Karma

VTech

Can you point me to the part where I was wrong, im struggling with that one.

cornerblock

VTech wrote:

I just found it odd how you felt it right to attack me

Here we go! Nobody is 'attacking' anyone here. Just you being told by somebody that they think you are wrong, it happens!

arran77

Cornerblock wrote:

VTech wrote:

I just found it odd how you felt it right to attack me

Here we go! Nobody is 'attacking' anyone here. Just you being told that by somebody that they think you are wrong, it happens!

VTech's never wrong

VTech

I have to admit that I dont like being wrong although occasionally I am but when I am wrong I like to know where I was wrong, it helps with the pain so again, can anyone enlighten me.?

team47b

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.

I think this may be where you went wrong, hope this enlightens and eases the pain :roll:

arran77

VTech

team47b 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.

I think this may be where you went wrong, hope this enlightens and eases the pain :roll:

Where was I wrong ?
My point was that the law reflects rape only once if you read it and doesn't detach rape in the context of permission or advanced warning so to answer, he COULD legally make a charge.
Now of course we know the CPS wouldn't proceed (I would hope not) but as my initial post was CLEARLY aimed at the stupidity of law I find it odd why anyone would have bought these arguments against me. Of course I'm not bothered, human nature of this kind amuses me.
I've just been reading on yahoo news about Helen Flanagon (sp) and people saying how ugly she is and what a waste of space she is. It reminded me of some people here who get pleasure from hating or bitchin at others

ballysmate

VTech, from your lengthy post above

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.

As has been pointed out, this is not statute, but nothing more than advice from THS. But even if it was statute, the line in bold says it all. The woman was being raped and so could not consent.
It takes a special logic to attribute a 'mens rea' to a rape victim.


Edit. Should read:-
The woman was being raped and so could not consent or seek consent.

team47b

...and you honestly believe that there are people here who are actually being hateful and bitchin?

I think you are wrong

Mikey23

So the poor chap might have a civil case then...

paulorg

I may be wrong but my understanding of our legal system is that if there has been no previous ruling then a test case can be brought, that would suggest that the scumbag rapist could attempt to prosecute and the case would set down the rules for future prosecutions. You would hope there is no court in this land that would give a guilty verdict but you never know

dmclite-3.0

What about The National Trust, Vtech, they must have some member lawyers who could tell you the law on this. The national Trust must ne one of the best, 'cos its all over the UK !

Mikey23

Did an essay on 'common sense theory' for my sociology degree a few years back. Can't remember what I wrote... All about some concepts being beyond debate

VTech

paulorg wrote:

I may be wrong but my understanding of our legal system is that if there has been no previous ruling then a test case can be brought, that would suggest that the scumbag rapist could attempt to prosecute and the case would set down the rules for future prosecutions. You would hope there is no court in this land that would give a guilty verdict but you never know

This is exactly what I meant.

Why anyone here would seriously think I was suggesting that this would be either fair or just is odd, I just simply stated that due to the bl00dy daft UK law he would have potential to make a claim.

The next thing I know I have a 4th generation whatever solicitor breathing down my neck giving it large about how stupid I am. I can concur, I deal with them on a weekly basis when issuing crash data to various courts and find the whole process odd but thats another story.

Mikey23

I think it might have been politic to have left out the last para...
Breaks out popcorn

team47b

...or the last two pages

Is it salt or butter?

Mikey23

Sweet for me ta...

pinno

arran77 wrote:

Pass me the bloody popcorn Arran77. BTW you look shaggable and you got nice noorks.

I didn't realise you came with a black box - you must be an air hostess blonde.

arran77

pinarello001 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Pass me the bloody popcorn Arran77. BTW you look shaggable and you got nice noorks.

I didn't realise you came with a black box - you must be an air hostess blonde.

Thanks man, love you too :P

Think there'd be a serious case of the ladyboy thread going on if anyone thinks I look like that