Quick point of order chaps...so we are ALL now rapists ? probably...

[Snin]

seriously tho..how the f**k do we PROVE they said yes ? how exactly can a teen boy progress ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1137566 7/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules .html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html)

je suis un rapist now ..f**kin mental

[Snin]

argument that tbf she was once spiked but i took her home ( i didnt spike her promise!) but if the bloke who had spiked her had taken her home and f**ked her then she hadnt said yes...so i can see there is another side to this.. ok love? is this retraction ok? but you can see its a minefield love ? good..now get upstairs :-)

[Berni]

1/ In law it is (rightly) possible for a man to be found guilty of raping his wife. And yet how often in marital relations is explicit consent asked or required - let alone recorded? We've all had drunken sex with wives or partners that was wholly consensual but still drunk. To (potentially) retrospectively make that rape is a legal nonsense - not least as that has the potential to cut both ways (see below).
2/ This proposal introduces the idea that chemical incapacity means sexual consent cannot be implied by action or even apparent enthusiasm at the time. Nobody seems to have considered that this idea makes it perfectly possible for any number of men to bring accusations of rape against women. Should be fun.
3/ To place the burden of proof on the accused runs entirely counter to every principle of English Common Law.

The fact is that in sexual matters there is such a thing as implied consent - even when drunk. Without it, many of us (men and women) would still be virgins. These proposals are a cynical nonsense with no basis in reality and nobody involved actually believes they'll become law.

[Snin]

[ :bow: More shocked I let my missus to be read my awimb posts tbh :yikes:

[Snin]

If not :bow:

[Bergkamp's Brain]

sounds like guilty until proven innocent :rubchin:

[Red N White Army]

Your 3rd point is the most worrying TBH.

[2 Strikers?]

Its fundamental purpose is to protect women who get so drunk or otherways off their face as to be incapable of looking after themselves and getting home safely.

This is a relatively new phenomena, the ladies have only recently (geologically speaking) jumped on the band wagon of binge drinking.
I think the 80s/90s were witness to the explosion of feminine drunkeness.

This has undoubtedly seen an increase of predatory behaviour in men who see these drunken ladies as fair game. In the old days it was pretty much just the ****s and bikes that got to that stage but now these 'predators' have a whole new and tempting smorgasbord of delights to choose from. But these young ladies are more fragile in temperament than the old slags and rightly object the next day to what happened the night before.

The bottom line is that to the average, normal and well balanced chap a girl so badly drunk is a hideous prospect, as attractive and sexy as slamming a drawer on your tackle, but probably more damaging. But to a sexual predator its heaven on a plate. Its these chaps that this is aimed at and I have no problem with that.

Anyone else making a fuss about this probably needs to re-evaluate their attitude toward women, avoid long term relationships and just use the (self-employed) whores that are there for the very purpose. In the long run it could well prove to be not only cheaper but also more beneficial to your career prospects, what with not getting a rape conviction and being on the nonces register.

[Classic Jorge]

I'm still counting them though, they all count whether they're from 30 yards or if they're a tap in

[Peter]

[Classic Jorge]