor of your choice any time hereafter. In the unlikely event you are impregnated, you have the full and sole choice to abort the fetus, or carry to term; In said event, I undertake to pay full normal child support plus all incidental expenses until said child reaches the age of majority.
    “flag it; you’re sick. I’m outta here.”

  6. Man X Norton says:

    Good one OMG! You forgot to add that informed consent is required specifically for every act involved in the process. The consent you obtained was for coitus but if you first wish to manually stimulate her or ask her to do so for you, then another consent is necessary. Oral sex as part of foreplay? Same again. Touching her breasts, kissing on the lips, nibbling her ear, a separate consent is required, strictly speaking. Under current ridiculous laws, you can be charged if anything done during the sex process is not what she claims to have expected and consented to.

  7. MurrayBacon says:

    We can “make” so much money, by litigating every possible issue and angle…. Helping ourselves, is serving society!
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    US statesman on trial for sex with dementia patient wife
    By Nick Allen in Los Angeles

    4:26 PM Wednesday Apr 15, 2015
    A husband in his seventies is on trial for sexual abuse and could face up to 10 years in jail for having sexual intercourse with his wife, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease.

    A US jury will have to decide whether Donna Lou Rayhons, who died last year, was mentally capable of consenting to sex with her husband, Henry, in a case being closely watched by doctors and dementia charities.

    Mr Rayhons, 78, a farmer and prominent Iowa state politician, met his wife singing in a church choir after both had been widowed. They married in 2007; she joined him while he conducted business at the state capitol and they spent their time off beekeeping.

    A few years into the marriage, Mrs Rayhons was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and her condition deteriorated rapidly, but the couple continued to have conjugal relations.

    Early last year, at the age of 78, she was moved into the Concord Care Center, a nursing home two miles from where she lived with her husband in Garner, Iowa.

    In May, her husband was told that the nursing home had concluded that Mrs Rayhons was not able to consent to sex.

    At the behest of one of her daughters from a previous marriage, who had concerns, Mrs Rayhons was moved from a private room to a shared one on May 23. That night her room-mate pressed an alarm and told staff that Mr Rayhons had entered the room and pulled over a curtain, and she heard suspicious noises. The woman said: “I’m not stupid. I know what was going on.”

    Nursing home staff called police and Mrs Rayhons was taken to hospital but no signs of abuse were found. Prosecutors said they later found DNA evidence that sex had taken place.

    Mr Rayhons’s visits to his wife were limited and he last saw her on August 7. His final words to her were: “Love you honey.” She died the following day and he was arrested a week later.

    ……

    Dr John Brady, medical director of the nursing home, told the jury that if she responded positively to hugs and affection from her husband, it was a “primal response” not an “informed decision”. He said Mrs Rayhons had scored zero on a standard test for Alzheimer’s when a score below eight counted as severe impairment. Other staff described her as being “in her own little world”.

    Joel Yunek, defending, told the court Mr Rayhons had engaged in intercourse with his wife, but not on May 23. He said on that night Mr Rayhons had prayed with his wife. Mr Yunek said: “She was the love of his life. For him, it was kind of an Indian summer.”

    …….

    His family called the sex abuse charges “illogical and unnatural”. Elizabeth Edgerly, a clinical psychologist with the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “Is the person capable of saying no if they don’t want to do something? That’s one of the biggest pieces. For most people with dementia, even long into the disease, they take comfort in being with people who love them.”

    By Nick Allen in Los Angeles

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar