Rape is now guilty before proven innocent.

For the hundredth time...The DPP is NOT advocating that anyone be convicted without proof, or presumed guilty until proven innocent for that matter - they lack the power to make a change like that.

All that has changed is that the police/CPS are now ADVISED to pursue an investigation if an accusation of rape is made and the defendant is unable to demonstrate a reasonable belief that the victim consented/was capable of consenting to sex.
To put it in context:

1) Officer: "Why did you believe X was consenting to sex?"

Defendant A: "She invited me back to her house, undressed and started kissing/undressing me and continued to make it clear that she was enjoying herself throughout/at no point indicated in any way that she wanted to stop."

Officer: "That's great, have a nice day."

2) Officer: "Why did you believe that X was consenting/able to consent to sex?"

Defendant B: "She kissed me earlier at the start of the party and she was really, really drunk but hey, she never said no!"

Officer: "I am arresting you on suspicion of rape, you do not have to say anything..."

Hope this helps!

Nobody will say the second answer.

To be fair no man was ever penetrated against their consent with a vagina

Nobody will say the second answer.

With that logic, if I rape a girl and she cums then it absolves the rape.

Rape culture running wild in this thread.

Don't have sex with drunk women, thereby cutting your chances of being accused of rape by up to 99.7% (0.3% of rape allegations are false). If the only way you can get laid is by targeting (yep) drunk females, maybe you need to do a little self-improvement.

I'm not suggesting that anyone ban drunk sex, I'm suggesting people (men, women, whatever) use better judgement in when they engage in sexual intercourse. If a someone is too drunk to consent, don't do it. It's pretty simple. Especially if that person is someone you just met in some club, with no idea of anything about them.

As far as your assertion that rape culture doesn't exist, I only need point you in the direction of things such as Dapper Laughs in rebuttal. Or you can head to Twitter and check out the hashtag #RapeCultureIs for thousands or examples of it. I'm sure those thousands of people are all morons of feminists, though.

And I apologise for the 0.3% figure. It's actually 0.6% as detailed here:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/false_rape_allegations_serious_but_rare-29200

But if you're also very drunk as a man how is it reasonable to say you should know if she's too drunk?

So we also have a pedophile culture because Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle joke about them all the time, they also joke about murder a lot so we have a murder culture too.

You do realise that's of incidents where it's proven wrong, it doesn't take into account all the times the CPS don't get a conviction but choose not to try and prosecute the woman


Posted from TSR Mobile

If the accused (a) accepts he had intercourse and (b) is unable to say in what manner the victim demonstrated consent.

This is all you need to know. You don't need written consent with a solicitor present or any other hyperbolic nonsense. It's usually pretty clear if someone is capable of giving consent, and from there you should be able to demonstrate in what way that person did so. If you're worried about getting so drunk that you can't stop yourself from having sex with someone else who is just as drunk, and therefore not capable of giving consent, maybe you need to look at your drinking habits and the situations you put yourself in.

Once there is a consensus that sexual intercourse occurred the burden immediately shifts to the man to prove that she had consented when it should be down to the CPS to prove she didn't


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm telling you that's how it is, I've studied sex crimes and I know the law. I think you need to realise that when it comes to sex crimes the law is 100% on the side of women to the extent they will invent no crimes and apply 'justice' retrospectively


Posted from TSR Mobile

See my post above

The prosecution will ask how did the defendant know the complainant was consenting thus they will need to prove a reasonable belief that there was consent when it should be that the prosecution must prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief in consent. Don't attempt to a read a small section of an article and claim that you know more than someone who has knowledge sexual offences and has read cases and seen how the law is applied in practice


Posted from TSR Mobile

However it is always for the prosecution to prove lack of consent.

You are confusing the prosecution having to prove something with the Defendant being entitled to give his account without being asked any awkward questions.

I'm telling you that's how it is, I've studied sex crimes and I know the law. I think you need to realise that when it comes to sex crimes the law is 100% on the side of women to the extent they will invent no crimes and apply 'justice' retrospectively


Posted from TSR Mobile

This is rubbish.

A policeman will ask that question in interview. The suspect will either (a) say "no comment" (b) give a credible explanation, (c) give an incredible explanation or (d) give an answer that amounts to an admission that there was no consent.

At the trial, the Defendant's account will only go in if it amounts to admission or if the Defendant gives evidence and says something that wasn't in the police interview. It is the Defendant's choice whether he gives evidence or not. If he does, the prosecution can cross-examine him on how he knew the victim consented. If he doesn't give evidence, the prosecution will have to prove lack of consent some other way.

However it is always for the prosecution to prove lack of consent.

You are confusing the prosecution having to prove something with the Defendant being entitled to give his account without being asked any awkward questions.