ChatterBank1 min ago
This Is Not Consent!
I am shocked and disgusted by this especially as a woman did it to another woman.
https:/ /www.mi rror.co .uk/new s/world -news/t hisisno tconsen t-fury- after-t eens-th ong-135 81282?u tm_sour ce=face book.co m&u tm_medi um=soci al& utm_cam paign=m irror_m ain
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by woofgang. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I d9 not think she would have had to hold them up in court. They would have been part of the evidence as most complainants and accused's clothes would be. Not that that makes any difference. It is appalling to ask the jury to make assumptions based on what she is wearing. It goes back to the "She was asking for it" train of thought which cropped up in the 90s. I thought we had moved away from that.
I do not know how the judge summed up. I hope he made the point that she was not to be judged in her clothes.
Consent cases are always difficult tho. Normally one person's word against another.
I do not know how the judge summed up. I hope he made the point that she was not to be judged in her clothes.
Consent cases are always difficult tho. Normally one person's word against another.
Well, I don't have the ability to tell what underwear a woman is wearing without doing something either unlawful or downright pervy.
So taking that into consideration, how can her concealed underwear be evidence for the accused?
What next.
'I've had my house robbed'
''Well you asked for it because the burglar saw a laptop, hi-fi and flat screen TV in your house when he looked through the window''
'I've been mugged'
''Well, you were in possession of a wallet containing money''
So taking that into consideration, how can her concealed underwear be evidence for the accused?
What next.
'I've had my house robbed'
''Well you asked for it because the burglar saw a laptop, hi-fi and flat screen TV in your house when he looked through the window''
'I've been mugged'
''Well, you were in possession of a wallet containing money''
no mention that the judge (also a woman) said any evidence should be disregarded. As far as I can see he just denied everything and they believed him.
https:/ /tinyur l.com/y b5624xv
https:/
Look at it another way Deskdiary... what possible relevance could her knickers have to whether she had been raped or not? It's the fact that evidence like that should not be brought up never mind admissible that is the problem not even so much that his defence team attempted to use it.
Unless she knew the accused and they had an online chat that mentioned her knickers and something secual she wanted him to do to her involving them, this should not even have cropped up. How do rapists know what sort of knickers a woman has on until they choose to rape? Have I got a thong on now or some granny pants, or perhaps i'm commando? do you know? No you don't, and you wouldn't unless you forced me to have sex with you or I had sex with you of my own accord- either way the knickers have no bearing other than to try to paint the victim as some sort of scarlet woman.
Unless she knew the accused and they had an online chat that mentioned her knickers and something secual she wanted him to do to her involving them, this should not even have cropped up. How do rapists know what sort of knickers a woman has on until they choose to rape? Have I got a thong on now or some granny pants, or perhaps i'm commando? do you know? No you don't, and you wouldn't unless you forced me to have sex with you or I had sex with you of my own accord- either way the knickers have no bearing other than to try to paint the victim as some sort of scarlet woman.
Is this the question Talbot?
"If you were in charge of the system DD, would you allow the type of underwear a woman was wearing to be used as evidence?
Do you think it is right or wrong?"
I'd refer you to mine of 21.36 which does answer the question, but for the avoidance of any doubt....
If the knickers are germane to the case, then they are fair game. If they are not germane, then it is not fair game.
The judge felt they were germane - he or she knows better than you or me, so......end of story.
"If you were in charge of the system DD, would you allow the type of underwear a woman was wearing to be used as evidence?
Do you think it is right or wrong?"
I'd refer you to mine of 21.36 which does answer the question, but for the avoidance of any doubt....
If the knickers are germane to the case, then they are fair game. If they are not germane, then it is not fair game.
The judge felt they were germane - he or she knows better than you or me, so......end of story.
I think this is a similar issue to a complainants previous sexual history which can only be introduced in certain circumstances.
I'm still not sure how relevant someones underwear is tho. Imo someone can dress as provocatively as she likes or she may intend to have sex and then change her mind but no still means no.
I'm still not sure how relevant someones underwear is tho. Imo someone can dress as provocatively as she likes or she may intend to have sex and then change her mind but no still means no.