Rape law to define consent for the first time
The law on rape which sees just 4% of reported cases end in conviction will be radically overhauled to give a clear definition of "consent" for the first time under reforms published today.
The biggest shake-up in sexual offences legislation would also create a crime of sending sexually offensive e-mails and texts, punishable by up to 10 years in jail, and the extension of the definition of rape to include attacks on men.
The Scottish Law Commission has spent three years working to clarify the current laws which have led to a number of controversial court cases. These include the acquittal of Edward Watt despite his alleged victim repeatedly saying no and the ordeal of 17-year-old Lindsay Armstrong who was raped and later committed suicide after a harrowing cross-examination in court.
The commission hopes including a definition of consent in the statute-books will offer more protection to victims and improve Scotland's rape conviction rate, presently the lowest in Europe.
Consent will be defined as "free agreement" between adults. Crucially, juries will be able to draw on a range of specific scenarios which outline where consent has not been given. These include when a woman is too intoxicated through drink and drugs, is threatened with violence or is deceived about what is
happening.
At the moment, the prosecution has to prove the attacker knew his victim did not consent, leading to women being challenged in court about their behaviour leading up to the attack.
Professor Gerry Maher, QC, of the Scottish Law Commission, said: "What we are offering is clarity on what consent actually is. At present, consent is the core part of the definition of rape, but consent itself was never defined. That is the paradox.
"It may be that the jury bring in their own ideas about consent, so what we have done here is to bring in a detailed model of consent. We hope that by offering a legal definition of consent, it may help to change social attitudes towards it."
The proposals aim to bring the sex laws in Scotland into the 21st century. The commission has largely adopted the thinking behind legislation in Victoria, Australia. Sandy Brindley, national co-ordinator of Rape Crisis Scotland, said: "What we have to make sure is that the law surrounding rape and other sexual offences is clear.
"But law reform on its own just isn't enough. While we support principles of sexual autonomy which are central to the commission's reforms, we have to make sure that there is an educational element to them, and that people understand them."
The report has 62 recommendations and will be passed to the Scottish Government, which has proposed to introduce a Bill on rape and sexual offences in 2008.
The new laws would outline a range of sexual coercion offences, which includes legislation on sending e-mails and texts which are of a sexual nature. The sender could face up to 10 years in prison if it can be proved they sent the electronic message to gain sexual gratification, or in order to cause distress or alarm to the person who received it.
The offence of male rape would also be created under the reforms. Professor Maher said: "The existing crime of rape is defined too narrowly. The crime of rape should cover both male and female victims."
The commission has also recommended creating the offence of sexual assault. The offence will carry a maximum life sentence.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: joe, glasgow on 12:24am Wed 19 Dec 07
[quote]quote[/quote] when a woman is too intoxicated.[quote]quote[/quote] Those few words are a minefield. Why only woman, and who will define [bold]bold[/bold] too intoxicated?
Many people may regret all kind of decisions made when their judgement was impaired, but it will be open to all sorts of interpretation as to wether they are victims or perpetrators of any crime.
quote
when a woman is too intoxicated.
quote
Those few words are a minefield. Why only woman, and who will define too intoxicated?
Many people may regret all kind of decisions made when their judgement was impaired, but it will be open to all sorts of interpretation as to wether they are victims or perpetrators of any crime.
Posted by: the law is an ****, glasgow on 12:28am Wed 19 Dec 07
Consent will be defined as "free agreement" between adults. "Crucially, juries will be able to draw on a range of specific scenarios which outline where consent has not been given. These include when a woman is too intoxicated through drink and drugs, is threatened with violence or is deceived about what is happening."
"Professor Gerry Maher, QC, of the Scottish Law Commission, said: "What we are offering is clarity on what consent actually is."
Oh right. And this clears that up does it? Ok guys, don't leave home without a breathaliser in future! Oh, and have a witness present to make sure she knows what's happening, or better still, get her to sign something beforehand. Sorted!
Consent will be defined as "free agreement" between adults. "Crucially, juries will be able to draw on a range of specific scenarios which outline where consent has not been given. These include when a woman is too intoxicated through drink and drugs, is threatened with violence or is deceived about what is happening."
"Professor Gerry Maher, QC, of the Scottish Law Commission, said: "What we are offering is clarity on what consent actually is."
Oh right. And this clears that up does it? Ok guys, don't leave home without a breathaliser in future! Oh, and have a witness present to make sure she knows what's happening, or better still, get her to sign something beforehand. Sorted!
Posted by: joe, glasgow on 12:42am Wed 19 Dec 07
if the law is an a$$$ it isnt about guys or gals, it is about all of us. The law should be made clear, rape is rape, no excuses. But by re drawing it ,it should not make it more open to abuse at the hands of clever lawyers.
if the law is an a$$$ it isnt about guys or gals, it is about all of us. The law should be made clear, rape is rape, no excuses. But by re drawing it ,it should not make it more open to abuse at the hands of clever lawyers.
