On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:38:27 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 30/11/2015 08:07, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:20:46 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

snip


You may note that Mr Williams was charged with rape.

Is that clear enough? Just because an article says a women has raped,
doesn't make it true.


You must have missed Todal's post:

However a woman can be found guilty of rape if she is an accomplice to a
man who has carried out a rape. In English law, if you are an accomplice
you can be held guilty of the principal offence.

Is that clear enough for you now?

Have you noticed how Mrs Williams was never charged with rape.

She was found guilty of it:

Pauline Williams was found guilty of two rapes and five indecent assaults. They
were found not guilty of eight other allegations involving two other
complainants.

Or have all the national newspapers got their facts wrong?


You seem to misunderstand: can you answer the to questions in order to clarify:

"In English law, if you are an accomplice you can be held guilty of the
principal offence" Is this statement true?

Can a woman be found guilty of rape?