My only point was that we all hear the stories that fit our preconceived notions.

Men seem to remember the false accusations far better than they remember real events. Women tend to believe an accuser rather than immediately assume a lie simply because women can empathize with how truly horrible it must be.

I dont think most of the blokes on here think like that sbk. I know i certainly dont, I am more inclined to side with the girl. Until such time that it is proved either way. What makes it difficult for the genuine cases out there are the girls that cry rape and then run to the papers to sell their stories, now maybe some of these are real cases maybe not, but if they are real surely their legal advice would tell them not to run to the papers until after the case.

I do truly empathize with the girl, its happened to a friend of mine. I am not going into details, needless to say nothing came of it legally, because he said she consented she was off her face on ecstasy but was adamant that she said no. I saw the bloke about a year later and unfortunatley i couldnt restrain myself and beat the living daylights out of him, i regretted this for not showing more self control but How could he be out enjoying himself while my friend was sat at home afraid to go out in case she bumped into the ######.

Speaking on the matter...even though it might be completely off topic...but many female friends and classmates of my wife lost their virginity due to a rape. Usually it is boyfriends or close male friends at the time, that is behind them. None of the ones I have talked to have ever filed any charges..."it's just how they are". :|

And men always come up with the stories of the girl who lied in order to justify their attitudes. I would suspect that there are far more women who are raped and are telling the truth than ones who lie about it. No statistics, just personal experience. Of course you guys all here the stories about the poor lad who was set up but very rarely do you hear about the poor girl who was drugged and raped. We all hear the stories we want to hear, I suspect.

I can tell you (it was in todays paper) that 3 guys were acquitted by jury trial of rape here last week, in each case it was about drinks or drugs used to incapacitate the alleged victim.

IMHO there are as many innocent rapists in jails as there are non innocent rapists.

there are times when a woman gives consent because she is drunk and feeling horney and either cant remember it or regrets it afterwards, should a guy be charged with rape in these circumstances??

Of course there are some guys who take advantage of a woman when she is falling down drunk and that is an act of rape.

There are times when both parties are drunk, who is culpable then ???

TAWP: Where were these female classmates and friends from?

I think everyone has a responsibility to themselves and others, but I also believe in individual and human rights. That is very much a cultural or Western value.

I agree wholeheartedly that those who falsely cry rape or lodge fake abuse claims should be punished under the full extent of the law, with no exceptions. This is a public and individual abuse of power that is like a female flip-side of rape.

I also believe that women have a responsibility to themselves, if they want to be respected. For example, I am very open-minded about a lot of things, but I cannot stand seeing young women attending university classes in revealing and sexually provocative clothing. Save that attire for after class. It cuts right into core issues of self-respect, and how they think of themselves.

HOWEVER, I have very little tolerance for the people in society that seek to blame the victims of rape/abuse. Most rapes occur between people who know each other, or have had some form of social contact. So, if I'm socially drinking with a group that includes males, and I become intoxicated, am I partially responsible for their raping me? If I'm wearing clothing that someone deems provocative, am I partially responsible for their attack? Where do you draw the line? Who makes these decisions? If that is the case, you are effectively making the argument that almost 90% of Western females (if not more) are partially responsible for their rape at some point in their lives.

We have laws in Western society that hold the attacking parties responsible. It doesn't mean that there are not grey areas, but grey areas cannot be litigated, which means that rights are less protected. In our societies, men are expected to control their sexuality, and I think that is an important phase in development, and even civilization (go ahead and flame me).

And that is why we have differing societies: Western societies with its imperfect grey areas, but increased responsibility; traditional/conservative/religous societies with their absolute mandates, which almost entirely place the blame/responsibility on women -- i.e.

(1) no male/female mixing, no females out without a male, no premarital sex (religous societies), or (2) no leaving the house after 10, or drinking and smoking with males, otherwise you asked for it (traditional societies such as Thailand).

Now you tell me, is it really so much better for women in these two examples?

