Translate

Friday, 28 November 2014

Potential money-making scheme for slags participating in gangbangs at the expense of the UK taxpayer

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2011/20110303%20CBA.%20Guidance%20for%20Investigating%20and%20Prosecuting%20Rape_Public%20Facing_2010.pdf  explains the complexity of the law. You can imagine the police and court time being wasted by the malicious and neurotic sluts who find themselves withdrawing consent after agreeing to sex which they later regretted.

Why not though?

These women get £11,000 if the alleged rapist is convicted and we already know most women who get raped tend to be sluts, and sluts are both stupid and immoral.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7555299.stm

http://abdullahalandalusi.com/2014/11/22/tales-of-unexpected-convincing-members-of-english-upper-class-that-sharia-is-fairer-than-english-law/

Sharia doesn’t punish people for what they do while they are drunk – nor punishes people for ‘rape’ just because they couldn’t tell if their partner was ‘too drunk to consent to sex’ (which carries a potential LIFE SENTENCE )and can be extremely difficult to ascertain, not to mention problematic considering most casual sex occurs in the West after both parties have drunk alcohol. One case in England, was a young man had sex with a woman who approached him for sex repeatedly – the morning after, the woman believed she was too drunk to have consented, and he later turned up in court charged with rape of the woman. He was only saved when it turned out that he too was too drunk to consent! (effectively English law considers they raped each other!) leading to the dropping of the case. The political Sharia is fairer because it abolishes alcohol (and requires consent to sex to be required under a legal document establishing responsibility i.e. Marriage) therefore eliminating the problem of establishing consent full stop. 


https://thedebateinitiative.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/transcript-shariah-vs-english-law.pdf

Below is an exchange on rape and sharia:

OM said...
What a crock of shit. "Sharia is fairer because it abolishes alcohol", the most stupid, inane, thoughtless statement of the day so far. Explain to me what is fair about one person imposing his personal tastes on another. As I understand it, under Sharia a rape cannot be said to have happened unless there were six, make witnesses to the event. Well, what fucking genius! Clearly a criteria for taking sex without consent is that there be eight people in the room. Absence of these witnesses results in the victim being charged with fornication and often given the same sentence as her rapist. How very fair.


Claire Khaw said...
"Sharia is fairer because it abolishes alcohol"

That just means neither the alleged rapist can say he was so drunk he thought consent had been given nor can the complainant claim she was so drunk she was unable to give consent.


OM said...
So what is the more sensible solution? Change the law so rapists/complainants can't use alcohol as an excuse, or ban alcohol.

Claire Khaw said...
There is a law called khalwat, which is a "people will talk" restriction.

If a man and a woman spend the night together alone and the woman gets raped it could be argued that she should have known better and so should he.

Both get lashed 100 times.

Neat, huh?

OM said...
Absolute genius.


Claire Khaw said...
It will stop all these stupid accusations PRONTO.

OM said...
It would also stop legitimate victims coming forward and leave them with no legal recourse if they are raped under said circumstances.

Claire Khaw said...
So she should basically not put herself in that position and if something bad happens they BOTH get punished.

It would make people think twice.

OM said...
Idiocy.

Claire Khaw said...
Why? Are you afraid women will be less prepared to spend the night with men who are not their husbands?

OM said...
There are plenty of circumstances where people end up sharing accommodation for the night in a non-sexual context. I've done it a hundred times. And it's not a question of being "afraid" it's a question of freedom of choice. Supposing I were a rapist, I could easily trick people into letting people sleep on their floor then rape them feeling confident that the 100 lashes would put them off reporting the crime.


Claire Khaw said...
If your victim were angry enough with you she would suffer 100 lashes just to see that you got your punishment, or she could decide to draw a line under it and take it on the chin like a man ...

DC said...
Anyone advocating the introduction of 'Sharia Law' is mad.

Claire Khaw said...
I think these rules will save a lot of police and court time.

OM said...
And "saving time" should never be the over riding concern of any legal system.

Claire Khaw said...
A woman who is a compromising situation with a man should know what she is letting herself into. The least her mum can do is warn her about getting into a compromising situation with a man not her husband.

If she decides to take the risk, so be it.

If she gets raped, the she can get him punished too, but she will herself also be punished for getting herself into that situation.

Obviously it will be different if it were stranger rape.

OM said...
You were born in the wrong century, or live in the wrong continent. In Europe, we are civilized. I swear, you'd be happier among the savages in the Middle East.

Claire Khaw said...
Do you know how much it costs the taxpayer every time there is a rape case, and the prosecution is successful?

The victim gets £11k.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7555299.stm

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2011/20110303%20CBA.%20Guidance%20for%20Investigating%20and%20Prosecuting%20Rape_Public%20Facing_2010.pdf

Are you men not sort of hoping you could get raped too and get paid for that?

Even a prostitute doesn't earn as much in one act of intercourse.

A great money-making scheme would for slags to sign up to gang bangs of 10 men and then accuse some of the smellier fatter uglier men of rape at £11k a pop

The slag could say she only meant to shag one of them but they all piled into her without her consent.

The bill to the taxpayer £11,000 x 9 =  £99,000 would be her potential earnings for just a few hours of lying on her back and performing a few sex acts.

The cost to the taxpayer would be £99,000 for the slag plus all the legal and court fees to be paid prosecuting the case.

The poor bloke would have to pay all his own legal costs if he wants decent representation and still lose in the end if he is unfortunate enough to get a libtard judge like Lord Chief Justice Judge while the slag gets the feminazi-run Crown Prosecution Service to do her dirty work for her, bankrolled by the male taxpayer. Good to know how your taxes are being used, isn't it?

Not bad for a few hours' work lying on your back.

No comments: