Gorgeous George's comments about Assange and rape.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783

He has a point. Not saying that I agree with it, but he definitely has a point.

“not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion”

Well done George, you ****ing genius. What a ****!!!

left or right some politicians have real problems with this

“It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, ‘do you mind if I do it again?’

Classy.

…..he’s american. What exactly did you expect?
George is just a reptile. Hardly news.

It’s a really tricky and incredibly sensitive topic <tinfoil>which’ll be why the CIA chose it</tinfoil> but I do think there is a little truth to this point:

“It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning.”

Right now rape is rightly considered an abominable crime, but I do worry that if (as I have heard discussed in this case) consensual sex with someone that you say you love but don’t, or consensual sex where the condom splits, gets labelled as “rape” then that sort of dilutes the impact a bit.

However… having sex with someone while they are asleep, as mentioned in the article, does warrant the term “rape” IMO.

So you can have a one night stand with someone, fall asleep, wake up the next morning and attempt to slip it in again before they wake up???!

Sorry but that’s a big rapey Fail in my book. When would the cut off point arise – “Well officer she agreed to sex on Friday so I thought it was fine to just stuff it in when she bent down to pick up the mail on Tuesday morning!”

Sorry but that’s a big rapey Fail in my book.

😀

Sorry but that’s a big rapey Fail in my book. When would the cut off point arise –

from the article…

In the UK, a rape has been committed if there is intentional penetration without consent and if the accused “does not reasonably believe” that consent has been given.

“does not reasonably believe”…..

“For the offence of rape to have been committed the defendant must have penetrated you without your consent, or continued to penetrate you after you withdrew your consent, and the defendant must not have reasonably believed that you were consenting.” Definition of rape from Sexual Offences Act.

See – if Assange reasonably believed that they had given their consent, which it MAY have been reasonable to assume, then it wasn’t rape from a legal perspective in the UK. Swedish laws may differ.

It’s an interesting one right enough.

My standpoint is that Assange is being stitched up AND that he’s a creepy assed mofo who needs a slap for what he may have done to those women – rape or no rape.

What this story boils down to is ‘Man with an Ego the Size of a Solar System Defends the Same’

So you can have a one night stand with someone, fall asleep, wake up the next morning and attempt to slip it in again before they wake up???!

What about if the person was your long-term partner? Never been woken up by your partner *ahem* doing something sexual, or vice versa? If My girlfriend of 17 years woke up to find me touching her breasts or elsewhere, technically that’s sexual assault, right, as she hadn’t given consent?

I’m also genuinely not sure of how anyone could ‘penetrate’ someone without them waking up?

I just think when you start talking in black and white absolutes and too easily throwing words like rape around it starts to potentially demean the perceived seriousness of genuinely horrific crimes. I don’t know what Assange did, but plenty of people seem to have already decided he’s a rapist.

I know someone who was falsely accused of rape and it was absolutely horrific for them. This is not in any way meant to demean or diminish the experience of rape victims.

My standpoint is that Assange is being stitched up AND that he’s a creepy assed mofo who needs a slap for what he may have done to those women – rape or no rape.

This is fairly close to how I see it too TBH.

What a charming chap George is.

Can I just check if I’m missing the point here – is Assange accused of slipping one in whilst the woman was asleep, or is that just a stupid point Georgey boy came out with?

Wot grum said (otherwise I am technically a rapist)

aracer – yes.

How about this one then? Rape?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10717186

As an aside – The penalty for falsely accusing someone of rape should be the same as that for rape.

So what happens if she falls asleep half way through sex? (not that this has ever happened on my watch :oops:)

What about if the person was your long-term partner? Never been woken up by your partner *ahem* doing something sexual, or vice versa? If My girlfriend of 17 years woke up to find me touching her breasts or elsewhere, technically that’s sexual assault, right, as she hadn’t given consent?

not under the wording of the law, it is reasonable to assume consent, but if she was to say “No” when realizing whats happening (edit: and you continued) that could constitute a sexual assault.

If My girlfriend of 17 years woke up to find me touching her

After 17 years with, hopefully, an impeccable track record in your relationship of respect, non-violence, non-agression, love and intimacy I reckon you could probably play the “does not reasonably believe that consent has been given” card there.

EDIT: Klunk beat me.

Pretty sure they are sent to jail when/if it’s uncovered. Doesn’t help recover someone’s life but at least it means there is punishment to deter others

I don’t agree with this, but just for balance I was thinking of a reverse scenario – You have a one night stand with woman and wake up the next day to find she’s giving you head, I think a lot of men would enjoy this. Perhaps in a VERY misguided way he thought the woman might enjoy being woken in such a way. Still crosses the line for me though.

Agree with those of you that think he might have been stitched up because of who he is.

