Recent Rape Poll In The Uk?

It is the same here - R v Hughes (1841) 9 C & P 752, Court of Appeal.

Oh look, there I go again, citing cases! I'd better get ready for a lawsuit

EDIT: I think I should add, Playful Giant, that England is a common law system. This is the last place where they're going to keep cases secret, because they form the vast majority of our law. So what you're basically saying is that you have to keep the law secret because of data protection.

Right.

 

If Playful Giant was refering to on going cases i.e. still under investigation could that be the reason why he can't give details???

 

No, because he was talking about cases that have apparently already happened.

 

k Cheers.

 

Just read through this thread, one small point I have to make under both English and Scots law, the prosecution do not have to prove the victim said "NO" they only have to prove no consent was given.
So if for instance I as a man picked up a woman who was too drunk to resist or comunicate and forced myself on her, she has not conscented, so I would still be a dirty rapist pervert. I believe the law was changed under the current government, but I know that is how the law stands just now.

 

Part of the problem is that guys who are not rapists look at rape in terms of sex. Rape is not sex, rape is taking power and control away from some one else. Rape is an act of control. If rape were about sex, then the little eighty year old woman in the town I work in would not have been raped by a twenty year old male.

Victims of rape are NOT picked for clothing or behaivor. They are NOT picked because they are pretty or ugly. They are NOT picked because they wiggled their hips too much while they walked.

 

Like a boss of mine once told me. Never admit to knowing anything you don't absolutely have to.

 

Exactly, and if PG really was as 'experienced' as he says he'd know about scenes, negotiation and safe words.

Regarding what he said about court cases though, in his defence he did actually say that they were in the public record and suggested trying Google. He only said that he personally didn't feel comfortable about giving out details here. That doesn't mean I agree with a lot of what you said though PG.

 

There is no reason why he should feel uneasy about giving details out here if he's not lying. Cases are reported and are widely available to the public, even rape ones. I backed my points up, if he can't do the same then well, we just know who's really done their legal research.

@wrydolphin - excellent post. I heard there is research to show that most rapes are carried out against fully clothed women, does anyone have anything to substantiate this?

 

PG is banned.

 

Banned? That's a bit

I don't think he put his point across so well, but I think he was just trying to point out that there's a big difference between a "stalker" and someone who gets the wrong end of the stick, and that there's been cases where the legal system has been abused.

Perhaps what he wasn't putting into consideration is that cases where the law had been abused the way he saw it were much less common and much less severe consequences when the system had been abused the other way.

I think banning was a bit OTT.

 

I agree that there's no reason why he shouldn't provide links to the cases that he's talking about. If these come from reputable sources then that's fine. All I'm saying is that if he works for the Criminal Justice System as I believe he previously implied, then he'd need to be careful not to say anything that might constitute slander or libel. Especially if the person in question was acquitted.

Having said that, I don't believe he has his facts straight anyway. I suspect he's missed something vital along the way somewhere. Anyway, it seems he's banned now so I guess we'll never know!

 

His banning has nothing to do with this particular thread.

He violated the TOS with regards to a derogatory remark directed towards another member insulting their character and their occupation. He was Sin Binned for a few days but he didn't take too well with that and decided to unload on me (and all of you) and well, I didn't take too kindly to that :woo:

So all in all not a bit OTT .... and so unfortunate really, he could have come back after a few days in the bin and try yet again to get his points across in a manner in keeping with TOS, but he admitted that he did not want to remain a member here.

Back to the subject now ... minus PG

 

My bad. I assumed it was down to this thread...

 

He said that these people were given life sentences for accidentally ejaculating, so apparently they didn't get acquitted. If they did get acquitted, libel or slander wouldn't be an issue because the law reports would say that they got acquitted. As I say, there is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be able to provide legal authorities to support his point.

Also, it is worthy of note that the average sentences for rape are 6 years for pleading guilty and 7 years for pleading not guilty. Following Billam (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 48, the Crown Court has some sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal:

1) For basic rape with no aggravating or mitigating factors, the basic starting point is 5 years.

2) Where there were two or more men acting together, or where it was committed after a man broke into where the victim was, or where it was by a person in a position of responsibility to the victim or by a person who abducts the victim and holds her captive, the starting point should be eight years.

3) Where there was a campaign of rape of a number of victims, 15 years or more might be appropriate.

4) Where the behaviour was perverted or showed psychopathic tendencies or gross personality disorder, and the defendant was likely to remain a danger for an indefinite time if left at large, a life sentence is not inappropriate.

5) The crime is aggravated if there is additional violence, or a weapon is used to frighten or wound, or if the rape is repeated, or is carefully planned, or if the defendant has previous convictions for rape or other serious offences of a violent or sexual kind, or if the victim is subjected to further sexual indignities or perversions, or the victim is very old or young, or if the effect is specially serious. Where the offence is aggravated the starting point should be substantially higher.

6) The fact that a victim acted imprudently, e.g. by accepting a lift from a stranger is not a mitigating factor, and her previous sexual experience is irrelevant. There should be some mitigation if the defendant was led to believe that she would consent to sexual intercourse.

A second conviction for a serious offence (including rape or attempted rape) receives an automatic life sentence - Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s109.

 

KC did say though that he's been banned due to an unrelated incident. Nothing to do with this thread.

 

Yeah, hence I edited my post.

 

No, the reports and any news coverage wouldn't because they have legal departments whose job it is to ensure that what they say is fair and balanced. I've worked as a contractor to government agencies and in these roles you come across a lot of information, some of which is in the public domain, some of which isn't. All I'm saying is that it's a lot easier to say nothing and point people at press releases etc than to be constantly thinking about whether or not what your saying is in the public domain or not.

I believe that's what I said.

 

I'm not talking about news reports, I'm talking about law reports. The press has nothing to do with it.

Cases are reported so that judges in the future can refer to them when making their decisions. You can read these reports in full in public libraries. They're found in big leather bound books, and on various e-databases. The law reports will state the facts of the case and then set out word for word the judgment of each judge on the case. Each judge will state the reasons why they came to their decision.

You will notice I say things in this thread like "R v Billam (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 48". This is a citation, and it tells people who read what I say where they can find the authority to back up what I'm saying among the law reports.

If PG was a real lawyer he would know this.

Yes, but then you contradicted yourself by talking about why libel or slander might make him not want to reveal the authorities in question.

 

He said he was a civilian working for the met! Didn't make any mention of him being a lawyer.