Posted by: the law is an a s s, lanarkshire on 12:45am Wed 19 Dec 07
well yes Joe, but if this is the best they can do isnt it a bit worrying? They may get more convictions but if this is what they are going to go on the chances are many of those will be unsafe.
well yes Joe, but if this is the best they can do isnt it a bit worrying? They may get more convictions but if this is what they are going to go on the chances are many of those will be unsafe.
Posted by: Queue here to file your Freshers week "too intoxicated" law suit... on 1:22am Wed 19 Dec 07
Joe raises a good point, "too intoxicated". What exactly does that mean? 2 or 10 vodkas? How intoxicated is "too intoxicated"? I can see a lot of law suits being filed after Freshers week and many an ugly man and fat girl has just had their dreams shattered as drunk sex is all they normally get... I can just see the new chat up lines.. "Your a bit drunk you must drink 5 coffees to sober up before we do it?", also, will the film Superbad be banned or edited? As they clearly say... "They'll be drunk! You now when you hear girls say.. I should never have slept with him, what a mistake... we could be that mistake!" Surely that will be sending out the wrong message... interesting.
I can see the new signs in clubs for Friday nights... ALL WINGMEN MUST NOW CARRY A CONSENT FORM, TO BE SIGNED AND DATED BY THE GIRL BEFORE YOUR FRIEND TAKES HER HOME! (Forms provided at the bar and will be checked by bouncers while leaving)
...or will the government provide free lawyers outside clubs so they can give the OK to having relations?
...or will the government say a blood alcohol level is "too intoxicated" and provide all clubs with breathalysers so that tests can be carried out on women (and men if they are seen leaving with a heifer).
I realise I am making light of a serious and much needed shake up of the law but I think the law must clearly define "too intoxicated" and perhaps the deceiving part... as saying you "love" a girl to get them into bed may be seen as a bit deceiving, no?
Joe raises a good point, "too intoxicated". What exactly does that mean? 2 or 10 vodkas? How intoxicated is "too intoxicated"? I can see a lot of law suits being filed after Freshers week and many an ugly man and fat girl has just had their dreams shattered as drunk sex is all they normally get... I can just see the new chat up lines.. "Your a bit drunk you must drink 5 coffees to sober up before we do it?", also, will the film Superbad be banned or edited? As they clearly say... "They'll be drunk! You now when you hear girls say.. I should never have slept with him, what a mistake... we could be that mistake!" Surely that will be sending out the wrong message... interesting.
I can see the new signs in clubs for Friday nights... ALL WINGMEN MUST NOW CARRY A CONSENT FORM, TO BE SIGNED AND DATED BY THE GIRL BEFORE YOUR FRIEND TAKES HER HOME! (Forms provided at the bar and will be checked by bouncers while leaving)
...or will the government provide free lawyers outside clubs so they can give the OK to having relations?
...or will the government say a blood alcohol level is "too intoxicated" and provide all clubs with breathalysers so that tests can be carried out on women (and men if they are seen leaving with a heifer).
I realise I am making light of a serious and much needed shake up of the law but I think the law must clearly define "too intoxicated" and perhaps the deceiving part... as saying you "love" a girl to get them into bed may be seen as a bit deceiving, no?
Posted by: Gr8 on 1:35am Wed 19 Dec 07
OK, the office romance is all but dead due to fears over sexual charges over flirting in the workplace and now Friday and Saturday nights no men will be able to get drunk in case they take a girl home who then charges them with rape because they were "too intoxicated".
It may indirectly help with drunken problems such as violence as men will be too scared to get drunk but it will all but end the normal practices of meeting a girl in a bar unless "too intoxicated" is clearly defined.
OK, the office romance is all but dead due to fears over sexual charges over flirting in the workplace and now Friday and Saturday nights no men will be able to get drunk in case they take a girl home who then charges them with rape because they were "too intoxicated".
It may indirectly help with drunken problems such as violence as men will be too scared to get drunk but it will all but end the normal practices of meeting a girl in a bar unless "too intoxicated" is clearly defined.
Posted by: joe, glasgow on 1:43am Wed 19 Dec 07
the law must protect everyone, its not , or shouldn't be just about wether it was a male or female who has had too much to drink. Many bad or wrong decisions have been made, after alcohol has been consumed. Not every one can easily be defined as a criminal act. Sure if you decide to just drive home from the pub, there is no gray area, after that it's not quite so easy.
the law must protect everyone, its not , or shouldn't be just about wether it was a male or female who has had too much to drink. Many bad or wrong decisions have been made, after alcohol has been consumed. Not every one can easily be defined as a criminal act. Sure if you decide to just drive home from the pub, there is no gray area, after that it's not quite so easy.
Posted by: David, Glasgow on 1:44am Wed 19 Dec 07
I think you'll probably find that "too intoxicated" will be defined/expanded upon in the SLC paper, and it most likely will apply to both men and women rather than only women. Having said that, it will be interesting to see what they come up with as I can't see an easy definition.
I think you'll probably find that "too intoxicated" will be defined/expanded upon in the SLC paper, and it most likely will apply to both men and women rather than only women. Having said that, it will be interesting to see what they come up with as I can't see an easy definition.
