Karma

arran77

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-23935768

"A man who has been jailed for raping a woman is waiting to find out whether he has contracted HIV from her."

It's awful that anyone should have HIV but you can't help but think that's karma :shock:

Mikey23

Indeed... as you sow, so shall you reap...

upperoilcan

Deserves all he gets as far as im concerned the dirty ba*tard..

He should have been stoned to death for doing the crime in the 1st place.

VTech

The sad truth is that if he has he will be able to sue her.

Sure, some here will say im wrong and "making it up" but if you dont warn someone your breaking the law, is it written in law that this absolves rapists ?

I know that if a thief breaks his leg whilst burgling my home or business im liable so what about this ?

Anyway, I hope he has contracted it as Karma would be well served although I dread to think of what happens to the other people he will inevitably rape upon release.

arran77

VTech wrote:

The sad truth is that if he has he will be able to sue her.

Sure, some here will say im wrong and "making it up" but if you dont warn someone your breaking the law, is it written in law that this absolves rapists ?

I know that if a thief breaks his leg whilst burgling my home or business im liable so what about this ?

Anyway, I hope he has contracted it as Karma would be well served although I dread to think of what happens to the other people he will inevitably rape upon release.

I really wouldn't know so I have no reason to doubt you're not right, it's still rubbish though, was she meant to say to the guy, 'excuse me but before you rape me I must warn you that I'm HIV positive, please continue' :roll:

Too much protection is afforded to those who deserve absolutely none :evil:

VTech

From a quick check (not that its important) here is what the law says;

"if there is a significant risk that you will pass on HIV to your sex partner during sex, you have a legal duty to tell your sex partner that you have HIV before you have sex. "

It does NOT from what I can see disassociate rape from this ?
Anyway, my jibe is nothing to do with this really and I still hope he is dished up with what is deserved.
BTW, did he have a history of this ?

zanelad

VTech wrote:

From a quick check (not that its important) here is what the law says;

"if there is a significant risk that you will pass on HIV to your sex partner during sex, you have a legal duty to tell your sex partner that you have HIV before you have sex. "

It does NOT from what I can see disassociate rape from this ?
Anyway, my jibe is nothing to do with this really and I still hope he is dished up with what is deserved.
BTW, did he have a history of this ?

Then the law really is as ass.

Perhaps he should have woken her before raping her.

How can she be expected to inform him that she has HIV if she's unaware that he's having sex with her.

She should counter sue for the trauma etc....

arran77

VTech wrote:

From a quick check (not that its important) here is what the law says;

"if there is a significant risk that you will pass on HIV to your sex partner during sex, you have a legal duty to tell your sex partner that you have HIV before you have sex. "

It does NOT from what I can see disassociate rape from this ?
Anyway, my jibe is nothing to do with this really and I still hope he is dished up with what is deserved.
BTW, did he have a history of this ?

That's the crux of it.

"and the woman, who had taken a sleeping tablet, awoke to find him raping her"

She did not have the opportunity before.

VTech

Fair point.
I would never have thought that she would be charged, more just highlighting how daft laws are (maybe shouldnt have posted on this matter really).
Ive known victims who found themselves at the wrong end of the law after being the victim of crime.

arran77

No, no, not criticizing you at all, you're just stating what the law says.

With some of the rulings these judges seem to hand out and how out of touch with reality some of them are I wouldn't be convinced that he'd not try and sue her :roll:

mr_goo

Slightly off track. When I was in the Specials at Dorset Police. There was a scrote of a woman that was frequently arrested. She was HIV+ and her favourite thing to do when being arrested was to bite and spit, to try and infect the arresting officers. Some lovely people out their.

VTech

Mr Goo wrote:

Slightly off track. When I was in the Specials at Dorset Police. There was a scrote of a woman that was frequently arrested. She was HIV+ and her favourite thing to do when being arrested was to bite and spit, to try and infect the arresting officers. Some lovely people out their.

