Shopping & Style2 mins ago
This Is Not Consent!
I am shocked and disgusted by this especially as a woman did it to another woman.
https:/
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.
JJ109 - // "PERCEIVED" character of both parties is bound to influence this. //
But you didn't say 'perceived' in the post to which I replied, either in capital letters or not - that changes entirely the meaning of what you are saying, and had you said 'perceived', I would not have challenged you on it.
But you didn't say 'perceived' in the post to which I replied, either in capital letters or not - that changes entirely the meaning of what you are saying, and had you said 'perceived', I would not have challenged you on it.
Deskdiary - // The trouble is Andy, I'm becoming flippant because I cant think of how else to frame the same response.
I have literally no idea whether the knickers are relevant to the case. BUT nobody on this thread knows whether they are relevant or not.
The judge felt they were relevant.
Some people don't like my responses because they feel I should automatically consider that anybody who raises dress as a defence is wrong. And actually I generally agree with them. But the trouble is these same people are wilfully ignoring the point that the judge is in a far better position to decide on what is and what is not relevant than EVERYBODY on this thread. //
I would not for one minute suggest that I should offer advice on how to debate, but experience tells me that offering a point, even more than once, does not mean that it is always going to be accepted, and sometimes it never is.
You have made your point a couple of times, I have supported your view, because I agree that the judge runs the trial as she sees fit, and may be offering this evidence for reasons to which we, as outsiders, are not privy.
The final result has to be, you have made your point, and people accept it, or not, that is the nature of debate - but frustration doesn't increase your chances of getting your view across, and it's often best just to leave it, and carry on.
I have literally no idea whether the knickers are relevant to the case. BUT nobody on this thread knows whether they are relevant or not.
The judge felt they were relevant.
Some people don't like my responses because they feel I should automatically consider that anybody who raises dress as a defence is wrong. And actually I generally agree with them. But the trouble is these same people are wilfully ignoring the point that the judge is in a far better position to decide on what is and what is not relevant than EVERYBODY on this thread. //
I would not for one minute suggest that I should offer advice on how to debate, but experience tells me that offering a point, even more than once, does not mean that it is always going to be accepted, and sometimes it never is.
You have made your point a couple of times, I have supported your view, because I agree that the judge runs the trial as she sees fit, and may be offering this evidence for reasons to which we, as outsiders, are not privy.
The final result has to be, you have made your point, and people accept it, or not, that is the nature of debate - but frustration doesn't increase your chances of getting your view across, and it's often best just to leave it, and carry on.
SparklyKid - // The judge said it was, no more to be said. //
Indeed she did, but obviously that does not mean that the entire population is going to nod its head sagely, and agree with her!
The judge's actions may have been correct, but they have raised a good deal of comment, and that is what has formed the basis of this debate.
If we all agreed with everything simply because it happened, society would die tomorrow.
Indeed she did, but obviously that does not mean that the entire population is going to nod its head sagely, and agree with her!
The judge's actions may have been correct, but they have raised a good deal of comment, and that is what has formed the basis of this debate.
If we all agreed with everything simply because it happened, society would die tomorrow.
As far as I can tell we don’t know why the underwear was deemed admissible as evidence and therefore, I don’t see how anyone can agree or disagree with the judge. As Sparklykid says, the judge said it was, so with no further information available to us there is no more to be said. It’s a pointless discussion.
Naomi - // As far as I can tell we don’t know why the underwear was deemed admissible as evidence and therefore, I don’t see how anyone can agree or disagree with the judge. As Sparklykid says, the judge said it was, so with no further information available to us there is no more to be said. It’s a pointless discussion. //
I think the debate, once it settled down beyond the initial knee-jerk reactions, has pondered and discussed how and why the evidence was allowed, and the emotional reaction to it, and I think they are all valid reasons to discuss the point, and the length of the thread suggests that others agree with that view.
I think the debate, once it settled down beyond the initial knee-jerk reactions, has pondered and discussed how and why the evidence was allowed, and the emotional reaction to it, and I think they are all valid reasons to discuss the point, and the length of the thread suggests that others agree with that view.
I'm happy to accept the concept that judges (and juries) usually know more about the case than the outside audience does, but that doesn't excuse us from commenting on it, and drawing on our own experiences to call out -- frankly, quite obvious -- occasions when it's clearly wrong for them to have reached their decisions. This is one such case; there is literally no circumstance I can think of in which a woman's choice of underwear should be held against her, either as a defendant or as a complainant. It's an antiquated notion of morality and sexuality.
If the judge did indeed suggest that the choice of clothing was relevant then they were wrong to do so. I was under the impression that it was only the defending counsel who had brought it up, rather than the judge, but even then it still stands.
If the judge did indeed suggest that the choice of clothing was relevant then they were wrong to do so. I was under the impression that it was only the defending counsel who had brought it up, rather than the judge, but even then it still stands.
andy-hughes
SparklyKid - // It is not consent, this debate is just silly. //
As I read it, the debate has centred around the rightness of the alleged victim's clothing being used in evidence.
A victim's clothing could be used in evidence but not for the reason that it is sexy. Which is why the defence barrister used them as evidence.
SparklyKid - // It is not consent, this debate is just silly. //
As I read it, the debate has centred around the rightness of the alleged victim's clothing being used in evidence.
A victim's clothing could be used in evidence but not for the reason that it is sexy. Which is why the defence barrister used them as evidence.
I don't even see that the stae of the knickers is important or could ever be.
You can have underwear torn off and end up with bruises in perfectly consentual sex and equally a rapist could corner you and menace and threaten you until you got undressed quite voluntarily and ended up relatively undamaged.
ie. ''There's no-one here to help you. Take off your clothes now, don't struggle or make a sound and you'll be alright, if you don't I'll do it anyway and then I'll kill you.'
Not all rape is being bundled off down a back alley and beaten until you are overpowered.
You can have underwear torn off and end up with bruises in perfectly consentual sex and equally a rapist could corner you and menace and threaten you until you got undressed quite voluntarily and ended up relatively undamaged.
ie. ''There's no-one here to help you. Take off your clothes now, don't struggle or make a sound and you'll be alright, if you don't I'll do it anyway and then I'll kill you.'
Not all rape is being bundled off down a back alley and beaten until you are overpowered.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Law5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