Posted by: Gr8 on 2:01am Wed 19 Dec 07
As "too intoxicated" will be defined as the level at which judgement is completely impaired will it subsequently become illegal to be at this defined level as you may endanger yourself or others around you?
As "too intoxicated" will be defined as the level at which judgement is completely impaired will it subsequently become illegal to be at this defined level as you may endanger yourself or others around you?
Posted by: I've just realised on 2:29am Wed 19 Dec 07
I've never gone to bed with an ugly person but I've woken up with a few!
That joke will no longer exist.
I've never gone to bed with an ugly person but I've woken up with a few!
That joke will no longer exist.
Posted by: Les, Seattle on 4:26am Wed 19 Dec 07
..........and now, too, if you forward a dirty joke that offends someone, you could get 10 years in jail?
..........and now, too, if you forward a dirty joke that offends someone, you could get 10 years in jail?
Posted by: Lewis Vickers, Lanarkshire on 6:52am Wed 19 Dec 07
Accusations of rape, by their very nature, usually come down to one person's word against another's. We have a justice system which requires guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A low conviction rate is therefore inevitable, although this does not explain why the rate in Scotland is the lowest in Europe. Lowering the burden of proof will increase convictions, but will also lead to miscarriages of justice. How many additional correct convictions justify one wrong conviction? I don't have the answer.
The alcohol issue is potentially a huge minefield and requires clarity in the detail, although I fear even with this it may be unworkable. If a woman (or man) has decreased consciousness then clearly she/he cannot give consent. To use the drink driving limit however would be farcical, and let's remember that most encounters outwith longterm relationships involve alcohol, often lots of it.
Accusations of rape, by their very nature, usually come down to one person's word against another's. We have a justice system which requires guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A low conviction rate is therefore inevitable, although this does not explain why the rate in Scotland is the lowest in Europe. Lowering the burden of proof will increase convictions, but will also lead to miscarriages of justice. How many additional correct convictions justify one wrong conviction? I don't have the answer.
The alcohol issue is potentially a huge minefield and requires clarity in the detail, although I fear even with this it may be unworkable. If a woman (or man) has decreased consciousness then clearly she/he cannot give consent. To use the drink driving limit however would be farcical, and let's remember that most encounters outwith longterm relationships involve alcohol, often lots of it.
Posted by: Sam, Glasgow on 6:57am Wed 19 Dec 07
so if a woman sleeps with a drunk man can he claim he was raped.....badly written law is bad law even if the intentions are good
so if a woman sleeps with a drunk man can he claim he was raped.....badly written law is bad law even if the intentions are good
Posted by: Jack Gough, Lanarkshire on 7:35am Wed 19 Dec 07
[quote][bold]joe[/bold] wrote:
[quote]quote[/quote] when a woman is too intoxicated.[quote]quote[/quote] Those few words are a minefield. Why only woman, and who will define [bold]bold[/bold] too intoxicated?
Many people may regret all kind of decisions made when their judgement was impaired, but it will be open to all sorts of interpretation as to wether they are victims or perpetrators of any crime.[/quote] "They" who have proposed this have proved they are equally as stereotypical and prejudiced as the rest of society with this very statement.
joe wrote:
quote
when a woman is too intoxicated.quote
Those few words are a minefield. Why only woman, and who will define too intoxicated?
Many people may regret all kind of decisions made when their judgement was impaired, but it will be open to all sorts of interpretation as to wether they are victims or perpetrators of any crime.
"They" who have proposed this have proved they are equally as stereotypical and prejudiced as the rest of society with this very statement.
Posted by: mctavish, Washington D.C., formerly of Glasgow. on 9:06am Wed 19 Dec 07
It is very unfortunate that Scotland is blindly following the politically fashionable "reforms" forced through by radical gender feminists in the United States over the past 30 years. As is beginning to come to light in the US, this will lead to a dramatic increase in false accusations of sexual assualt against men by women, a dramatic increase in the convictions of innocent men all to the detriment of the true victims of rape. Radical gender feminists are notorious for falsifying statistics for political gain and the 4% statistic given in this report is most likely false. The contention that the new law will be gender neutral in practice is absolutely false.
If anyone needs an example of what's in the tea leaves for Scotland, do a web search for the "Duke rape case."
It is very unfortunate that Scotland is blindly following the politically fashionable "reforms" forced through by radical gender feminists in the United States over the past 30 years. As is beginning to come to light in the US, this will lead to a dramatic increase in false accusations of sexual assualt against men by women, a dramatic increase in the convictions of innocent men all to the detriment of the true victims of rape. Radical gender feminists are notorious for falsifying statistics for political gain and the 4% statistic given in this report is most likely false. The contention that the new law will be gender neutral in practice is absolutely false.
If anyone needs an example of what's in the tea leaves for Scotland, do a web search for the "Duke rape case."
Posted by: Seumas on 9:06am Wed 19 Dec 07
I agree that the number of convictions for rape seems quite small, but what proportion of reported rapes should it be?