Yes I bet she never went to jail for that yet if I bit a burglar at my home I would possibly lose everything.

arran77

VTech wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Slightly off track. When I was in the Specials at Dorset Police. There was a scrote of a woman that was frequently arrested. She was HIV+ and her favourite thing to do when being arrested was to bite and spit, to try and infect the arresting officers. Some lovely people out their.

Yes I bet she never went to jail for that yet if I bit a burglar at my home I would possibly lose everything.

Unless you warned him you were about to do it :P

spen666

VTech wrote:

The sad truth is that if he has he will be able to sue her.....

Complete and utter b*ll*cks

There is not a chance than any claim of this nature would succeed.

sungod

VTech wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Slightly off track. When I was in the Specials at Dorset Police. There was a scrote of a woman that was frequently arrested. She was HIV+ and her favourite thing to do when being arrested was to bite and spit, to try and infect the arresting officers. Some lovely people out their.

Yes I bet she never went to jail for that yet if I bit a burglar at my home I would possibly lose everything.

solution to the latter is to eat the whole burglar, or mince him and use as fertilizer

VTech

spen666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

The sad truth is that if he has he will be able to sue her.....

Complete and utter b*ll*cks

There is not a chance than any claim of this nature would succeed.

Im sure people who have found themselves in similar ludicrous situations have felt the same.

A petrol station burgled through the night where the thief fell and sued for a wet floor after breaking leg.

Brendon Fearon who Sued Tony Martin for loss of earnings after he burgled his farm, Fearon was a career criminal who had never held a job more than 6 weeks.

A woman in 2009 who after being raped was then further tortured after a court gave paternity rights to the father of the child born from that rape (ok that was in the USA but im talking humanity here not local laws)


The law isnt always black and white im afraid.

Daz555

VTech wrote:

The sad truth is that if he has he will be able to sue her.

Not a chance.

spen666

VTech wrote:

spen666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

The sad truth is that if he has he will be able to sue her.....

Complete and utter b*ll*cks

There is not a chance than any claim of this nature would succeed.

Im sure people who have found themselves in similar ludicrous situations have felt the same.

A petrol station burgled through the night where the thief fell and sued for a wet floor after breaking leg.

Brendon Fearon who Sued Tony Martin for loss of earnings after he burgled his farm, Fearon was a career criminal who had never held a job more than 6 weeks.

A woman in 2009 who after being raped was then further tortured after a court gave paternity rights to the father of the child born from that rape (ok that was in the USA but im talking humanity here not local laws)


The law isnt always black and white im afraid.

I'm afraid you are completely wrong on this case and i'd invite you to find asingle case of where a rape victim has been held liable for any infection their rapist caught.


You wholly unrelated case regarding the petrol station is of course covered by the occuopiers liability act - which relates to premises not to rape cases.

Still, i'm only in my 4th decade as a qualified solicitor so what do I know compared to your half baked and wrong interpretation of the law

VTech

spen666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

spen666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

The sad truth is that if he has he will be able to sue her.....

Complete and utter b*ll*cks

There is not a chance than any claim of this nature would succeed.

Im sure people who have found themselves in similar ludicrous situations have felt the same.

A petrol station burgled through the night where the thief fell and sued for a wet floor after breaking leg.

Brendon Fearon who Sued Tony Martin for loss of earnings after he burgled his farm, Fearon was a career criminal who had never held a job more than 6 weeks.

A woman in 2009 who after being raped was then further tortured after a court gave paternity rights to the father of the child born from that rape (ok that was in the USA but im talking humanity here not local laws)


The law isnt always black and white im afraid.

I'm afraid you are completely wrong on this case and i'd invite you to find asingle case of where a rape victim has been held liable for any infection their rapist caught.


You wholly unrelated case regarding the petrol station is of course covered by the occuopiers liability act - which relates to premises not to rape cases.

Still, i'm only in my 4th decade as a qualified solicitor so what do I know compared to your half baked and wrong interpretation of the law

Why ohh why is this place so full of people who take what is written as written rather than in a human nature way ???????

My initial post was one of tongue in cheek aimed at the idiocy of law and I am sure you can relate to that as in your 4th decade you havent seen such instances you cant of worked much ?
I then made a comment to suggest maybe my point shouldnt have been made in this context and then after that I made another statement where daft issues have been bought.