It most certainly is much better for men, of that we can be sure.

edit

IMHO there are as many innocent rapists in jails as there are non innocent rapists.

Have you actually thought about the validity of this statement?  I don't think you have, because if you did, you would know that it is actually more difficult to get a conviction for rape, than not.  That doesn't mean there are not innocent people in jail, but you put it at 50% with this statement, which in my opinion is a blaming- the-victim attitude.

there are times when a woman gives consent because she is drunk and feeling horney and either cant remember it or regrets it afterwards, should a guy be charged with rape in these circumstances??  No

 

Of course there are some guys who take advantage of a woman when she is falling down drunk and that is an act of rape.

There are times when both parties are drunk, who is culpable then ???

These type of situations have to be tested in law, in order for them to change or modify law.  That means it first needs to be proven with circumstantial evidence, or witnesses, not hearsay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do truly empathize with the girl, its happened to a friend of mine. I am not going into details, needless to say nothing came of it legally, because he said she consented she was off her face on ecstasy but was adamant that she said no. I saw the bloke about a year later and unfortunatley i couldnt restrain myself and beat the living daylights out of him, i regretted this for not showing more self control but How could he be out enjoying himself while my friend was sat at home afraid to go out in case she bumped into the ######.

So you became Judge and jury at the same time....

did it ever occur to you that he was telling the truth. As nothing came of it legally then it is obvious that the police didnt see the need to proceed past their initial inquiries.

And why should he not go out and enjoy himself...he was never charged with any offence, therefore he is not guilty of anything. you made the assumption of guilt purely on your perception of the event which undoubtedly was a one sided perception. Even if he had been found guilty and served his punishment he would have been entitled to go out and have fun without being assaulted.

I hope that you were charged with assault as you well deserve. The world doesnt need more vigilantes.

Have you actually thought about the validity of this statement?  I don't think you have, because if you did, you would know that it is actually more difficult to get a conviction for rape, than not.  That doesn't mean there are not innocent people in jail, but you put it at 50% with this statement, which in my opinion is a blaming- the-victim attitude.

Yes I have Kat...I see it every week...it is difficult to get rape convictions because usually there is no witnesses to the actual acts, therefore the issue rests with credibility and circumstantial evidence, I am talking about the evidence of both parties. In that situation as many juries get it wrong as there are that get it right, it is not a perfect system by any means. I perhaps should have been more concise with the original statement, I was not talking about rapists convicted by their own confession.

Blaming the victim is a funny expression...if an innocent man is found guilty then isnt he as much of a victim ??? You see, I dont blame the victim because sometimes I dont know who the victim really is. I dont blame anyone.

I do truly empathize with the girl, its happened to a friend of mine. I am not going into details, needless to say nothing came of it legally, because he said she consented she was off her face on ecstasy but was adamant that she said no. I saw the bloke about a year later and unfortunatley i couldnt restrain myself and beat the living daylights out of him, i regretted this for not showing more self control but How could he be out enjoying himself while my friend was sat at home afraid to go out in case she bumped into the ######.

So you became Judge and jury at the same time....

did it ever occur to you that he was telling the truth. As nothing came of it legally then it is obvious that the police didnt see the need to proceed past their initial inquiries.

And why should he not go out and enjoy himself...he was never charged with any offence, therefore he is not guilty of anything. you made the assumption of guilt purely on your perception of the event which undoubtedly was a one sided perception. Even if he had been found guilty and served his punishment he would have been entitled to go out and have fun without being assaulted.

I hope that you were charged with assault as you well deserve. The world doesnt need more vigilantes.

You really are unbelieveable.

Are you telling me that if one of your female friends went through a trauma like this, that you wouldnt act in some way if the bloke got off scot free?

If you are then you are completely spineless. Of course i regret not being able to control myself, but i tend to have trust in my friends and if you had seen the state this poor girl was in you would know that she was telling the truth.

