The story is something about a man accusing his lawyer of having raped him because he got very drunk, woke up in bed with her, and asserts that there’s no way he could have given informed consent.
Pixilation makes me think that either she’s suing, or the story’s already revealed as a pack of lies by some arse who thinks sexual equality’s gone a bit too far.
Follow up to this. The mail website has the same picture with a story about how the chap is on trial for raping the woman. Something that was not at all evident from the speed read in Borders.
Therefore I suggest their printed story may be sub judice and predudicial,
Nick – Actually it’s the reverse. SHE got drunk and woke up in bed with him and accused HIM of rape, because she couldn’t have given consent, not the other way around.
I think that of course if you’re blind drunk you can’t properly give consent, but on the flip side neither can the person you’re sleeping with be clear whether or not you’re too drunk to give consent. I’m sure we’ve all (men and women) got blind drunk and ended up sleeping with someone we wouldn’t have said yes to sober, but that was our fault for being a pissed up idiot, and certainly not them bloody ‘raping’ us, or should people take breath test kits as well as condoms with them now?
If she said drunkenly said yes, which I’m assuming she did as she invited him back to her house with her friends who did nothing to stop him entering, and he stayed in the bed asleep overnight, then in my book he’s entirely innocent and she’s a pissed-up idiot setting back the cause of genuine rape victims rather than advancing it as she clearly likes to believe.
Obviously when someone is too drunk to give consent at all, that’s a different tale, but all the signs point to her saying yes and actively participating but being too pissed to remember it, which is a totally different story.
…just like to add to my previous comments that the whole process of sleeping with someone you’ve just met who is clearly pissed is (in my opinion) pretty sleazy regardless of whether they genuinely want sex or not. I’m not defending that, but just pointing out it’s not rape if he did and she consented, even if this was only due to being in an altered stated that was to be fair all of her own doing.
I do agree to an extent Steven but the Mails line is so often from the ’she was asking for it’ school of thought. They just simply do not take the vast majority of alcohol related rapes seriously on the premise that if you get pissed you are pretty much fair game to be taken advantage of. This case may or may not be different but they are focussing on it because it can be twisted to fit their agenda.
Agree that’s the story, but the copy of the Mail in my local Borders managed to give the impression that he was the victim not the accused.
Lets face it – sooner or later there is a going to be a case involving a predatory woman and a stupid man who was saving himself for marriage. I think they may have thought this was it.
It just seems to me to be a case of a hysterical idiot who needs to drink less. All the signs are she gave consent, but is arguing because she was drunk, that consent wasn’t genuine.
Well by that logic, all drink drivers should be freed as it wasn’t their fault they got in the car, but the alcohol. In fact, any actions done under the influence are now given an amnesty because if you did something you wouldn’t have done sober, then according to her, you’re not responsible for the consequences.
Fact is she took him home to her room in a shared house with her friends present who’d also been out, and nobody objected. He stayed the night and was woken by her, so he clearly didn’t think he’d done anything out of order either. It sounds simply like she slept with someone she wouldn’t have done normally while drunk, and because her memory is lacking, claims rape.
Well in that sense, half the country must be rape victims and rapists then, because that’s what happens nationwide every Saturday for thousands of men and women alike in both roles. If you consent in an altered state that was of your own doing, then you can’t morally try to put someone away for 10 years simply because you’ve got buyer’s remorse in the morning.
If you’re too drunk to consent at all it’s entirely different, but here she did consent, and is thus setting back the cause of genuine rape victims a huge way.
The Bank of England and No 10 at war? Are they shelling each other? Are they launching missiles? Or did Mervyn King say he completely agreed with Government action so far, but we need to be careful in the future. I leave you to guess which is true.
On the subject of banks it seems the Mail could be in trouble for inciting violence after Fred Goodwin’s home was vandalised. This from Timesonline :-
“The violent assault on Sir Fred’s home came two days after Sir Max Hastings, a military historian and former newspaper editor, called for members of the public to throw stones through the windows of failed bankers.
“The time has come to address the entire robber banker culture,” he wrote in the Daily Mail on Monday. “Investment banks have been run not for the benefit of society, customers, or even shareholders, but exclusively for the advantage of the bankers themselves. . . This is why we must stand outside their homes throwing rocks through the windows until they do.”