Now, although I cant find a single case where a rape victim has been bought to court to answer a case of passing over a deadly infection ‘recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm’ in your speak, can you tell me for certain that the guy in question could NOT bring charges due to the fact that he raped the woman and it wasnt consensual ?

Its a genuine question.

VTech

In addition, having just read through the lawful terms of HIV and legalities, it seems that sleeping with someone knowing your HIV is only illegal when you pass on the infection and even then it must be proven that you intended to cause "grievous bodily harm".

So, you can sleep with anyone without informing them and the law is broken only after the death sentence is passed. I dont wish to sound off but doesnt this drive home my earlier point ?

team47b

VTech wrote:

I dont wish to sound off but doesnt this drive home my earlier point ?

If anyone is gonna drive home a point it would be you

arran77

team47b wrote:

VTech wrote:

I dont wish to sound off but doesnt this drive home my earlier point ?

If anyone is gonna drive home a point it would be you

Dog with a bone

spen666

VTech wrote:

In addition, having just read through the lawful terms of HIV and legalities, it seems that sleeping with someone knowing your HIV is only illegal when you pass on the infection and even then it must be proven that you intended to cause "grievous bodily harm".

So, you can sleep with anyone without informing them and the law is broken only after the death sentence is passed. I dont wish to sound off but doesnt this drive home my earlier point ?

more total b*ll*cks i'm afraid.

Clearly you do not understand the law at all


you are right your latest post does drive home the earlier post as proving you know nothing at all about the law. You may read the words, but you clearly do not undersatand the way the law works orwhat is or is not an offence

VTech

spen666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

In addition, having just read through the lawful terms of HIV and legalities, it seems that sleeping with someone knowing your HIV is only illegal when you pass on the infection and even then it must be proven that you intended to cause "grievous bodily harm".

So, you can sleep with anyone without informing them and the law is broken only after the death sentence is passed. I dont wish to sound off but doesnt this drive home my earlier point ?

more total b*ll*cks i'm afraid.

Clearly you do not understand the law at all


you are right your latest post does drive home the earlier post as proving you know nothing at all about the law. You may read the words, but you clearly do not undersatand the way the law works orwhat is or is not an offence

Dont get angry with me, im not a lawyer and havent pretended to be, I simply quoted law from the Terrance Higgins trust and I accept that you are saying they are wrong as I dont know either way.

Here is the FULL disclosure:

Introduction

Since 2001, thirteen people have been successfully prosecuted in the United Kingdom (eleven in England & Wales, and two in Scotland which has a different legal system) for giving their sexual partners HIV. In addition, four people have been acquitted. The laws used to prosecute criminal HIV transmission developed from existing assault laws - ‘recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm’ in England and Wales and ‘reckless injury’ in Scotland.

To secure a guilty verdict for either ‘recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm’ or ‘reckless injury’ the prosecution has to prove that:

the person with HIV did, in fact, infect their partner
the person with HIV was aware of their HIV status and the risk of transmission
the person who became infected did not explicitly consent to sex with an individual they knew had HIV.
Providing advice to individuals about the specific circumstances and the kind of behaviours that might come to the attention of the police and be prosecuted is difficult. This is because the law has developed from individual cases.

However, in March 2008, the Crown Prosecution Service, which is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales, published a policy statement and guidance for prosecutors that helps to clarify who is most likely to be prosecuted, and under what circumstances. There is no equivalent guidance in Scotland.

Below are some of the most frequently asked questions and concerns about prosecutions for HIV transmission. However, this information does not replace appropriate legal advice for anyone who is being investigated or charged in such cases, or who is thinking of making a complaint. Anyone personally concerned about the possibility of prosecution should contact THT Direct on 0845 1221 200 to be put in contact with expert advice as soon as possible.

Is having unprotected sex with someone and not telling them you are HIV-positive a crime?

Unprotected sex that does not result in HIV transmission is not against the law in England and Wales. There is no crime of ‘attempted reckless' transmission. Although it is theoretically possible to be prosecuted for ‘reckless endangerment’ in the absence of actual transmission in Scotland, there have been no prosecutions so far.