When i saw him i had no intention of hitting him but only of having a quiet word, he then told me that no one could prove anything and he had got away with it so i better &lt;deleted&gt; off. He thought he was ok because he was in the vip room of a club. But when i hit him none of his so called friends stepped in to stop or help him, so maybe they had their own suspicions.

I wasnt charged but would have quite happily accepted the charge. I know i was guilty of a crime and would have accepted my punishment.

I dont see myself as a vigilante, i see myself as a caring friend that sticks up for and protects my friends, something which everyone in life should do.

The next question is would i do it again? The answer to that is yes i would. Do i feel guilty for breaking this blokes jaw? No i couldnt care less that he suffered. Do i feel bad for not showing more self control? Yes i do feel bad.

I think you have shown your true colours by this statement

IMHO there are as many innocent rapists in jails as there are non innocent rapists

If you did your research you would know that this statement was complete arse. Only about 5% of alleged cases ever get to court, because it is usually her word against his. Now i am sorry but any girl that is willing to go to the police and put herself through the trauma of going to crown court, and stand up in front of a court, desrves a medal. I think it is fair to say that there are very very few innocent rapists in jail.

Lets just hope no one close to you ever has to experience something like this, because you will obviously side with the bloke. I think you protest and support the innocent rapist just a bit too much

gburns:

Please tell us how you see it every week, and have the superior knowledge to judge correctly what everyone else seems to get wrong.

And by the way, you are judging. If "an innocent" man is deemed guilty, then by your own argument the woman and society are the "real" culprits.

*I have to leave now, but I'll be back on this thread tomorrow.

You really are unbelieveable.

Are you telling me that if one of your female friends went through a trauma like this, that you wouldnt act in some way if the bloke got off scot free?

If you are then you are completely spineless. Of course i regret not being able to control myself, but i tend to have trust in my friends and if you had seen the state this poor girl was in you would know that she was telling the truth.

When i saw him i had no intention of hitting him but only of having a quiet word, he then told me that no one could prove anything and he had got away with it so i better &lt;deleted&gt; off. He thought he was ok because he was in the vip room of a club. But when i hit him none of his so called friends stepped in to stop or help him, so maybe they had their own suspicions.

I wasnt charged but would have quite happily accepted the charge. I know i was guilty of a crime and would have accepted my punishment.

I dont see myself as a vigilante, i see myself as a caring friend that sticks up for and protects my friends, something which everyone in life should do.

The next question is would i do it again? The answer to that is yes i would. Do i feel guilty for breaking this blokes jaw? No i couldnt care less that he suffered. Do i feel bad for not showing more self control? Yes i do feel bad.

I think you have shown your true colours by this statement

IMHO there are as many innocent rapists in jails as there are non innocent rapists

If you did your research you would know that this statement was complete arse. Only about 5% of alleged cases ever get to court, because it is usually her word against his. Now i am sorry but any girl that is willing to go to the police and put herself through the trauma of going to crown court, and stand up in front of a court, desrves a medal. I think it is fair to say that there are very very few innocent rapists in jail.

Lets just hope no one close to you ever has to experience something like this, because you will obviously side with the bloke. I think you protest and support the innocent rapist just a bit too much

If you were a caring friend you would be helping your friend get her life back together and looking out for her in future. Not hauling off and decking some guy because he got cocky with you. Tell me, would she feel better because you could have been jailed for assault. you see she would have probably felt that she was to blame for that too. You only went for a quiet word....WHY???...would dragging it all up in a public place 12 months later make your friend feel better???

Your true colours comment is answered in my reply to Kat

I dont side with anyone and I dont blame anyone. I like to see justice done, sometimes it isnt on both sides of the coin.

BTW....My mother was a victim of an attemted rape, my brother at 12 years old managed to scare the guy off her.

gburns:

Please tell us how you see it every week, and have the superior knowledge to judge correctly what everyone else seems to get wrong.

And by the way, you are judging.  If "an innocent" man is deemed guilty, then by your own argument the woman and society are the "real" culprits.

*I have to leave now, but I'll be back on this thread tomorrow.

