Another MASSIVE lie.
Look, when it comes to trivialising discussion and comparing posters to football club employees dressed in full body copyrighted animal caricatured suits, I'm just the ideas man.
I don't know. As per the previous thread, she may well have been, but it was never proven beyond reasonable doubt. This was the opinion of the second jury too.
So you'd have acquitted him?
I think, based on the (lack of) evidence, that I would have had to. Same as the jury did.
yeh but this is urban, pa. you're not in kansas now.
Yes. Preferably the case shouldn't have been brought (against the wishes of the alleged victim) in the first place. Had she made a complaint herself I'd have been 100% behind her.
that being the case, pa, where do you stand on the police ability to bring charges of domestick violence where no complaint has been made by the victim?
And you favour an expensive interpretation of relevance, which allows a woman's sexual history to be dissected. That had deterred reporting. It will mean that fewer than the current 1% of rapes result in conviction. And so it will result in more women being raped.
I think there are circumstances where it may be relevant and the law already allows for this in those exceptional circumstances.
Dunno son. Never thought much about it. I'd have to read up a bit before forming an opinion. My immediate thought though, is that a complaint should be brought by the victim or someone else who witnessed the incident. Not the police. Prepared to be convinced otherwise though.
No. As I recall, that was part that I realised I had misread and withdrew.
No. It was other parts of what you'd misunderstood that you eventually withdrew. You remained (and, presumably, remain?) supportive of the Court of Appeal's interpretation of s.41, notwithstanding what that means for women who have been raped.
Then I can't remember. I'll have a look later if you can chuck me a link to the part you're referring to. Pretty sure that I eventually agreed that the the new evidence shouldn't have been allowed but the case shouldn't have been brought in the first place. Whatever's the case I was not defending rape and the only reason that Bellend has said that I was (apart from that he's a thick cunt), is because we have heavy beef going back years.
I hope we can also finally sort the cheese v beans thing.
yes, it's the 'v' thing which prevents a resolution. it is NOT this cheese versus beans which excites the taste buds but the mingling of the flavours, which is why the only correct answer is 'simultaneous': cheese et beans, not cheese versus beans. BadgersI hope we can also finally sort the cheese v beans thing.
make it a poodles leg, I need it after these last few pages
Okay then, what about plane v conveyor belt?
it's not for sale.
I hope we can also finally sort the cheese v beans thing.
it has always struck me that there is little gentlemanly about the vast majority of male gentrifiers.
Well I've just been looking for it and can't find it past me ultimately agreeing with you that it had no probitive value and withdrawing that part of the argument. As I said, happy to revisit it if you can post or PM me a link to the part you mean.
