Jump to content

Loic Remy


GeordieMark
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 617
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:lol: No it doesn't man, the jury didn't all just sit there and go "well there you go they went into a hotel room together so it's 100% certain they both were consenting".

Also the initial point was you saying the police shouldn't have took the case further and pressed charges against her because of footage of them going to a hotel room together, which is would have been using an assumption, which they didn't because the law doesn't work on assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until you finish having sex.

 

Not the next day when you don't return her texts

 

You'll have to explain this one a bit clearer Des, to me this sounds very, very dodgy indeed...women get to say no after the sexual act?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the jury made assumptions it is plain to see

No they assessed all of the evidence of the trial and passed a judgement, they didn't just take an assumption that because they went into a hotel room together they were both consenting to sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, an assumption is without proof, the defence will have had to prove it was consensual and the prosecution will have had to prove it wasn't, they don't just go off assumptions. The going to the hotel room together would have been used as one part of the defences case to prove consent, it wouldn't have been a the only point or else it would have been an assumption and too weak.

Edited by Howay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I said.

 

They assumed she did give consent didn't they!

 

No they didn't. Please do not try and speak on points of law when you clearly have no clue as to how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again that simply isn't how the law works, judgement's are not passed on assumptions, you have to prove your case. If the defence solicitor turned up and used them going to a hotel room and the assumption that they were consenting to have sex as his only evidence his case would have lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again that simply isn't how the law works, judgement's are not passed on assumptions, you have to prove your case. If the defence solicitor turned up and used them going to a hotel room and the assumption that they were consenting to have sex as his only evidence his case would have lost.

 

But your not listening. I didnt say the defence, i said the jury. The Jury believed the defence case over the prosecutions.

 

It really is that simple.

Edited by desmondTUTU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you're a fucking idiot. The jury does not have to believe the defence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not give consent. It is a very difficult thing to do given the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you're a fucking idiot. The jury does not have to believe the defence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not give consent. It is a very difficult thing to do given the circumstances.

 

Where did i say that the jury had to believe the defence?

 

They chose to believe them, nobody said they had to believe them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But your not listening. I didnt say the defence, i said the jury. The Jury believed the defence case over the prosecutions.

 

It really is that simple.

They didn't believe the defences case though, it's simply that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent.

Edited by Howay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't believe the defences case though, it's simply that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent.

 

How do you know they did not believe the defence, that's you making an assumption there :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jury does not have to believe the defence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not give consent. It is a very difficult thing to do given the circumstances.

 

I'd also add to that that the 'reasonable doubt' aspect of UK law coupled with this is the reason why such cases result in so few convictions. The defence merely has to present enough room in the victim's claim for a hint of consent, and it then becomes incredibly difficult for the prosecution to patch that up - simply due to the fact that measuring consent and by extension sexual desire in hindsight becomes a 'his word against hers'. The jury's job in this situation is an easy one, as they cannot say that the evidence results in a guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

I'd like to put in as a caveat that I think the UK justice system is by and large the best system in the world, for many reasons. However, the 'reasonable doubt' aspect that is so often a wonderful element to the law can create a grey area in instances of sexual assault.

 

 

Anyway, aye, Loic Remy is a really good footballer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd also add to that that the 'reasonable doubt' aspect of UK law coupled with this is the reason why such cases result in so few convictions. The defence merely has to present enough room in the victim's claim for a hint of consent, and it then becomes incredibly difficult for the prosecution to patch that up - simply due to the fact that measuring consent and by extension sexual desire in hindsight becomes a 'his word against hers'. The jury's job in this situation is an easy one, as they cannot say that the evidence results in a guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

I'd like to put in as a caveat that I think the UK justice system is by and large the best system in the world, for many reasons. However, the 'reasonable doubt' aspect that is so often a wonderful element to the law can create a grey area in instances of sexual assault.

 

 

Anyway, aye, Loic Remy is a really good footballer.

 

Good summary, we are lucky we have a jury of 10 rather than SA where they have one judge in a kangaroo court deciding the score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good summary, we are lucky we have a jury of 10 rather than SA where they have one judge in a kangaroo court deciding the score.

 

You realise that in certain parts of the UK the same court setup existed until 2007? You also realise why they use Diplock style courts in SA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How do you know they did not believe the defence, that's you making an assumption there :)

Because that's not how the law works, the defences job isn't to have the jury believe them, it's to weaken the prosecutions case to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It's not about assumptions or beliefs it is about proof and evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Des is in the minority here but it's a bit depressing that there are fucking thousands of Des's out there sitting in their work canteens, offices wherever spouting the same kind of shit when some headline in the 'Current bun' outrages them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.