Everyday of the week I sit in a court listening to all kinds of criminal trials, it is my job, many of the trials are sexual assault trials, moreso now then a few years ago. So I guess you could say that I have more experience than the average person or juror when it comes to trials. That doesnt make me right, I agree. But sometimes it is so obvious from the evidence that the verdicts come as a total shock to all the court staff including the Judge. Jury trials are not perfect and never will be. I really cant go into detail but some of the juries decisions are completely mystifying.

I didnt judge, I asked you a question. If an innocent man is found guilty, then isnt he a victim also ??? That was the proposition I put to you. If you agree with that then surely you must agree that woman is the culprit in that case.

You agreed that if a false claim is made that the woman should be charged. But why does that not happen. I can answer this for you....the woman makes an allegation, the man pleads not guilty, it goes to trial and he is acquitted. Because she only made an allegation, the police and prosecution lay the charges, he has no recourse under law, even though he has spent thousands in defending the allegations. So a man proven to be innocent by his peers can be ruined financially and socially while the girl gets off scot free.

TAWP:  Where were these female classmates and friends from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All thai.

(Apart from the fotball-players I don't really know any farangs IRL here in Thailand.)

IMHO there are as many innocent rapists in jails as there are non innocent rapists.

Completely disagree. Although juries are known to make some bizzare verdicts at time, they do, on the whole, tend to err on the side of caution and aquit in such cases where there is only the victims word against the defendant. There is less chance of getting a dodgy conviction where there is other evidence (note I said LESS chance), so I fail to see how it could be 50/50.

he was never charged with any offence, therefore he is not guilty of anything

Hmm, I think you need to qualify that with 'legally' or 'under the law'. I think we all know that guilty people quite often do not get charged for various reasons, such as lack of evidence or public interest reasons.

it is difficult to get rape convictions because usually there is no witnesses to the actual acts, therefore the issue rests with credibility and circumstantial evidence

Forensic evidence also pays a big part. For example is there traces of a date rape drug such as Rohypnol in the victims blood stream, is there evidence of bruising consistent with force being used etc.

You agreed that if a false claim is made that the woman should be charged. But why does that not happen. I can answer this for you....the woman makes an allegation, the man pleads not guilty, it goes to trial and he is acquitted. Because she only made an allegation, the police and prosecution lay the charges, he has no recourse under law, even though he has spent thousands in defending the allegations. So a man proven to be innocent by his peers can be ruined financially and socially while the girl gets off scot free.

I dont know how it works in Australia but in the UK, someone who makes a malicious, false allegation such as this would almost certainly be facing charges such as Wasting Police Time. If it goes to trial, then the false accuser has made a legally binding statement, effectively under oath, for which they couild be charged with Perjury. Similarly if they made the allegation whilst under oath in court they could face the same charge. Whilst Wasting Police Time is not a serious offence (legally speaking), Perjury has a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment. BTW men make false allegations too sometimes, so you dont need to use 'she or woman' all the time (I know, very PC)

I have dealt with allegations of rape in the past. One was by a woman who had consensual sex, and was found out by her boyfriend. She alleged she was raped. Spent hours dealing with the case, locked up the alleged offender (who understandably was very unhappy with us). Nothing really added up and she eventually admitted it was false. She didnt care one bit about the time wasted or the poor guy who had been in a cell for hours etc. She even asked if we could go to her boyfriends and lie to him about it. Nope but we will see you in court you stupid woman.

On the other side I have dealt with a 10 year old who was raped by her 15 year old uncle (family decided to drop it) and a woman with severe learning diffculties who was raped by a 17 year old in a fast food restaurant (CCTV showed them walking hand in hand and the Crown Prosecution Service decided that, despite her disability which he clearly took advantage of, there was insufficient evidence to prosecute) Very, very hard to remain professional in situations like that, especially when he was such a smug &lt;deleted&gt; when we released him

gburns:

Please tell us how you see it every week, and have the superior knowledge to judge correctly what everyone else seems to get wrong.