I entirely agree with those comments that drunken consent is still consent – it seems to be a suprisingly common myth that having sex with someone when you’re drunk means you were raped. The consequences of saying that you can’t consent when drunk would be that all consensual sex between drunk people would not be a criminal offence (even if they still claimed it was consensual after the fact).
And what if the man’s drunk too, are they both guilty? Or if a man’s drunk, and the man chats up a woman (who’s perhaps been drinking, but isn’t quite so drunk) and has sex with her, is the woman guilty of rape?
I’d prefer to read pithy comments on the Daily Mail’s irresponsible “reporting”, not people’s uninformed opinions on rape cases – I could go to the BBC’s Have Your Say for that.
There should be a fifty-word limit on the comments here, or something.
I’m not sure what’s more amusing; Allison Pearson’s frankly deranged article comparing Jade Goody godresthersoul and Princess Di godresthersoul, or the equally demented outpouring of moist love for Diana in the comments section.
@ A commenter: so can we roughly translate that to “I don’t agree, therefore your opinion should not be heard”?. This isn’t the Mail itself’s website, y’know.
Besides, it’s hardly like anyone has said rape is perfectly OK if the other party is pissed, is it? Just that in this case it looks like the woman in question might be undermining genuine cases of drunken rape by going totally overboard because she slept with someone and later regretted it.
There is such a thing as false accusation of rape, and its consequences can be devastating. I’ve had a friend who was accused of it. Even though he was completely and publicly exonerated, some of his “friends” still won’t even talk to him years later and some of them at the time even had a go at him for trying to clear his name – as if the crime is so heinous that even an accusation is suitable evidence of guilt. Perhaps he should just have shut up and took it too, eh?
Is there a reason why that text has been blurred?
This is obviously crying out for a “NOW” headline;
“*NOW* THE BANKING SECTOR DISCOVERS FINANCIAL PRUDENCE?”
The Mail hate the public sector.
Yeah, why the blurring?
Are those clever kids ‘Brown’….SHOCK HORROR!!
And yeah, why the blurring?
The story is something about a man accusing his lawyer of having raped him because he got very drunk, woke up in bed with her, and asserts that there’s no way he could have given informed consent.
Pixilation makes me think that either she’s suing, or the story’s already revealed as a pack of lies by some arse who thinks sexual equality’s gone a bit too far.
Follow up to this. The mail website has the same picture with a story about how the chap is on trial for raping the woman. Something that was not at all evident from the speed read in Borders.
Therefore I suggest their printed story may be sub judice and predudicial,
Printing the pic of the man before the trial is over is completely out of order.
Nick – Actually it’s the reverse. SHE got drunk and woke up in bed with him and accused HIM of rape, because she couldn’t have given consent, not the other way around.
I think that of course if you’re blind drunk you can’t properly give consent, but on the flip side neither can the person you’re sleeping with be clear whether or not you’re too drunk to give consent. I’m sure we’ve all (men and women) got blind drunk and ended up sleeping with someone we wouldn’t have said yes to sober, but that was our fault for being a pissed up idiot, and certainly not them bloody ‘raping’ us, or should people take breath test kits as well as condoms with them now?
If she said drunkenly said yes, which I’m assuming she did as she invited him back to her house with her friends who did nothing to stop him entering, and he stayed in the bed asleep overnight, then in my book he’s entirely innocent and she’s a pissed-up idiot setting back the cause of genuine rape victims rather than advancing it as she clearly likes to believe.
Obviously when someone is too drunk to give consent at all, that’s a different tale, but all the signs point to her saying yes and actively participating but being too pissed to remember it, which is a totally different story.
Allison Pearson’s article comparing Jade Goody to Diana, Princess of Wales gets a roasting on the on-line comments section.
…just like to add to my previous comments that the whole process of sleeping with someone you’ve just met who is clearly pissed is (in my opinion) pretty sleazy regardless of whether they genuinely want sex or not. I’m not defending that, but just pointing out it’s not rape if he did and she consented, even if this was only due to being in an altered stated that was to be fair all of her own doing.
