Posts by Megan Wegan
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
My point is that "prosecution witnesses" are a smaller group governed by rules which I thought you were seriously debating the nature of. Prosecution witnesses are currently not allowed to lie or mislead the court or provide untruthful testimony, they should tell the truth. Someplaces even make them swear that they have to tell the whole truth. I think this system works well.
But Angus, she's not just the 'witness'. She is also, despite your insistence she's a lying whore, the victim.
What we're trying to say is that it's just possible, in the trauma of being assaulted, she didn't think of the chat. She certainly might not have been thinking about what turns her on, in the aftermath of a gang-rape. And even if she did, she might not have thought it was relevant to the fact that she turned up to one guy's house to have sex with him, and was confronted with 5 other people.
Of course a defence lawyer would use the chat in court. But doesn't she have the right to a trial still? To say 'yeah, I wrote that...but IT DOESN'T MATTER. I still have the right, at any point, to say, no, stop, and have them actually do that."
Seriously... the message is don't get drunk, don't dress provocatively, don't have an interesting sexual history and don't tell anyone your sexual fantasies. What will be added to the list next so that women can prove they weren't 'asking' for it?
And really, is that what the majority of men want? For us all to be wearing flannel dresses, and be scared to even talk about sex, let alone do it?
-
It looks like she has been lying for 6 months and these men have been kept in prison on the basis of her being a credibly truthful person.
Lying about what? The (alleged) attack, or the fact that she wrote something irrelevant to it on the internet?
Just to, you know, be clear.
-
Like the law it is simplifying. It not an offence for a woman to rape a woman or for a woman to rape a man. Not because it's not sexual assault (in New Zealand, called "sexual violation"), but because anything a woman could do would not be rape. Indeed, in New Zealand, it's not even possible for a man to rape a man.
I would like to reiterate Lucy's headdesk. I didn't know that. And because I was confused, this from the Crimes Act:
28 Sexual violation defined
*
(1) Sexual violation is the act of a person who—
(a) rapes another person; or
(b) has unlawful sexual connection with another person.(2) Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of person B's genitalia by person A's penis,—
(a) without person B's consent to the connection; and
(b) without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.(3) Person A has unlawful sexual connection with person B if person A has sexual connection with person B—
(a) without person B's consent to the connection; and
(b) without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.(4) One person may be convicted of the sexual violation of another person at a time when they were married to each other.
-
It would have helped the prosecution if she had made the online activity known to them in that 6 months before the trial, but she didn't. She lied (by omission) to the prosecution in a case in which her success was entirely dependent them proving her to be credible beyond any reasonable doubt. What else could the prosecution have done?
I'm with Paul on not wanting to discuss it without all the facts, but is it possible rather than lying by omission, she just didn't realise it was relevant?
-
How hard would it be for a prosecutor to stand up in court and say:
"So, the victim said this thing on the internet. She said it before the night in question, and she said it not knowing what was going to happen later. You may not like what she said, you may think she was stupid or deviant, but that doesn't matter. It is irrelevant to what happened when she was allegedly attacked."
Because, really, not to bring up that other case, but if saying stuff on the internet means you don't get the same rights to a trial...well, we're all fucked. (And I am going to have to delete some text messages....)
-
So you want this thread to be all about disclosing our sexual fantasies? Why don't you just insert a link to that thread about Kevin McCloud [sic]?
He was on my television not long ago speaking French. I choose to believe he was speaking directly to me.
-
I feel compelled to link to this (not for the first time.)
You might have to seek or give consent at various different points in a sexual encounter, and you should be ready to stop at any time if anyone else wants you to stop. Embrace the yes, and respect the no...
-
Over Christmas I was told not to bother trying to find a nice beer and just buy Monteiths, it'll be the same. So let me clear that up now. No it's not.
And I was mocked for refusing to drink Steinlager.
-
I LOVE the word salacious, and use it all the time. :)
Duuuude, shut uuuup...
Jack, you have no idea how close to the truth you just got.
Add in some whipped cream and a spanner, and you're almost there.
-
(Apologies for the in-joke if Megan has not regaled you with the details of an incident).
You guys are going to get me in trouble.
She said, now glaring at you over the glasses and from under the tousled fringe.
(Right, I am stopping now. Can anyone tell it is my last day at work?)