And by the way, you are judging.  If "an innocent" man is deemed guilty, then by your own argument the woman and society are the "real" culprits.

*I have to leave now, but I'll be back on this thread tomorrow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyday of the week I sit in a court listening to all kinds of criminal trials, it is my job, many of the trials are sexual assault trials, moreso now then a few years ago. So I guess you could say that I have more experience than the average person or juror when it comes to trials. That doesnt make me right, I agree. But sometimes it is so obvious from the evidence that the verdicts come as a total shock to all the court staff including the Judge. Jury trials are not perfect and never will be. I really cant go into detail but some of the juries decisions are completely mystifying.

I didnt judge, I asked you a question. If an innocent man is found guilty, then isnt he a victim also ???

Yes, an innocent man is a victim, but you previously made a statement the 50% of accused rapists are innocent victims. Don't you think that is an exaggerated statement of staggering proportions?

That was the proposition I put to you. If you agree with that then surely you must agree that woman is the culprit in that case.

You agreed that if a false claim is made that the woman should be charged. But why does that not happen. I can answer this for you....the woman makes an allegation, the man pleads not guilty, it goes to trial and he is acquitted. Because she only made an allegation, the police and prosecution lay the charges, he has no recourse under law, even though he has spent thousands in defending the allegations. So a man proven to be innocent by his peers can be ruined financially and socially while the girl gets off scot free.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If a woman, or man for that matter, is found to make an intentionally harmful or dishonest accusation that needs to be legally defended, then I believe that they should be held financially and morally responsible.

State six

When it is word on word, the juries are left to deal with the issue of credibility of the parties not on facts as such. Therefore a complainant who appeals to a jury can "win" the case irrespective of the facts presented as much as an accused who appeals to the jury can as well. Unfortunately, as I stated before I cant give specific details of any cases.

If a person is not charged with an offence he is innocent of the offence levelled at him under law. the reason the charges are not proceeded with, is irrespective. While he maybe morally guilty and even physically guilty, any citizen is innocent till proven guilty. If charges are not laid then he must be presumed innocent under law because he has not been proven guilty by his peers.

Forensic evidence such as DNA, Blood tests, semen traces, are all part of the investigation, If there is such evidence presented then that becomes an issue for a jury to determine. It merely serves to support the credibilty of the complainant or even the accused.

To deal with your last point, If a person is acquitted by a jury then the complainant can not be charged. The reason is that they have only alleged that the offence was committed, they go to trial and give evidence under oath, by doing that it is pre-supposed under law that they are telling the truth as they believe the truth to be. Juries can be directed by the Judge as to lies in evidence when a witnesses evidence under oath doesnt correspond with the statements given previously. Another point is that the juries decision is unappealable, a convicted person can not appeal a juries decision, they may appeal against the judges direction, aspects of evidence produced etc...but not the Jury verdict. Therefore it follows that a person acquitted by a jury has no right of comeback either. The beauty of the jury trial system is that the onus is taken away from the Justice system and placed back on society (trial by your peers).

The acquitted person has a right to pursue compensation through the Civil Justice System but the cost and time taken is usually beyond the means of the average person and again the chances of winning such a suit is reasonably rare.

If the investigating officers of an allegation during the course of their investigation find that the allegations are malicious or false then they can charge the person who has made the allegations, usually by the time an allegation gets to trial it is assumed that the prosecution has a case to present.

You as obviously part of the investigation team (Policeman??), See many people who walk free for a variety of reasons must no doubt get frustrated, but even then you should know that the presumption of innocence is the primary basis of law. If the evidence is insufficient or for whatever reason the allegations do not proceed then that person must be assumed to be innocent of the allegations. I have seen cases where I knew ###### well that the person was guilty and some accused have even admitted to me that they are guilty and I see them walk free, knowing full well that they are as guilty as hel_l, it does really make you question the system at times.

