Muz
New Member
Posts: 12,255
|
Post by Muz on Feb 12, 2016 0:02:08 GMT
If a woman wakes a man up with a blow job, is it sexual assault as he couldn't consent?
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Feb 12, 2016 0:17:20 GMT
The fact is it may come to pass that they could never score a conviction with a hostile witness. But you miss the point the willingness (or otherwise) of the victim to sign a statement does not mean a crime did not occur. You seem To think that if the victim doesn't wish to make a complaint then a rape didn't happen. The prosecutor has decided based on the events as reported, there is a case to answer. This passionate defence of alleged rape because you have a hard on for the accused, is getting tedious. Look to the wide on in your own ermmm eye before addressing the boner in mine. If either women had claimed rape I would be making no defence. There is no acceptable testimony that anything happened. Even the legal authorities cannot claim rape occurred if the testimony is unsigned!¬They have nothing to offer a court of law beyond a hostile witness uncomfortable about her own testimony. No one in the rooms claim rape occurred and nobody not in the room has signed testimony that rape occurred. I have genuine sympathy for Wilen for being so badly served by the Swedish prosecutors and a supposed friendly acquaintence who introduced her to Assange. After it was explained to her she MAY have been raped she refused to sign. Either her testimony is a lie for which she will risk perjury or she does not feel as violated as he is expected to. In her testimony she is only "half asleep", you expressed incredulity when under the impression she was fully asleep. The folk who brought us Abu Ghraib & collateral damage are seeking to destroy whistleblowers. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 12, 2016 1:37:19 GMT
Jesus Christ you keep going on about the women not claiming rape. It's
Irrelevant!! The prosecution believes based on the events as reported an offence occurred and so are delving into that. Why are you struggling to comprehend that?
And if it will be as difficult to secure a conviction as you claim well then, he should just pop over to Sweden and clear things up. Easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 12, 2016 1:38:25 GMT
If a woman wakes a man up with a blow job, is it sexual assault as he couldn't consent? It depends on the circumstances. Does she have reason to believe she has his consent or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 12, 2016 1:43:52 GMT
If a woman invites a man into her bed and has some regrets afterwards, this is something two adults can discuss between themselves without involving the heavy hand of the law. Roosh, is that you?? |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 12, 2016 1:50:17 GMT
Roosh V is probably somebody you would get on with. Still without knowing, you are a moron. Go back to the very beginning of this thread and then explain your about face. You were incredulous at the allegations. I assume you agree ABC Australia are competent enough programme makers? It's not an about face. From day one I have said he should go and face the allegations against him. Whether you support him or not. Whether you think the allegations sound tenuous at best or not. On further reading however I don't believe his claims that he fears extradition. I also think his behaviour with one of the woman is, at the very least rather dodgy. So then you start wondering what he DOES fear. It is perfectly possible that they will decide there is no way they could score a conviction so throw it out - but he should face it instead of hiding inside a cupboard. And the UN decision is really laughable given the circumstances (although not unexpected.) |
|
Muz
New Member
Posts: 12,255
|
Post by Muz on Feb 12, 2016 2:46:12 GMT
If a woman wakes a man up with a blow job, is it sexual assault as he couldn't consent? It depends on the circumstances. Does she have reason to believe she has his consent or not. He's asleep and so incapable of consenting. |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 12, 2016 2:51:27 GMT
If either women had claimed rape I would be making no defence. There is no acceptable testimony that anything happened. Even the legal authorities cannot claim rape occurred if the testimony is unsigned!¬They have nothing to offer a court of law beyond a hostile witness uncomfortable about her own testimony. For the nth millionth time, that is not necessary for a rape allegation to be investigated. The police simply need to think that rape may have occurred. Then they are legally obliged to investigate. There is even a wikipedia site dedicated to the laws around rape in Sweden: Changes in the legal process has also affected the number of reports. Until 1984, rape was only prosecuted in cases where the victim was prepared to press charges, with an additional restriction of a six months time limit. This resulted in numerous cases of rape and sexual assault going unreported.[11]
The Swedish prosecution system is governed by the principle of legality and the "equality principle", which means that as a rule, the police and the prosecution service are required to register and prosecute all offences of which they become aware. So Miss W does not need to say she has been raped, or think she has been raped; when she reported what happened to the police, and they realised it possibly met the criteria for rape, they had to investigate. |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 12, 2016 2:55:19 GMT
It depends on the circumstances. Does she have reason to believe she has his consent or not. He's asleep and so incapable of consenting. If the woman has reasonable grounds for thinking that the man would like a blow job alarm clock, e.g. if they are in a relationship and he like oral sex, probably not. If it was just some random guy she found asleep and decided to pleasure, she'd be on more doubtful ground. As for Assange, he would probably be on safe ground if he had worn a condom. They'd had sex before with condoms, and he had no reason to think she'd changed her mind about his sexual allure. While I think Swedish law might still construe that as a potential sexual offence, he would probably have been released after questioning and no further action taken. But, equally, he had no reason to think she'd decided that unprotected sex was okay. So he almost certainly committed an act of rape, or something very pretty damn close to it, by initiating unprotected sex without seeking consent first. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 12, 2016 6:53:35 GMT
It depends on the circumstances. Does she have reason to believe she has his consent or not. He's asleep and so incapable of consenting. Read what I wrote again. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 12, 2016 6:55:01 GMT
And, what Lala said. I like how some men and women like to pretend consent laws are really complex. No law says if the person is asleep it is necessarily non consensual. It says it MAY be.
