Driver told to expect at least six years jail

On 27/11/2015 14:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2015-11-27, The Todal wrote:
However a woman, even with a huge clitoris, cannot perform the act of
rape because that requires a penis. Isn't it time the law was brought up
to date to take into account transsexuals? A woman with a surgically
created penis who has chosen to identify as a man ought (perhaps) to be
capable of rape.

Yes, that is what the law already says. Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3):
"References to a part of the body include references to a part
surgically constructed (in particular, through gender reassignment
surgery)".


Thanks, well spotted.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 01:03:00 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 26/11/2015 22:12, Jim wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:31:57 +0000, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

{ X-post added as this subject has come up on other groups }

Richard McKenzie wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 09:04:03 UTC, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
Richard McKenzie wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 08:42:03 UTC, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 22:18:20 UTC, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:07:50 +0000, John Smith aka ****sack Isaac Goldstein
wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Two years less than a woman was given for repeated rape, you
mean?

Women cannot 'rape' in English law.

Yes they can

No they cannot.

and there have been convictions.

The crime of rape (s. 1(1)(a) Sexual Offences Act 2003) requires a
penis.

Please tell us how a woman can rape a man (or another woman).

Assault by penetration

.. which is not rape.

Semantically its the same.

Is Justin Bieber music ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcTLJ692F70

This is quite a curious argument to be getting into on a legal newsgroup.

I'm not arguing the moral aspect of the law. Nor am I saying that it's
'right' that a man can be held liable for an offence when a woman cannot,
despite the gravity of both.

The law, however, is clear: the offence of rape is defined in s. 1(1)(a) of
the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and requires the penetration of the vagina or
the anus by a penis.

As women do not have a penis, they cannot be charged with the offence of
rape.

That is the end of the debate.

How come women have been found quilt of rape then?

They don't. They are found guilty of sexual assault which can carry a
long sentence.


Oh really - the courts have just got it wrong have they?

Unless you have of course.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:40:18 +0000, Nick wrote:

On 27/11/2015 13:07, The Todal wrote:
Especially when the definition of
rape now includes fellatio without consent.


It's good to see the law is concentrating on these important issues. I
can't remember the number of nights I have spent tossing

I'm sure you can't.

On 29/11/2015 22:44, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 01:03:00 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 26/11/2015 22:12, Jim wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:31:57 +0000, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

{ X-post added as this subject has come up on other groups }

Richard McKenzie wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 09:04:03 UTC, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
Richard McKenzie wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 08:42:03 UTC, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 22:18:20 UTC, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:07:50 +0000, John Smith aka ****sack Isaac Goldstein
wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Two years less than a woman was given for repeated rape, you
mean?

Women cannot 'rape' in English law.

Yes they can

No they cannot.

and there have been convictions.

The crime of rape (s. 1(1)(a) Sexual Offences Act 2003) requires a
penis.

Please tell us how a woman can rape a man (or another woman).

Assault by penetration

.. which is not rape.

Semantically its the same.

Is Justin Bieber music ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcTLJ692F70

This is quite a curious argument to be getting into on a legal newsgroup.

I'm not arguing the moral aspect of the law. Nor am I saying that it's
'right' that a man can be held liable for an offence when a woman cannot,
despite the gravity of both.

The law, however, is clear: the offence of rape is defined in s. 1(1)(a) of
the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and requires the penetration of the vagina or
the anus by a penis.

As women do not have a penis, they cannot be charged with the offence of
rape.

That is the end of the debate.

How come women have been found quilt of rape then?

They don't. They are found guilty of sexual assault which can carry a
long sentence.


Oh really - the courts have just got it wrong have they?

Unless you have of course.

He can't be wrong, he has four law degrees and speaks Latin.

I wonder why he hasn’t written to Cleveland Police, Middlesbrough and
Stockton councils & Highways England yet?

--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.

On 29/11/2015 22:44, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 01:03:00 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 26/11/2015 22:12, Jim wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:31:57 +0000, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

{ X-post added as this subject has come up on other groups }

Richard McKenzie wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 09:04:03 UTC, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
Richard McKenzie wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 08:42:03 UTC, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 22:18:20 UTC, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:07:50 +0000, John Smith aka ****sack Isaac Goldstein
wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Two years less than a woman was given for repeated rape, you
mean?

Women cannot 'rape' in English law.

Yes they can

No they cannot.

and there have been convictions.

The crime of rape (s. 1(1)(a) Sexual Offences Act 2003) requires a
penis.

Please tell us how a woman can rape a man (or another woman).

Assault by penetration

.. which is not rape.

Semantically its the same.

Is Justin Bieber music ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcTLJ692F70

This is quite a curious argument to be getting into on a legal newsgroup.

I'm not arguing the moral aspect of the law. Nor am I saying that it's
'right' that a man can be held liable for an offence when a woman cannot,
despite the gravity of both.

The law, however, is clear: the offence of rape is defined in s. 1(1)(a) of
the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and requires the penetration of the vagina or
the anus by a penis.

As women do not have a penis, they cannot be charged with the offence of
rape.

That is the end of the debate.

How come women have been found quilt of rape then?

They don't. They are found guilty of sexual assault which can carry a
long sentence.


Oh really - the courts have just got it wrong have they?

Unless you have of course.

You should blindly stop accepting anything said by a journalist who
poaches other news feeds and propagate their journalistic license.

From a source closer to the case:

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/Married-Mid-Devon-couple-accused-raping-sexually/story-25702462-detail/story.html

"Pauline Williams faces eight charges for crimes which include indecent
assault, gross indecency and causing a man to commit to sexual activity
which he did not consent to. Her alleged victims ranged in age from a
child of five to an adult."

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.

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?

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.

Do you swallow everything Todal says?

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:18:37 +0000, Cycle-Ops wrote:

I wonder why he hasn’t written to Cleveland Police, Middlesbrough and
Stockton councils & Highways England yet?

I have absolutely no ****ing interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle.
And we know what you think of bicyclists.
And I have absolutely no ****ing interest in changing that.
Especially not for you.

On 30/11/2015 09:42, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:18:37 +0000, Cycle-Ops wrote:

I wonder why he hasn’t written to Cleveland Police, Middlesbrough and
Stockton councils & Highways England yet?

I have absolutely no ****ing interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle.
And we know what you think of bicyclists.
And I have absolutely no ****ing interest in changing that.
Especially not for you.

God, that's almighty chip you have. How do you stand up straight or
stop yourself cycling in circles?

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:00:44 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 30/11/2015 09:42, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:18:37 +0000, Cycle-Ops wrote:

I wonder why he hasn’t written to Cleveland Police, Middlesbrough and
Stockton councils & Highways England yet?

I have absolutely no ****ing interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle.
And we know what you think of bicyclists.
And I have absolutely no ****ing interest in changing that. Especially
not for you.

God, that's almighty chip you have. How do you stand up straight or
stop yourself cycling in circles?

Around Davie