I do agree to an extent Steven but the Mails line is so often from the ’she was asking for it’ school of thought. They just simply do not take the vast majority of alcohol related rapes seriously on the premise that if you get pissed you are pretty much fair game to be taken advantage of. This case may or may not be different but they are focussing on it because it can be twisted to fit their agenda.
Agree that’s the story, but the copy of the Mail in my local Borders managed to give the impression that he was the victim not the accused.
Lets face it – sooner or later there is a going to be a case involving a predatory woman and a stupid man who was saving himself for marriage. I think they may have thought this was it.
It just seems to me to be a case of a hysterical idiot who needs to drink less. All the signs are she gave consent, but is arguing because she was drunk, that consent wasn’t genuine.
Well by that logic, all drink drivers should be freed as it wasn’t their fault they got in the car, but the alcohol. In fact, any actions done under the influence are now given an amnesty because if you did something you wouldn’t have done sober, then according to her, you’re not responsible for the consequences.
Fact is she took him home to her room in a shared house with her friends present who’d also been out, and nobody objected. He stayed the night and was woken by her, so he clearly didn’t think he’d done anything out of order either. It sounds simply like she slept with someone she wouldn’t have done normally while drunk, and because her memory is lacking, claims rape.
Well in that sense, half the country must be rape victims and rapists then, because that’s what happens nationwide every Saturday for thousands of men and women alike in both roles. If you consent in an altered state that was of your own doing, then you can’t morally try to put someone away for 10 years simply because you’ve got buyer’s remorse in the morning.
If you’re too drunk to consent at all it’s entirely different, but here she did consent, and is thus setting back the cause of genuine rape victims a huge way.
The Bank of England and No 10 at war? Are they shelling each other? Are they launching missiles? Or did Mervyn King say he completely agreed with Government action so far, but we need to be careful in the future. I leave you to guess which is true.
On the subject of banks it seems the Mail could be in trouble for inciting violence after Fred Goodwin’s home was vandalised. This from Timesonline :-
“The violent assault on Sir Fred’s home came two days after Sir Max Hastings, a military historian and former newspaper editor, called for members of the public to throw stones through the windows of failed bankers.
“The time has come to address the entire robber banker culture,” he wrote in the Daily Mail on Monday. “Investment banks have been run not for the benefit of society, customers, or even shareholders, but exclusively for the advantage of the bankers themselves. . . This is why we must stand outside their homes throwing rocks through the windows until they do.”
I entirely agree with those comments that drunken consent is still consent – it seems to be a suprisingly common myth that having sex with someone when you’re drunk means you were raped. The consequences of saying that you can’t consent when drunk would be that all consensual sex between drunk people would not be a criminal offence (even if they still claimed it was consensual after the fact).
And what if the man’s drunk too, are they both guilty? Or if a man’s drunk, and the man chats up a woman (who’s perhaps been drinking, but isn’t quite so drunk) and has sex with her, is the woman guilty of rape?
I’d prefer to read pithy comments on the Daily Mail’s irresponsible “reporting”, not people’s uninformed opinions on rape cases – I could go to the BBC’s Have Your Say for that.
There should be a fifty-word limit on the comments here, or something.
I’m not sure what’s more amusing; Allison Pearson’s frankly deranged article comparing Jade Goody godresthersoul and Princess Di godresthersoul, or the equally demented outpouring of moist love for Diana in the comments section.
@ A commenter: so can we roughly translate that to “I don’t agree, therefore your opinion should not be heard”?. This isn’t the Mail itself’s website, y’know.
Besides, it’s hardly like anyone has said rape is perfectly OK if the other party is pissed, is it? Just that in this case it looks like the woman in question might be undermining genuine cases of drunken rape by going totally overboard because she slept with someone and later regretted it.
There is such a thing as false accusation of rape, and its consequences can be devastating. I’ve had a friend who was accused of it. Even though he was completely and publicly exonerated, some of his “friends” still won’t even talk to him years later and some of them at the time even had a go at him for trying to clear his name – as if the crime is so heinous that even an accusation is suitable evidence of guilt. Perhaps he should just have shut up and took it too, eh?
IT’S WARRRRRRRRRRRR