If a woman, or man for that matter,  is found to make an intentionally harmful or dishonest accusation that needs to be legally defended, then I believe that they should be held financially and morally responsible.

Kat...see my reply to State Six, I believe I cover that there.

An interesting and sensitive topic.

I have experience in the same court system in which Burnsie obviously works and have also been astounded by some of the decisions juries have made in cases in which I've been involved.

What my fellow sandgropher has eluded too, but can't expand upon, are a couple of recent alleged rape cases in Perth that should never have gone to court.

In one the girl was interferring with the guy when he was incapable and trying to sleep. After she aroused him, in both senses of the word, and the act began she suddenly called a halt to the procedings because he wasn't wearing a condom and cried rape. The case was dismissed in about five minutes. What the DPP was thinking in bringing the charges was anyones guess. The guy involved lost job, face and I think girlfriend in the flurry of publicity. The girl was not allowed to be named. In my opinion she should have faced charges of some sort.

The victims in alleged rape cases are not always women.

DaleyBoy, your version of justice just makes you a thug. Chill out. Amend your avatar and signature it doesn't help your arguement.

gburns57au

I agree with you on the one word against another cases. It comes down to who the jury warm to and who has the best lawyer. However unless the accused is especially charming and the victim is a complete arse, then they do usually err on the side of caution and aquit. Who wants to send someone to prison for a long time if you are not sure they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree with you also about the innocent part if you are not charged with an offence, but only, as I said previously, if qualified with 'legally' or 'under the law'. If you commit a crime and then intimidate the only witness into saying nothing, you are only innocent from a legal point of view.

Regarding false allegations we were obviously talking about slightly different issues. If the allegation is maliciously false, ie a deliberate lie, and evidence is discovered that proves it was maliciously false, then the accuser can be charged no matter how far along the investigation/trial has gone. Whilst most of these types of cases come to light during the initial investigation, evidence does come to light in trials, and even after, that can lead to charges being laid against the malicious accuser. That was my point. If the accused is aquitted in a fair trial then of course the complainant will not be charged. There is no evidence that they lied, only that the jury felt, that on the evidence presented, the case hadnt been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They may suspect the allegation is true but have to bring a verdict of not guilty as there is sufficient doubt. Change guilty verdicts to being based on the 'balance of probabilities' and we will see guilty verdicts rocket (obviously the number of wrongful convictions will increase too).

I did work as a policeman and saw that at times the law is an absolute ass and seems to be designed to hamper investigations at times. However many of ther reasons for this are down to police corruption and incompetence in earlier years so what can you do.

Old Croc

Could you expand a little on this case in Perth. From what you say he was incapable and trying to sleep and she started foreplay with him. Then he tried/started to have sex without her without a condom and she asked him to stop. Can you just clarify did he stop at this point or continue? That would be the crucial issue for me. If he stopped immediately then I cannot see how an allegation of rape can be made - it was consensual and he stopped when asked. Did she confirm that this was the scenario that occured or was it his version of events?

However if she said stop because he wasnt wearing a condomn and he was aware that she wanted him to stop, and he continued then that to me is rape. You can argue all you want about what she did beforehand but if somone asks you to stop during sex and you do not then it is rape. Sentencing can reflect any mitigating factors.

An interesting and sensitive topic.

I have experience in the same court system in which Burnsie obviously works and have also been astounded by some of the decisions juries have made in cases in which I've been involved.

What my fellow sandgropher has eluded too, but can't expand upon, are a couple of recent alleged rape cases in Perth that should never have gone to court.

In one the girl was interferring with the guy when he was incapable and trying to sleep. After she aroused him, in both senses of the word, and the act began she suddenly called a halt to the procedings because he wasn't wearing a condom and cried rape. The case was dismissed in about five minutes. What the DPP was thinking in bringing the charges was anyones guess. The guy involved lost job, face and I think girlfriend in the flurry of publicity. The girl was not allowed to be named. In my opinion she should have faced charges of some sort.

The victims in alleged rape cases are not always women.