However, it is possible to be charged with ‘attempted intentional’ transmission, and there is no defence of consent available in charges of intent. To date, nobody has been successfully prosecuted for either ‘intentional’ or ‘attempted intentional’ transmission because proving that one person intended to give another person HIV sexually is extremely difficult.

When does unprotected sex become a crime?

Since HIV transmission is silent and unseen, neither you nor your partner can know whether HIV has been transmitted during sex. So, there is a possibility that if your HIV-negative or untested partner tests HIV-positive, suspects that they were infected by you, and they complain to the police because you had not told them you were HIV-positive, you might be subject to a police investigation. If you are concerned about this, the best advice is to use condoms consistently for vaginal and anal sex, and/or to make sure your partner explicitly agrees to have sex with you, knowing you are HIV-positive.

Why is specific consent to the risk of HIV transmission so important?

You might think that someone having unprotected sex must realise the risk they’re taking, so whatever happens is their responsibility. But the law says the person who does not have HIV cannot consent to unprotected sex unless this decision is informed. Proving that there was consent to the risk of HIV transmission is difficult, and may often be one person’s word against another.

How can it be proven that one person infected another?

A very important part of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance concerns difficulties proving that one person infected another. It will be harder to prove this if the person making the complaint has had more than one sexual partner (or any other HIV infection risk) since their last negative HIV test. By taking blood samples from both people involved, if the virus strains are not very similar, it is possible to say with some certainty that one person did not infect the other.

If the samples are very similar, however, this is considered to be just one - albeit important - piece of evidence supporting the claim that one person infected the other, but it cannot be used as proof on its own. Other evidence will include the medical and sexual history (for example, from medical records or diaries) of both the person making the complaint and the person who is accused, to try and understand the timing of both people’s HIV diagnoses, and whether the person making the complaint could have been infected in another way.

How can it be proven that someone has been ‘reckless’?

Even if it can be shown that one person has infected another, the prosecution still needs to prove that person has been ‘reckless’. In legal terms, ‘reckless’ means the person with HIV did not intend for their sexual partner to get HIV, but did not try to stop it happening, because they did not use a condom for vaginal or anal sex and did not have express permission from their partner to have unprotected sex.

Specifically, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had knowledge of their HIV-positive status; understood they were infectious and how HIV is transmitted sexually; and did not use condoms consistently and/or did not make their HIV status known to the person making the complaint so that they could explicitly consent to the risk of HIV transmission.

Can someone be prosecuted if they didn’t know they were HIV-positive

The prosecution will have to prove that the accused knew that they were HIV-positive when sex that resulted in transmission took place. Most people will only ‘know’ they are infected once they have been diagnosed (and this will be proved by using medical records, including anonymous records at a GUM/sexual health clinic).

In exceptional circumstances - such as where someone has refused to test despite specific advice to do so by a doctor, or does not get a confirmatory blood test following a rapid test - this might be seen as being ‘wilfully blind’ to having knowledge of their HIV-positive status. Usually, however, if someone has not been diagnosed, they will not be prosecuted.

How can it be proven that someone understood they were infectious?

The prosecution will have to prove that the accused was told they were infectious by their doctor or other healthcare professional and really understood the nature of their infectiousness and relevant risk behaviours. However, the CPS guidance acknowledges that people are often shocked when first diagnosed and do not necessarily take in what they are told.

In addition, it is not clear how - or whether - information from other sources, such as that provided by Swiss experts in January 2008 regarding the relationship between HIV treatment and infectiousness, will be taken into consideration. However, the prosecution may also use experts who have differing opinions about the relationship between treatment and infectiousness, since this is a constantly developing and controversial area.

How can it be proven that condoms were used consistently if HIV transmission took place?

Consistent condom use is a defence against a charge of reckless HIV transmission. However, the consistent use of condoms is extremely difficult to prove and, as in rape cases, it may often be just one person’s word against another.