Context is key. Did they consent? Do you have reason to believe they consented?
Would be interesting to see why Assange thought the woman would change her mind about unprotected sex without asking her.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 12, 2016 7:33:53 GMT
Oh! The humanity!But it's only ever men who are held to account in this manner. If a woman started blowing a guy when he was asleep you think she would ever be accused of having committed sexual assault? Cha right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 12, 2016 7:43:48 GMT
Just by the by that you tube video is a genuinely disturbing piece. It's actually very unpleasant when you view it from a trying to debunk "rape" standpoint. Rhoosh V would be proud of it. You are entitled to your flawed opinion. I have no idea who Rhoosh V is. I believe the show is by a reputable Aussie programme maker, perhaps Van could elucidate. On the only remaining allegation the "victim" will not sign the testimony taken by Ardin's police friend and with Ardin, herself making other separate allegations, present. Almost deliberate incompetence. No dictaphones or video recording in a modern Swedish police station, get real. Multiple attempts to change the testimony on the computer system. The EAW is for prosecution not investigation and Nye with held from the UK court that the testimony was not signed, a fact that would mean it could not form the basis of a prosecution here in the UK. A witness would not sign the only testimony/evidence she had been asked to sign and was given opportunity to do so. The testimony remains unsigned. Perhaps the allegations Ardin made could have been prosecutable in Sweden and the UK but these are now expired and in any event would not have led to a custodial sentence on their own (consensual sex leading to a broken condom) and are there for outwith the parameters of the EAW. The video also explains why Assange has every reason to fear extradition to the US with the US refusing to confirm they wouldn't seek extradition and Sweden refusing to confirm they wouldn't oblige. The Grand Jury trial exists, is active, they know the trial number and that it's under the 1917 Espionage Act. They know the original arrest warrant and Assange's subsequent testimony were separately leaked to the press. Likely Assange didn't know Ardin's expulsion from Cuba to Miami would have brought her to the attention of the CIA if not to being useful to them but he probably knew Borstrom's partner facilitated the rendition of two arabs to Egypt for the US. The abuse of the EAW indicative of how much they need Assange in custody. Manning & Snowden indicative of how much. Sweden doesn't extradite for espionage so that's yet more bollocks piled on the dung heap like Pelion on Ossa |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Feb 12, 2016 8:36:44 GMT
If either women had claimed rape I would be making no defence. There is no acceptable testimony that anything happened. Even the legal authorities cannot claim rape occurred if the testimony is unsigned!¬They have nothing to offer a court of law beyond a hostile witness uncomfortable about her own testimony. For the nth millionth time, that is not necessary for a rape allegation to be investigated. The police simply need to think that rape may have occurred. Then they are legally obliged to investigate. There is even a wikipedia site dedicated to the laws around rape in Sweden: Changes in the legal process has also affected the number of reports. Until 1984, rape was only prosecuted in cases where the victim was prepared to press charges, with an additional restriction of a six months time limit. This resulted in numerous cases of rape and sexual assault going unreported.[11]
The Swedish prosecution system is governed by the principle of legality and the "equality principle", which means that as a rule, the police and the prosecution service are required to register and prosecute all offences of which they become aware. So Miss W does not need to say she has been raped, or think she has been raped; when she reported what happened to the police, and they realised it possibly met the criteria for rape, they had to investigate. She does however have to sign the statement! The absence of that signature means there is effectively no evidence. It means she fears perjury laws and is not prepared to stand by the statement. All Sweden have is big fat hearsay, an officer heard a story. That is why the original arrest warrant was rescinded by a superior prosecutor. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 8:41:14 GMT
"The prosecutor has decided based on the events as reported"
Who reported them?
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Feb 12, 2016 9:14:29 GMT
"The prosecutor has decided based on the events as reported" Who reported them? Someone unprepared to face the laws of perjury. |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 12, 2016 9:51:58 GMT
Why? Assange has not disputed the account of events. He just reckons it wasn't rape and everyone should leave him alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 12, 2016 10:16:38 GMT
"The prosecutor has decided based on the events as reported" Who reported them? Someone unprepared to face the laws of perjury. Where are you getting perjury from? |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Feb 12, 2016 10:17:40 GMT
Oh! The humanity!But it's only ever men who are held to account in this manner. If a woman started blowing a guy when he was asleep you think she would ever be accused of having committed sexual assault? Cha right. Why the humanity? |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Feb 12, 2016 10:25:00 GMT
Jesus Christ you keep going on about the women not claiming rape. It's Irrelevant!! The prosecution believes based on the events as reported an offence occurred and so are delving into that. Why are you struggling to comprehend that? And if it will be as difficult to secure a conviction as you claim well then, he should just pop over to Sweden and clear things up. Easy. The prosecution have nothing to base an opinion on except Assange's testimony |
|
