Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

beermonster wrote:

Blade wrote: To be completely honest I would see rapists and child absuers hung which would remove the argument forever whether or not they should be exclude from our society as they have been permanently removed and for the better IMHO. I m not seeking agreement with my opinion or wishing to influence other peoples opinion its purely mine and of no signifance.

Blade wrote:Your right it's not black and white.

So does this imply that there's "good rape" and "bad rape"? Not having a go, just want to understand your position here mate.

Without opening a can of worms or wanting to be shot down in flames i guess so yes. Not implying any rape is good for the record its all bad, just there must be varying levels of horror, trauma caused.

In Perkles and kwackys scenarios this would seem a relatively low level of trauma if any as consent was given in both cases The opposite extreme would be Jack the ripper or the Yorkshire ripper who are predatory raping monsters.

Blade, no one is having a go, we're simply discussing the issues and putting forward differing views. You've said you would have convicted rapists and child abusers hanged. Then you're sorry to hear what Perkle's mate went through. But you want him hanged.

All we're doing is challenging your viewpoint. That's the purpose of having a discussion.

I never said I wanted Perkles mate hanged nor was he ever a convicted rapist as far as I'm aware.

All ive done is state my opinion and also politely that I'm not looking for approval or agreement so just don't understand why people want me to explain myself.

Its just my opinion nothing more. If you don't agree with it that's cool I'm fine with that and respect other people's view.

The girl was under 16 so it's statutory rape as she's too young to give consent.

He wasn't convicted of rape if you read Perkles post.

If you have sex with someone under the age of 16 it is statutory rape.

A child cannot give consent in the eyes of the law, even if the victim says he or she gave express consent and wanted sex. In a case such as that one there is no requirement to show consent as the law says consent cannot be given.

Sexual Offences Act 1956.

Maybe he was then I'm not sure he did any time,he's definitley of the sex offenders register
He used to own a bike shop in the Black Country and he lost his business because of it
Nightmare scenario he was in with no way out

It does get people thinking when openly discussed and that's a good thing.

The only nonsense of the law in this scenario is when a man can be a convicted rapist but if he'd waited for 24 hours he wouldn't , or even less if the law was adhered to the letter..
Eg:
Lad picks up girl and takes her home on the eve of her 16th birthday , could be accused of rape. if it happened the next day he wouldn't.

I know a song about that

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHoVXpIEbTU[/video]

See he's been found Not Guilty at the retrial.

A lot of humble pie to be eaten by those who publicly harangued him and anyone to do with him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's still a shit. I've no idea how his girlfriend stood by him.

Yep don't disagree on that but he didn't commit the crime he was accused of.

http://www.thesecretbarrister.com/2016/ ... vans-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not been funny in anyway but when your out and someone's tells you there age you don't ask twice she was out pissed up putting her self out there i think it was wrong what he did but I don't believe he raped her at all

Yeah his wife is a idoit but he did not rape her I don't think he was just a pissed up idoit at the time is she going to go to prison for lying I don't think so she ruined his life is she going to pay for that no

Yeah he was a fool a tool a idoit for beliving her but he did not rape her I don't think so

She didn't lie.

From the link I posted:-

2. Well at the very least, the verdict means that the complainant has lied, surely?

No. Absolutely not. A not guilty verdict in most cases is insufficient to safely infer that the jury have concluded that a complainant lied (as opposed to the jury not being sure one way or the other), but in this case the facts suggest the opposite. As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped. The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied, or, to quell the more hysterical calls, that she should be prosecuted on the basis of Evans’ acquittal.

Five years later????

Hindsight is always 20/20, I reckon..../