The discrepancy amongst police forces is quite disturbing. In Lothian and Borders region, for example, 220 rapes were reported during 2005/6; but only 3 were brought to justice. The Grampian region faired even worse - 109 reported cases, but only 1 conviction.
Convicted rapists require lengthy prison sentences. Some police forces could learn from others about how best to deal with allegations of rape.
I agree that the number of convictions for rape seems quite small, but what proportion of reported rapes should it be?
The discrepancy amongst police forces is quite disturbing. In Lothian and Borders region, for example, 220 rapes were reported during 2005/6; but only 3 were brought to justice. The Grampian region faired even worse - 109 reported cases, but only 1 conviction.
Convicted rapists require lengthy prison sentences. Some police forces could learn from others about how best to deal with allegations of rape.
Posted by: Michael, Dalry on 9:18am Wed 19 Dec 07
Even under the existing law, intoxication can negative consent.
Consider a case in 2003. After a party the company went to the bar of a local hotel where the complainer showed signs of severe intoxication. She was helped back to her room and put to bed. Thereafter two other members of staff went to her room and found the appellant having sexual intercourse with her.
An indictment for rape, alleging that the complainer [quote]"was asleep and in a state of unconsciousness, and bereft of the power of resistance owing to her being intoxicated"[/quote] was held relevant.
Even under the existing law, intoxication can negative consent.
Consider a case in 2003. After a party the company went to the bar of a local hotel where the complainer showed signs of severe intoxication. She was helped back to her room and put to bed. Thereafter two other members of staff went to her room and found the appellant having sexual intercourse with her.
An indictment for rape, alleging that the complainer
"was asleep and in a state of unconsciousness, and bereft of the power of resistance owing to her being intoxicated"
was held relevant.
Posted by: Rab Jones, Pollok # on 9:38am Wed 19 Dec 07
Maybe we should make women dress in a Burka or a blanket from head to toe, so we can only see their eyes.
In the Middle East, women who are raped should not blame the men but themselves, as men have incredible urges of sexual desire, and cannot help themselves. The women should prevent themselves from being **** after.
Maybe we should make women dress in a Burka or a blanket from head to toe, so we can only see their eyes.
In the Middle East, women who are raped should not blame the men but themselves, as men have incredible urges of sexual desire, and cannot help themselves. The women should prevent themselves from being **** after.
Posted by: Rab Jones, Pollok # on 9:39am Wed 19 Dec 07
why use ***, when i used the word lu$t???
Is the Herald going all left wingy liberal on us.
Am I allowed to use the word ****?
why use ***, when i used the word lu$t???
Is the Herald going all left wingy liberal on us.
Am I allowed to use the word ****?
Posted by: Todd on 9:39am Wed 19 Dec 07
The low conviction rate is due to the attitude of PC Plod et al. They have no interest in establishing what actually happens i.e.gathering evidence and forming a professional judgement based on the evidence. They will simply charge and leave it to the courts to decide what happened. A high percentage of these cases should never have had a charge made if the police actually did some proper investigation. Rape must be the worst experience for a person both male and female, but is it not time that PC Plod does a proper job before a charge is even made or are we as a society happy to continue to accept such low charge to conviction rate which is a serious failure on the whole legal system.
The low conviction rate is due to the attitude of PC Plod et al. They have no interest in establishing what actually happens i.e.gathering evidence and forming a professional judgement based on the evidence. They will simply charge and leave it to the courts to decide what happened. A high percentage of these cases should never have had a charge made if the police actually did some proper investigation. Rape must be the worst experience for a person both male and female, but is it not time that PC Plod does a proper job before a charge is even made or are we as a society happy to continue to accept such low charge to conviction rate which is a serious failure on the whole legal system.
Posted by: PJM, Kent on 9:41am Wed 19 Dec 07
[quote]or in order to cause distress or alarm to the person who received it.[/quote]
So my harridan ex, who constantly pesters me, can complain when I text her to "Go and **** herself"
I know that some might think that a fatuous and irrelevant comment, but I do actually mean it.
or in order to cause distress or alarm to the person who received it.
So my harridan ex, who constantly pesters me, can complain when I text her to "Go and **** herself"
I know that some might think that a fatuous and irrelevant comment, but I do actually mean it.
Posted by: OHO, Glasgow on 10:02am Wed 19 Dec 07
We recently read a report on the drop in the birthrate in Scotland. If sex is no longer allowed when one party is intoxicated we would become extinct!
Suggestion now is to do a wee video clip with your mobile phone, recording partner giving consent just to keep you right for later!
We recently read a report on the drop in the birthrate in Scotland. If sex is no longer allowed when one party is intoxicated we would become extinct!
Suggestion now is to do a wee video clip with your mobile phone, recording partner giving consent just to keep you right for later!
Posted by: An t-Amadan, Alba on 10:05am Wed 19 Dec 07
[quote][bold]Michael[/bold] wrote:
Even under the existing law, intoxication can negative consent.