Ok thanks for the clarification, but at what point during those 17 years did it become reasonable to assume consent? Was there a particular day, before which if I did it I was a sickening sex criminal, but after which it was absolutely fine?

“reasonably” is not a black and white thing. It’s contextual. It provides a route for common sense in a lot of UK law.

Spotted on Twitter earlier today

Using Galloway’s logic if Assange were to be taken to America while he was sleeping it wouldn’t be extradition, just bad manners.

I think this guy’s got a good point 😆

Using Galloway’s logic if Assange were to be taken to America while he was sleeping it wouldn’t be extradition, just bad manners.

except Assange has never given any consent to be taken to the US from which an expectation of consent could have been drawn later.

So not even close. But pithy nonetheless 😉

I’m surprised that even Galloway has pitched in on this – any MP likely to get a pasting expressing anything other than the “standarised” approved view.

Whatever the truth of the rape allegations, Assange must be seriously freaked out to have bolted to the Ecuadorian embassy to seek assylum. Given the gradations of seriousness of rape offences that the Beeb refer to under Swedish law, you’d think he’d just go back and try and clear his name. The worst outcome (of the rape case) would be a few years in jail and lost reputation.

Strange choice, Ecuador… Has he looked at an atlas. Given what he has published on wikileaks, you’d think he’d choose somewhere a long way from the reach of the US…

“reasonably” is not a black and white thing. It’s contextual. It provides a route for common sense in a lot of UK law.

That’s kind of my point Stoner, in the law it seems there are grey areas, whereas many people seem to want to talk in absolutes. I can understand the reasoning of not wanting to tolerate or legitimise any form of abuse, but I’m not sure it’s actually that helpful.

I feel pretty uncomfortable talking about these matters for fear of being branded a ‘rape-excuser’ or something – I don’t think that’s conducive to a grown up rational debate.

is it that grey in UK law ? the consent once given can be assumed until withdrawn.

* sniggers *

Ken Clarke to the STW forum!

Just in case I now have a signed piece of paper from Mrs Cat giving me ongoing and unequivocal consent until officially withdrawn, in writing, with a month’s notice. 🙂

The local vicar was a bit shocked when we asked him to witness the statement! 😯

An odd state of affairs…

Was looking for some of the reporting from the time – some of what (I think) I remember seems to be no longer on-line.

The most generous assesment would be that the Swedes had made a bit of a hash of this case…

Mr Assange is questioned by police for about an hour in Stockholm and formally told of the allegations against him, according to his lawyer at the time, Leif Silbersky. The activist denies the charges.

So, they had him “down the station”…

Rape by deception. Isn’t that actually at the root of the Assange case anyway? He sleeps with two women and neither accuse him of rape until they find out he’s been with the other one.

Surely that fulfils the requirement for an initial questioning, on Swedish soil, before officially charging him or did he skip the country too quickly. Whichever, the Swedes are saying that they need to go through the process again.

There was an accusation on a blog (will see if I can dig it out) of all manner of tampering with the accusers twitter accounts and blogs from around the time.

…you’d think he’d just go back and try and clear his name. The worst outcome (of the rape case) would be a few years in jail and lost reputation.

Perhaps if the US and Sweden promised extra extra hard (no crossed fingers) that he wouldn’t be immediately extradited to face the death penalty in a US court then he might?

Strange choice, Ecuador… Has he looked at an atlas. Given what he has published on wikileaks, you’d think he’d choose somewhere a long way from the reach of the US…

Some of what he published was a leaked memo from the US slagging off Ecuador, much to the public annoyance of the Ecuadorians. Hence why Ecuador approached him, wanting to give the US a bloody nose.

Perhaps if the US and Sweden promised extra extra hard (no crossed fingers) that he wouldn’t be immediately extradited to face the death penalty in a US court then he might?

Which is wht I included “(of the rape case)”.

re Ecuador – Not sure I’d sleep too easy in my bed. Haven’t US special forces regarded Central America and northern S America as their own little playground for decades?

Perhaps if the US and Sweden promised extra extra hard (no crossed fingers) that he wouldn’t be immediately extradited to face the death penalty in a US court then he might?

Extradition is a judicial decision. One that cannot be made in advance and cant be prevented by a government promise.

rogerthecat – Member
Surely that fulfils the requirement for an initial questioning, on Swedish soil, before officially charging him or did he skip the country too quickly. Whichever, the Swedes are saying that they need to go through the process again.

First interview on 30th August, found no case to answer (lesser charges).
Second prosecutor takes over case on 1st September and decides that there is further investigation needed but doesn’t call Assange in for questioning.
Alleged victims called in for interview 2nd September.
Assange leaves Sweden on 27th September.

aracer – yes.

Oh – I’d missed that one (have to admit I’ve not been avidly following the case). In which case, despite what many seem to have commented, what he did would be regarded as rape under UK law, and I have rather less sympathy with him.