There is no clear guidance about legal liability for transmission following condom breakage, but both Terrence Higgins Trust and the National AIDS Trust argue that if a condom is found to have broken during sex and HIV transmission occurs as a result, it should be an adequate defence for the accused to have promptly advised their partner to obtain post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).

Further information on HIV transmission and the criminal law

This information was correct as of November 2008. For the latest advice and further detailed information, call THT Direct on 0845 1221 200 or visit the Terrence Higgins Trust or National AIDS Trust websites.

---

Just because I dont know law, ive had the capability to read since childhood.

arran77

spen666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

In addition, having just read through the lawful terms of HIV and legalities, it seems that sleeping with someone knowing your HIV is only illegal when you pass on the infection and even then it must be proven that you intended to cause "grievous bodily harm".

So, you can sleep with anyone without informing them and the law is broken only after the death sentence is passed. I dont wish to sound off but doesnt this drive home my earlier point ?

more total b*ll*cks i'm afraid.

Clearly you do not understand the law at all


you are right your latest post does drive home the earlier post as proving you know nothing at all about the law. You may read the words, but you clearly do not undersatand the way the law works orwhat is or is not an offence

This threads gonna get interesting I reckon

(Scurries off to find popcorn )

spen666

VTech wrote:

---

Just because I dont know law, ive had the capability to read since childhood.

you have the ability to cut and paste as well, but as I said you do not UNDERSTABND the law.

What you have said is quite frankly wrong in law.

you can quote chunks of text from the Terrence Higgins Trust but that again is not the law.

I hate to break it to you, but the Terrence higgins Trust are neither law makers, not even lawyers.

winnersh cyclist

hopefully he is infected would just love it the issue is will he then go and infect other victims chances are YES and next what a pathetic sentence he will be out in 2.5 years he could have got that not paying his TV licence or community charge

VTech

spen666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

---

Just because I dont know law, ive had the capability to read since childhood.

you have the ability to cut and paste as well, but as I said you do not UNDERSTABND the law.

What you have said is quite frankly wrong in law.

you can quote chunks of text from the Terrence Higgins Trust but that again is not the law.

I hate to break it to you, but the Terrence higgins Trust are neither law makers, not even lawyers.

So, just so my meagre brain can compute what your saying.

You are saying that the Terrence Highins Trust (the most highly respected trust in the world) is actually wrong in what they are suggesting as the laws surrounding HIV ?
The information on their site is wrong ?

I don't care either way really, I just found it odd how you felt it right to attack me for posting info taken from the worlds most respected source.

pliptrot

VTech wrote:

worlds most respected source.

Wow, respect. That takes some chutzpah. I'll tell you what, though, I bet the Guardian is close.

VTech

pliptrot wrote:

VTech wrote:

worlds most respected source.

Wow, respect. That takes some chutzpah. I'll tell you what, though, I bet the Guardian is close.

OK, if the common consensus is that the Terrence Higgins Trust is the biggest loads of tripe since god made tripe then ill bow to the superior knowledge of those in the know.
I wrongfully thought that it was one of the worlds most reliable source' of HIV and sexual health advice and even suggests so in both wikipedia and the Lancet but im sure wikipedia is also unreliable and who would take advice from the lancet these days ?

team47b

VTech wrote:

spen666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

---

Just because I dont know law, ive had the capability to read since childhood.

you have the ability to cut and paste as well, but as I said you do not UNDERSTABND the law.

What you have said is quite frankly wrong in law.

you can quote chunks of text from the Terrence Higgins Trust but that again is not the law.

I hate to break it to you, but the Terrence higgins Trust are neither law makers, not even lawyers.

So, just so my meagre brain can compute what your saying.

You are saying that the Terrence Highins Trust (the most highly respected trust in the world) is actually wrong in what they are suggesting as the laws surrounding HIV ?
The information on their site is wrong ?

I don't care either way really, I just found it odd how you felt it right to attack me for posting info taken from the worlds most respected source.

HE SAID WHAT YOU SAID WAS WRONG IN LAW.

HE SAID THE THT DO NOT MAKE THE LAW AND ARE NOT LAWYERS.

quite simple really

pass me some of that popcorn...