Consider a case in 2003. After a party the company went to the bar of a local hotel where the complainer showed signs of severe intoxication. She was helped back to her room and put to bed. Thereafter two other members of staff went to her room and found the appellant having sexual intercourse with her.
An indictment for rape, alleging that the complainer [quote]"was asleep and in a state of unconsciousness, and bereft of the power of resistance owing to her being intoxicated"[/quote] was held relevant.
[/quote] The **** should not get rat@rsed in the first place, exposing themselves to danger. If they get blootered an walk in front of a train, can the train driver be blamed? It's not good (if they survive) shouting "I didn't mean to!" What's the difference? If they get drunk and throw themselves at the nearest man, shouting "rape" when they sober up should not be a defence! I've seen too many drunken teenagers and young women wandering around the cities at night desperately trying to get themselves sh@gged - they men these harridans pick up are victims, not rapists. Is it fair to jail the victims of the unbridled **** of these predators?
Michael wrote:
Even under the existing law, intoxication can negative consent.
Consider a case in 2003. After a party the company went to the bar of a local hotel where the complainer showed signs of severe intoxication. She was helped back to her room and put to bed. Thereafter two other members of staff went to her room and found the appellant having sexual intercourse with her.
An indictment for rape, alleging that the complainer "was asleep and in a state of unconsciousness, and bereft of the power of resistance owing to her being intoxicated"
was held relevant.
The **** should not get rat@rsed in the first place, exposing themselves to danger. If they get blootered an walk in front of a train, can the train driver be blamed? It's not good (if they survive) shouting "I didn't mean to!" What's the difference? If they get drunk and throw themselves at the nearest man, shouting "rape" when they sober up should not be a defence! I've seen too many drunken teenagers and young women wandering around the cities at night desperately trying to get themselves sh@gged - they men these harridans pick up are victims, not rapists. Is it fair to jail the victims of the unbridled **** of these predators?
Posted by: Observer on 10:31am Wed 19 Dec 07
I think it is very unlikely any Jury will convict in a case where there is no third party corroboration that the woman was too drunk to give consent and the man knew this. In relation to the txts/e-mails I would imagine that would only be if the offence was part of a stalking pattern, I don't think a txt alone will get you the jail. Glad to see male rape acknowledged, it's about time. Violence and rape is not something that just affects women.
I think it is very unlikely any Jury will convict in a case where there is no third party corroboration that the woman was too drunk to give consent and the man knew this. In relation to the txts/e-mails I would imagine that would only be if the offence was part of a stalking pattern, I don't think a txt alone will get you the jail. Glad to see male rape acknowledged, it's about time. Violence and rape is not something that just affects women.
Posted by: stonehaven on 10:45am Wed 19 Dec 07
What happens if both parties are too intoxicated to give consent? Are they both guilty of rape or neither of them? Or is the person who was less pi$$ed guilty of rape? Crazy proposal. Having said that, this is probably the most difficult of crimes to prove, hance the low conviction rates.
What happens if both parties are too intoxicated to give consent? Are they both guilty of rape or neither of them? Or is the person who was less pi$$ed guilty of rape? Crazy proposal. Having said that, this is probably the most difficult of crimes to prove, hance the low conviction rates.
Posted by: politically-incorrec
t Man, glasgow on 11:36am Wed 19 Dec 07
[quote]At the moment, the prosecution has to prove the attacker knew his victim did not consent, leading to women being challenged in court about their behaviour leading up to the attack.[/quote]
Surely this is all that needs to be changed. If the defendant had to prove consent that would dramatically change the balance and is as logical as the defendant having to prove lack of consent.
At the moment, the prosecution has to prove the attacker knew his victim did not consent, leading to women being challenged in court about their behaviour leading up to the attack.
Surely this is all that needs to be changed. If the defendant had to prove consent that would dramatically change the balance and is as logical as the defendant having to prove lack of consent.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, glasgow on 12:23pm Wed 19 Dec 07
Sorry meant to say plaintiff prove lack of consent.
Sorry meant to say plaintiff prove lack of consent.
Posted by: Not on the first date on 12:47pm Wed 19 Dec 07
Ridiculous nonsense, if a drunken fumble is your target when going out you should be arrested on the spot, what the hell is a "wingman" your ugly pal who hangs around waiting for your leftovers which you obviously attract since you're such a handsome and caring lover. You people disgust me, like part time drinkers who moan about not being able to drink at this time of year (pubs too busy/noisy/full of part time idiot drinkers..) GROW UP, take responsibility for your actions, if in doubt don't, your partner of choice is a person, provide kleenex at the bar, not permission slips.
Ridiculous nonsense, if a drunken fumble is your target when going out you should be arrested on the spot, what the hell is a "wingman" your ugly pal who hangs around waiting for your leftovers which you obviously attract since you're such a handsome and caring lover. You people disgust me, like part time drinkers who moan about not being able to drink at this time of year (pubs too busy/noisy/full of part time idiot drinkers..) GROW UP, take responsibility for your actions, if in doubt don't, your partner of choice is a person, provide kleenex at the bar, not permission slips.
