7 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

The other thing could be that she got drunk and went back tohis room and had sex without a raincoat. As to the medical exam they are mandatory to confirm that she had sex. It will be interesting to see if the media takes this and runs withit just hope the trash edia in the UK donot get it.

Sexual assault does not necessarily mean they had sex:

An action is considered sexual assault if it involves any unwanted sexual contact, such as:

• Unwanted touching or groping of a person's body (like the breasts, buttocks, or genitals), either over or under clothing.

• Forced kissing.

• Attempted rape or coercion into a sexual act.

• Non-physical acts, such as flashing (exposing genitals), forcing someone to strip, or forcing someone to look at images of a sexual nature.

As mentioned in my previous post, we need more information to know what exactly happened.

1 hour ago, Ralf001 said:

She sufferd from post coital regret!

That's a possibility, of course. And if she was in a blackout drunk, she may not even remember consenting.

Blackout drunk and pass-out drunk are similar, but different. In a blackout, you never lose consciousness, but you don't remember what you did. In a pass-out drunk, you actually lose consciousness. Both have happened to me.

That's why I took the oath over 37 years ago, and sat through so many meetings where others shared their humiliating experiences. Go to enough, and you'll hear hundreds of people talking about stupid things they did that they don't even remember. Back in the day, our friends told on us. Nowadays, we have CCTV everywhere and that interwebs thing.

17 minutes ago, impulse said:

That's a possibility, of course. And if she was in a blackout drunk, she may not even remember consenting.

Blackout drunk and pass-out drunk are similar, but different. In a blackout, you never lose consciousness, but you don't remember what you did. In a pass-out drunk, you actually lose consciousness. Both have happened to me.

That's why I took the oath over 37 years ago, and sat through so many meetings where others shared their humiliating experiences. Go to enough, and you'll hear hundreds of people talking about stupid things they did that they don't even remember. Back in the day, our friends told on us. Nowadays, we have CCTV everywhere and that interwebs thing.

Black out drunk is amazing, its a goal I try to hit every weekend.

Is doable If I drink through Friday night into Sunday morning.

Judging by many peoples replies you seem to think what he did was OK and she was at fault.

Maybe many rapists or potential rapists replying ?

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by mlkik

6 minutes ago, mlkik said:

Judging by many peoples replies you seem to think what he did was OK and she was at fault.

Maybe many rapists or potential rapists replying ?

There have been a lot of cases reported where women consented, but later claimed that they didn't. That was a common theme during the Me-Too movement, and the Believe All Women movement. Which have both petered out. I wonder why?

If she didn't consent, the guy should be strung up by his 'nads. But let's get the rest of the story first.

7 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Wife beater T-shirt?

Check.

Alcohol not cannabis involved?

Check.

Obviously this means we need to crackdown on medical cannabis. 😄

Has anyone suggested cracking down on medical cannabis?

3 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

Exactly. Especially when you are surrounded by beautiful Thai women who will give you the best gf experience there is to offer.

But he wanted to "get laid" so he tried to bang his drunk friend instead. Because he wanted to tell his friends when he got home about it. Now he's in a world of trouble.

Well, I remember a prostitute who was paid with counterfeit money after the act; on that basis, she believed she had been raped.

7 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

I kind of fail to se a fairness side for a rapist.

Is he a rapist? I think you are referring to an alleged rapist.

At the risk of " being fair to both parties " let's print his name so whole world can say no smoke without fire"

7 hours ago, gargamon said:

The report literally says he was a friend of the accused.

No it doesn't. It says she met a group of friends and the guy was with them.

"...had met socially with a group of friends, including the suspect..."

That's what she reported and that suggests nothing other than the accused being one of the friends.

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Safer to go to a prostitute. They can't accuse you of rape.

I think that might be ever so slightly inaccurate.

4 hours ago, riverhigh said:

"Officers gathered evidence and arranged for her to undergo a medical examination at a hospital before applying to the court for an arrest warrant."

While a medical examination does not directly prove sexual assault has taken place, because medical findings alone cannot establish a legal lack of consent, the fact that she underwent an examination and the police are conducting an investigation leads me to believe there is more to this story. British lady is claiming sexual assault not rape, major difference. No details of what she means by sexual assault and what lead up to that event. Was she leading him on and then decided to turn on the breaks and the train going full speed, so to speak, came off the tracks. Were there drugs or alcohol involved that rendered both "youths" incapable of making rational decisions. Not enough information to conclude what took place.

A 38-year old youth!?

4 hours ago, riverhigh said:

... we need more information to know what exactly happened.

No, "we" do not need more information, You want more information. "We" are not involved in the investigation.

1 hour ago, Dave0206 said:

At the risk of " being fair to both parties " let's print his name so whole world can say no smoke without fire"

Exactly, fairness would dictate the disclosure of her name and similar details also.

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Exactly, fairness would dictate the disclosure of her name and similar details also.

His name is public, because he was subject to a court warrant, so released to the media. Maybe try commenting on the story and stop trying to to lecture me on how to produce and article.

5 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

His name is public, because he was subject to a court warrant, so released to the media. Maybe try commenting on the story and stop trying to to lecture me on how to produce and article.

I made no comment (and I certainly didn't lecture you) on your composition of the article, I simply gave my opinion on what I considered would be fair legal disclosure in this case, completely disassociated with the way the article was written.

I don't think a sexual assault complainant's name is ever published unless she waives her right to allow publication.