Talk

Advanced search

To be so angry that a UK court believes that someone can apparently "accidentally" rape a woman?

(42 Posts)
SlaggyIsland Wed 16-Dec-15 08:06:34

It's a sick joke. Apparently our legal system really does believe you can fall over and accidentally stick your cock in someone.
www.rt.com/uk/326057-millionaire-accidentally-raped-teenager/

TrojanWhore Wed 16-Dec-15 08:08:02

YANBU, but there are two threads in active about this right now.

Arfarfanarf Wed 16-Dec-15 08:11:14

fucking WHAT? What? What the hell!

I truly believed he would be laughed out of court with that defence.

Oh my god.

Welcome to 21st century Britain.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

He accidentally fell in her. And out. And in. And out. And in.

Whoever acquitted him should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely ashamed.

fucking brown envelope job, this bastard.

SlaggyIsland Wed 16-Dec-15 08:11:15

I did actually look before posting and didn't see anything, but thanks I'll get this one deleted.

SlaggyIsland Wed 16-Dec-15 08:12:46

Arf I suspect the fact that he's described as a Saudi millionaire property developer may have had a little something to do with the lack of conviction here....

whois Wed 16-Dec-15 08:14:39

I'd like to read that story but the website is essentially click bait and full of intrusive adds and doesn't play nice with my phone.

hownottofuckup Wed 16-Dec-15 08:16:42

I'm sure it has nothing to do with him being a millionaire hmmp

hownottofuckup Wed 16-Dec-15 08:18:53

X post slaggy grin

BillBrysonsBeard Wed 16-Dec-15 08:32:12

He's saying some semen was on his hand from him having sex with her friend earlier, then the 18 yr old girl woke up and forced his hand between her legs... A bit more believable that his cock ending up inside her.. But still, come on!

treaclesoda Wed 16-Dec-15 08:36:56

I read about this trial and thought it was such a ridiculous defence that there was no way he would be acquitted. shock

Whoknewitcouldbeso Wed 16-Dec-15 08:38:41

I'm sure there will have been a backhander somewhere down the line.

wheelofapps Wed 16-Dec-15 08:46:34

I don't 'share and sign' v often but I did for this.

It seems only 61 people have signed the petition for the local MP to 'look into this'.

It wont change anything of course but it will highlight the case.

The more people know this can still happen, in the UK in 2015, the better.

BertieBotts Wed 16-Dec-15 08:53:22

It's being reported in several papers, take your pick.

I posted one of the other threads but I don't mind this staying. It's fucking disgusting.

People say "we don't need feminism" and "rape culture, what rape culture?"

Indeed.

tectonicplates Wed 16-Dec-15 08:55:51

A petition has been set up here:

www.change.org/p/karen-bradley-mp-investigate-judge-martin-griffiths-for-corruption-and-protecting-rapists

Dipankrispaneven Wed 16-Dec-15 09:01:05

I agree it's a ludicrous defence, but I can't see how a backhander can possibly have been involved. As I understand it, the jury came back quite quickly, which means that they weren't arguing amongst themselves and achieved a unanimous verdict. For that to have happened as a result of corruption, each of them would have to have been bribed. If you wanted to bribe a jury, you just wouldn't do that because you would have no way of knowing whether one of them would report the fact that they'd been approached about a bribe: what you would do is research (not easy to do with a randomly picked jury) and pick the three most likely to accept bribes so that there couldn't be either a unanimous or majority guilty verdict. And if it was a hung jury they would have been out a long time.

Dipankrispaneven Wed 16-Dec-15 09:04:15

And that petition is ludicrous. There is no way that the 20 minutes of evidence heard in private would have resulted in the jury doing a complete U-turn, and there is no mechanism for a retrial in the absence of new evidence. If we allow Parliament to start overturning jury verdicts it's the start of a very slippery slope.

partialderivative Wed 16-Dec-15 09:04:32

In any way, shape or form, could there be something about this case that we are not aware of

RB68 Wed 16-Dec-15 09:04:44

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sighing Wed 16-Dec-15 09:19:00

Not one member of that jury seems particularly credible with that verdict, after 30 mins? Needs investigating.

mommy2ash Wed 16-Dec-15 09:34:10

Could it not have been that while semen was found there was no physical evidence of rape. Then his story would appear to make sense. Somewhat. Kind of. It seems like an awfully quick time to return a unanimous verdict with just the info we have available to us

SummerNights1986 Wed 16-Dec-15 09:54:48

The headline is just that - something to grab attention. As far as I can tell, it's not the same as what the article said.

Abdulaziz said he had gotten up in the night to get a glass of water and claims the teenager pulled him on top of her and placed his hand between her legs. He added it was possible he had semen on his hands after the sexual activity with her friend

Surely there would have been more medical evidence than we're being made aware of. If you have a medical exam, can't they tell if you've recently had intercourse or not (and not determined by presence of semen). Then there's the volume of semen, which would have been massively different if he had actually raped her with full intercourse taking place, to the tiny trace there would have been if his story was true.

I suspect the medical evidence (no sign of intercourse taking place, trace amount of semen only) would have had to back up his claim to make it credible.

SummerNights1986 Wed 16-Dec-15 09:57:00

And no, the UK Court hasn't said it's possible to accidentally rape someone.

They've found him not guilty. Meaning that they think he didn't rape her at all.

BigChocFrenzy Wed 16-Dec-15 11:53:45

No, they weren't convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that he raped her.
Which is why, although his legal status is "innocent," anyone may still decide it is much safer to avoid him, socially.

BigChocFrenzy Wed 16-Dec-15 11:56:36

A jury can decide quite quickly that the evidence doesn't support "beyond all reasonable doubt" (without any bribery being involved)
That is very different to deciding on the evidence that someone actually didn't commit the crime.

SlaggyIsland Wed 16-Dec-15 11:59:22

So why, I wonder, did he (or his solicitor) feel the need to claim in court that he slipped and fell into her penis-first?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now