DaleyBoy, your version of justice just makes you a thug. Chill out. Amend your avatar and signature it doesn't help your arguement.

I think you have the 2 cases mixed up Old Croc If you are still in the Justice system can you PM me with your work details and I will return the favour

gburns57au

Regarding false allegations we were obviously talking about slightly different issues.  If the allegation is maliciously false, ie a deliberate lie, and evidence is discovered that proves it was maliciously false, then the accuser can be charged no matter how far along the investigation/trial has gone.  Whilst most of these types of cases come to light during the initial investigation, evidence does come to light in trials, and even after, that can lead to charges being laid against the malicious accuser.  That was my point.  If the accused is aquitted in a fair trial then of course the complainant will not be charged.  There is no evidence that they lied, only that the jury felt, that on the evidence presented, the case hadnt been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  They may suspect the allegation is true but have to bring a verdict of not guilty as there is sufficient doubt.  Change guilty verdicts to being based on the 'balance of probabilities' and we will see guilty verdicts rocket (obviously the number of wrongful convictions will increase too).

I was being more case specific in keeping with the topic...but I agree that in some cases charges have been brought against some complainants for false allegations.

There you go....we hammered out our opinions without malicious comments and not a flame.....well done mate!!!

A 'No' is always a 'No' in the legal system. (Or...it should be.)

(Above statement might not reflect your countries judicical system, merely the basis of the one in my homecountry.)

A 'No' is always a 'No' in the legal system. (Or...it should be.)

(Above statement might not reflect your countries judicical system, merely the basis of the one in my homecountry.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you mind if I don't refrain from not avoiding to make love to you?

A 'No' is always a 'No' in the legal system. (Or...it should be.)

(Above statement might not reflect your countries judicical system, merely the basis of the one in my homecountry.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you mind if I don't refrain from not avoiding to make love to you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You take shouts of "No, please, no" as encuragment?

An interesting and sensitive topic.

I have experience in the same court system in which Burnsie obviously works and have also been astounded by some of the decisions juries have made in cases in which I've been involved.

What my fellow sandgropher has eluded too, but can't expand upon, are a couple of recent alleged rape cases in Perth that should never have gone to court.

In one the girl was interferring with the guy when he was incapable and trying to sleep. After she aroused him, in both senses of the word, and the act began she suddenly called a halt to the procedings because he wasn't wearing a condom and cried rape. The case was dismissed in about five minutes. What the DPP was thinking in bringing the charges was anyones guess. The guy involved lost job, face and I think girlfriend in the flurry of publicity. The girl was not allowed to be named. In my opinion she should have faced charges of some sort.

The victims in alleged rape cases are not always women.

DaleyBoy, your version of justice just makes you a thug. Chill out. Amend your avatar and signature it doesn't help your arguement.

I think you have the 2 cases mixed up Old Croc If you are still in the Justice system can you PM me with your work details and I will return the favour

You could be right. I broke a rule and posted while pissed, quoting from the top of my head, without proper research first. My apologies. I would prefer to let the subject drop. My thoughts about DBs actions and attitude stand. However, I am disappointed he has subsequently decided to leave tv. He is a prolific and valuable member here.

I am retired Burnsie. I didn't work for the Justice Dept (or police), but a Federal agency.

You could be right. I broke a rule and posted while pissed, quoting from the top of my head, without proper research first. My apologies. I would prefer to let the subject drop. My thoughts about DBs actions and attitude stand. However, I am disappointed he has subsequently decided to leave tv. He is a prolific and valuable member here.

I am retired Burnsie. I didn't  work for the Justice Dept (or police), but a Federal agency.

No worries Croc..

A 'No' is always a 'No' in the legal system. (Or...it should be.)

(Above statement might not reflect your countries judicical system, merely the basis of the one in my homecountry.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you mind if I don't refrain from not avoiding to make love to you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You take shouts of "No, please, no" as encuragment?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on what the question was..... "Darling - I don't want to make love tonight - can I get dressed and go out with the boys instead?"