Posted by: Gr8 on 1:53pm Wed 19 Dec 07
[quote][bold]Not on the first date[/bold] wrote:
Ridiculous nonsense, if a drunken fumble is your target when going out you should be arrested on the spot, what the hell is a "wingman" your ugly pal who hangs around waiting for your leftovers which you obviously attract since you're such a handsome and caring lover. You people disgust me, like part time drinkers who moan about not being able to drink at this time of year (pubs too busy/noisy/full of part time idiot drinkers..) GROW UP, take responsibility for your actions, if in doubt don't, your partner of choice is a person, provide kleenex at the bar, not permission slips.[/quote] You've never heard of a wingman? You should watch more films. It is your friend who when you see a girl but she is also with a friend you can go up and talk to both of them, as giving more attention to one may be seen as rude. I think people are concerned as the "too intoxicated" will throw up too many variables unless it is clearly defined. People sometimes start long term relationships after "drunken fumbles" as you call them.
PS no one has commented on the question I raised that if "too intoxicated" is defined as the level where judgement is completely and totally impaired, will it subsequently become illegal to be at this level of intoxication as you may endanger yourself or others... a very valid point I think.
Not on the first date wrote:
Ridiculous nonsense, if a drunken fumble is your target when going out you should be arrested on the spot, what the hell is a "wingman" your ugly pal who hangs around waiting for your leftovers which you obviously attract since you're such a handsome and caring lover. You people disgust me, like part time drinkers who moan about not being able to drink at this time of year (pubs too busy/noisy/full of part time idiot drinkers..) GROW UP, take responsibility for your actions, if in doubt don't, your partner of choice is a person, provide kleenex at the bar, not permission slips.
You've never heard of a wingman? You should watch more films. It is your friend who when you see a girl but she is also with a friend you can go up and talk to both of them, as giving more attention to one may be seen as rude. I think people are concerned as the "too intoxicated" will throw up too many variables unless it is clearly defined. People sometimes start long term relationships after "drunken fumbles" as you call them.
PS no one has commented on the question I raised that if "too intoxicated" is defined as the level where judgement is completely and totally impaired, will it subsequently become illegal to be at this level of intoxication as you may endanger yourself or others... a very valid point I think.
Posted by: Not on the first date on 2:42pm Wed 19 Dec 07
Although it's not neccessarily illegal to be "too intoxicated" you stand to be arrested if drunk and incabable and put in a cell for your own safety, any condition where you may be at risk of harm to yourself and, particularly, others is very serious. At present any bar serving a person deemed incapable risks fines or loss of licence.
Some simple rules, don't risk your liberty, drink within your capabilities if your not capable of working this out don't drink.
Personally I'll miss the classic scottish defense of I was pished.
Although it's not neccessarily illegal to be "too intoxicated" you stand to be arrested if drunk and incabable and put in a cell for your own safety, any condition where you may be at risk of harm to yourself and, particularly, others is very serious. At present any bar serving a person deemed incapable risks fines or loss of licence.
Some simple rules, don't risk your liberty, drink within your capabilities if your not capable of working this out don't drink.
Personally I'll miss the classic scottish defense of I was pished.
Posted by: millhouse, Glasgow on 2:55pm Wed 19 Dec 07
[quote][bold]Todd[/bold] wrote:
The low conviction rate is due to the attitude of PC Plod et al. They have no interest in establishing what actually happens i.e.gathering evidence and forming a professional judgement based on the evidence. They will simply charge and leave it to the courts to decide what happened. A high percentage of these cases should never have had a charge made if the police actually did some proper investigation. Rape must be the worst experience for a person both male and female, but is it not time that PC Plod does a proper job before a charge is even made or are we as a society happy to continue to accept such low charge to conviction rate which is a serious failure on the whole legal system.[/quote] I think you will find that people are not charged with Rape unless there is a sufficiency of evidence otherwise the case would be thrown out by the Procurator Fiscal before it reached a court.
Todd wrote:
The low conviction rate is due to the attitude of PC Plod et al. They have no interest in establishing what actually happens i.e.gathering evidence and forming a professional judgement based on the evidence. They will simply charge and leave it to the courts to decide what happened. A high percentage of these cases should never have had a charge made if the police actually did some proper investigation. Rape must be the worst experience for a person both male and female, but is it not time that PC Plod does a proper job before a charge is even made or are we as a society happy to continue to accept such low charge to conviction rate which is a serious failure on the whole legal system.
I think you will find that people are not charged with Rape unless there is a sufficiency of evidence otherwise the case would be thrown out by the Procurator Fiscal before it reached a court.
Posted by: allymax, upvinesass, scotland. on 4:56pm Wed 19 Dec 07
The Law Commission's recommendations, (defining consent), are far too skewed to promote higher rape convictions. I feel the Law Commission have been bullied by the harmman's, the angiolini's, and the baroness-scotland's to get the conviction rates up.
I don't think this is the right way to approach such an important debate/discussion area of Scottish Law/society. They've began their efforts by looking at the effect, not the cause. I cetrtainly would not endorse this Law Commission's recommendations, nor agree with their findings. They said,
"[italic]It may be that the jury bring in their own ideas about consent, so what we have done here is to bring in a detailed model of consent. We hope that by offering a legal definition of consent, it may help to change social attitudes towards it[/italic] ."
Seems to me 'it may be the jury bring in their own ideas about consent', correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what jury are supposed to do? If we let the 'elites' like angiolini et al make our laws then we definately will have 1000, (and more), rapists in Scotland every year.
We as Scots have over 3000 years of celtic pedigree; we have managed to live fairly with each other from clan times, through landed gentry/county council times, but it's only in the last 300 years we've been fighting each other for reasons laid down by the english crown. Let's get back to our own nationstate, let our own government make good sensible laws that will not label us the rape capital of the world; and have us fighting between ourselves over their semantics of our laws.
I find the way this Law Commission has performed has been incumbent of Bliarite attitudes. In-deed, they are all chosen from Bliarite quangos. Therefore, I shouldn't expect anything less from a New Labour Law Commission. Flawed, skewed, and unrepresentable of Scottish people and society. More New Labour rules just for the sake of more quangos/recommendati
ons.
Getting back to the recommendations, 10 years for telling a dirty joke?
Am I allowed to say F*ck Me!
'Observer', I find your confidence in the Scottish police too affording; we all know the cops in Scotland will nick anything, and even for nothing. Just take a look at the most recent cop/crown example, the old man nicked in frumdermaline.
To conclude, introducing 7 new definitions of consent only leads to a position where the defendant HAS to prove innocence. This is fundamentally flawed, even to a numbskull like me. It's flawed, unethical, and leads to more lawyer/court bantering and confusion.
Law Commission Report = 4/10. Could do better. Should be listening to the Scottish people, and the Scottish governemnt, not the Bliarites of New Labour/englerlund.
The Law Commission's recommendations, (defining consent), are far too skewed to promote higher rape convictions. I feel the Law Commission have been bullied by the harmman's, the angiolini's, and the baroness-scotland's to get the conviction rates up.
I don't think this is the right way to approach such an important debate/discussion area of Scottish Law/society. They've began their efforts by looking at the effect, not the cause. I cetrtainly would not endorse this Law Commission's recommendations, nor agree with their findings. They said,
"
It may be that the jury bring in their own ideas about consent, so what we have done here is to bring in a detailed model of consent. We hope that by offering a legal definition of consent, it may help to change social attitudes towards it ."
Seems to me 'it may be the jury bring in their own ideas about consent', correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what jury are supposed to do? If we let the 'elites' like angiolini et al make our laws then we definately will have 1000, (and more), rapists in Scotland every year.
We as Scots have over 3000 years of celtic pedigree; we have managed to live fairly with each other from clan times, through landed gentry/county council times, but it's only in the last 300 years we've been fighting each other for reasons laid down by the english crown. Let's get back to our own nationstate, let our own government make good sensible laws that will not label us the rape capital of the world; and have us fighting between ourselves over their semantics of our laws.
I find the way this Law Commission has performed has been incumbent of Bliarite attitudes. In-deed, they are all chosen from Bliarite quangos. Therefore, I shouldn't expect anything less from a New Labour Law Commission. Flawed, skewed, and unrepresentable of Scottish people and society. More New Labour rules just for the sake of more quangos/recommendati
ons.
Getting back to the recommendations, 10 years for telling a dirty joke?
Am I allowed to say F*ck Me!
'Observer', I find your confidence in the Scottish police too affording; we all know the cops in Scotland will nick anything, and even for nothing. Just take a look at the most recent cop/crown example, the old man nicked in frumdermaline.
To conclude, introducing 7 new definitions of consent only leads to a position where the defendant HAS to prove innocence. This is fundamentally flawed, even to a numbskull like me. It's flawed, unethical, and leads to more lawyer/court bantering and confusion.
Law Commission Report = 4/10. Could do better. Should be listening to the Scottish people, and the Scottish governemnt, not the Bliarites of New Labour/englerlund.
Posted by: allymax, upvinesass, scotland. on 5:07pm Wed 19 Dec 07
[quote][bold]millhouse[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Todd[/bold] wrote: The low conviction rate is due to the attitude of PC Plod et al. They have no interest in establishing what actually happens i.e.gathering evidence and forming a professional judgement based on the evidence. They will simply charge and leave it to the courts to decide what happened. A high percentage of these cases should never have had a charge made if the police actually did some proper investigation. Rape must be the worst experience for a person both male and female, but is it not time that PC Plod does a proper job before a charge is even made or are we as a society happy to continue to accept such low charge to conviction rate which is a serious failure on the whole legal system.[/quote] I think you will find that people are not charged with Rape unless there is a sufficiency of evidence otherwise the case would be thrown out by the Procurator Fiscal before it reached a court. [/quote] millhouse, this IS exactly what's happening! Every allegation of unlawful sexual intercourse is being forced through the courts as rape!
You've actually hit the nail on the head. Well done.
millhouse wrote:
Todd wrote: The low conviction rate is due to the attitude of PC Plod et al. They have no interest in establishing what actually happens i.e.gathering evidence and forming a professional judgement based on the evidence. They will simply charge and leave it to the courts to decide what happened. A high percentage of these cases should never have had a charge made if the police actually did some proper investigation. Rape must be the worst experience for a person both male and female, but is it not time that PC Plod does a proper job before a charge is even made or are we as a society happy to continue to accept such low charge to conviction rate which is a serious failure on the whole legal system.
I think you will find that people are not charged with Rape unless there is a sufficiency of evidence otherwise the case would be thrown out by the Procurator Fiscal before it reached a court.
millhouse, this IS exactly what's happening! Every allegation of unlawful sexual intercourse is being forced through the courts as rape!
You've actually hit the nail on the head. Well done.
Posted by: allymax, upvinesass, scotland. on 5:08pm Wed 19 Dec 07
[quote][bold]millhouse[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Todd[/bold] wrote: The low conviction rate is due to the attitude of PC Plod et al. They have no interest in establishing what actually happens i.e.gathering evidence and forming a professional judgement based on the evidence. They will simply charge and leave it to the courts to decide what happened. A high percentage of these cases should never have had a charge made if the police actually did some proper investigation. Rape must be the worst experience for a person both male and female, but is it not time that PC Plod does a proper job before a charge is even made or are we as a society happy to continue to accept such low charge to conviction rate which is a serious failure on the whole legal system.[/quote] I think you will find that people are not charged with Rape unless there is a sufficiency of evidence otherwise the case would be thrown out by the Procurator Fiscal before it reached a court. [/quote] millhouse, this IS exactly what's happening! Every allegation of unlawful sexual intercourse is being forced through the courts as rape!
You've actually hit the nail on the head. Well done.
millhouse wrote:
Todd wrote: The low conviction rate is due to the attitude of PC Plod et al. They have no interest in establishing what actually happens i.e.gathering evidence and forming a professional judgement based on the evidence. They will simply charge and leave it to the courts to decide what happened. A high percentage of these cases should never have had a charge made if the police actually did some proper investigation. Rape must be the worst experience for a person both male and female, but is it not time that PC Plod does a proper job before a charge is even made or are we as a society happy to continue to accept such low charge to conviction rate which is a serious failure on the whole legal system.
I think you will find that people are not charged with Rape unless there is a sufficiency of evidence otherwise the case would be thrown out by the Procurator Fiscal before it reached a court.
millhouse, this IS exactly what's happening! Every allegation of unlawful sexual intercourse is being forced through the courts as rape!
You've actually hit the nail on the head. Well done.
Posted by: allymax, upvinesass, scotland. on 5:27pm Wed 19 Dec 07
Sorry for posting twice; mistake, could get the button to work.
But I do get to post again!
Please think about the slow but forceful way the 'elites' of Scotland's New Labour are subordinating the Scots peoples and society by continually claiming we're a disgrace.
She's the one keeping the figures high.
Let's get her a good job down in engerlund so that she's out of Scotland; are you listening mr Salmond?
Sorry for posting twice; mistake, could get the button to work.
But I do get to post again!
Please think about the slow but forceful way the 'elites' of Scotland's New Labour are subordinating the Scots peoples and society by continually claiming we're a disgrace.
She's the one keeping the figures high.
Let's get her a good job down in engerlund so that she's out of Scotland; are you listening mr Salmond?
Posted by: jonny bond, glasow on 6:31pm Wed 19 Dec 07
We need a universal law ensuring love liar rapists are hanged flogged and have **** chopped off seems to be the message. Oh and don't sleep with a bird if you are famous cause she is only after her 15 minutes. Poor Manu geezer what happens if he is found guilty he could lose his job and basicly his life just cause he told some slapper he loved her to get her into bed then told her to take a hike she was a slapper and to close the door on her way out the hotel. Does this new legislation really want to get involved with such situations and do the man u kid out of a future without more proof than a slappers word. What happens to her she sells her story again except ammended to say he was a love cheat and broke her heart and we are all expected to sob for her. Her perjury will be washed under the carpet because there are no political points in locking up a slapper at 40 grand a year.
We need a universal law ensuring love liar rapists are hanged flogged and have **** chopped off seems to be the message. Oh and don't sleep with a bird if you are famous cause she is only after her 15 minutes. Poor Manu geezer what happens if he is found guilty he could lose his job and basicly his life just cause he told some slapper he loved her to get her into bed then told her to take a hike she was a slapper and to close the door on her way out the hotel. Does this new legislation really want to get involved with such situations and do the man u kid out of a future without more proof than a slappers word. What happens to her she sells her story again except ammended to say he was a love cheat and broke her heart and we are all expected to sob for her. Her perjury will be washed under the carpet because there are no political points in locking up a slapper at 40 grand a year.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (36)
