Another rough sex defence

Woke up today still thinking about this. I do not understand how we have a law which essentially says you cannot give someone the right to assault you, even if you actually did ask them to. Quite rightly, it is not legal to punch someone in the face just because they asked you to.

So why the hell are these men getting away with these wild claims that women asked the man to slash them on the back, beat them black and blue, do terrible, life-ending things with cleaning spray that I still cry thinking about? Ah yes. Our esteemed legal system has decreed that rape isn’t really an issue, “rough sex” is a valid defence and women don’t matter. Utterly horrific.

How on earth is stating that a news article is commonly available online (telegraph , independent etc) a breach of guidelines? There was nothing in my post which was a legal issue, I was very careful there wasn’t.

The case is in New Zealand Mumsnet. Surely their courts don’t have reach over here.

I thought this would be about Grace too as I was reading about the trial this morning.
It's truly sickening.

Driech he backed off after. I think it was his own expression of disbelief, that there must be more to it that we don't know yet.

He was unaware of 'we can't consent to that', and all the similar cases there have been. He isn't now.

As our parents used to say 'and if she told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?' 'She wanted him to' my arse.

This is horrific, and becoming more and more frequent as a defence.

In a slightly different angle, I was involved in a civil case where this was ran as justification rather than defence. (Changing minor details here).

What confused proceedings was the lodging of a 50 page contract signed on each page by both parties. I have never in my life seen anything like it. This document was detailed to the extreme and ran as a tick box system. Two columns, each party had to tick which things they were agreeing to. It went further than that in that it said agree, agree even if safe word used, disagree, agree if verbal consent given at time.

She was alleging domestic abuse including sexual and him not being a safe individual to care for children. He was using this as his proof that she was compliant. It was dated the year they got together and he had one for every year of the relationship.

Those documents were gone over page by page and I'm quite sure if there had been a jury that's where they are getting these verdicts.

It took me a very, very long time to get the severity of that out my head.

Contract law clashing with everything else. Disgusting.

wecantconsenttothis.uk/

You can read about a man trying to beat and stab his girlfriend to death and receiving no punishment, and a man jailed for killing a seagull* in the same paper these days!

*I don't disagree with that sentencing for animal cruelty, but the contrast was upsetting

What evidence would they need to find him guilty?

I don't understand how this happened. That poor woman - she survived to tell the jury what happened, the police were able to confirm some of what she said, strangers and neighbours were able to confirm much of what the police couldn't.

Just awful. So, so awful. She has been let down by so many people. I can't begin to imagine how she must feel right now.

I believe her.

How the fuck is he able to run a website and a blog from prison?

Coincidentally, I watched a tv programme last night where the murderer used the same defence.

www.murderuk.com/one_off_graham_coutts.html

He was found guilty, appealed and had a second trial in which he was again found guilty and sentenced to thirty years. He kept her body for five weeks in a self-storage facility and visited it seven times, apparently for sexual purposes as the police found a used condom there. He then set fire to her body.

He has his own website professing his innocence and there are other sick bastards who like auto-erotic asphyxiation, sending him messages of encouragement on there. It’s utterly sickening.

How has this happened? Due to violent and misogynistic p0rn being absolutely everywhere, and freely available to every pervert, misogynist and school boy with a smartphone in the country.

We have to bring in strangulation laws like NZ, and we have to get age verification (to stop under 19s accessing online p0rn) back on the agenda (the Tories just shamefully dropped it with no reason given).

If he'd committed fraud, he would've at least got two years. But this? Nah. Women don't mean anything.

limpshade that's not correct. Name suppression is granted on a case by case basis.

Sometimes because previous convictions of the accused could lead to 'an unfair trial'

:((((

@Driechdrizzle it is law in NZ not to publicly release the name of a defendant until (if) they are convicted.

I also wondered whether this thread would be about Grace. I am very worried that the sex/strangulation argument seems to be used increasingly often as a get-out-of-jail-free card. I really hope that won't be the case this time around.

Of course if it were men getting raped then there would be a complete overhaul of the criminal system in regards to rape and murder.

But as women we are second class citizens. As I get older I realised that.

reversed

I can't help thinking that if the positions hsd been reserved and he had run into the street naked, and witnesses overhearing threats of further violence, then Rhiannon would be looking at a long prison sentence. I feel sick now.

Unbelievable.

A similar defence is being put forward by the man accused of murdering Grace Millane, the British backpacker in NZ. He's claiming he accidentally killed her during (consensual) rough sex.

The guy H Kane Elliot, who went free, had previous form
www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/17381516.angry-drunken-customer-set-fire-to-abergavennys-kings-head-hotel-after-owner-refused-to-serve-him/

Utterly grim....she made me do it m'lord...

Very well then...off you go....

It's like a virtual reality.

Why can't people see this?

I can't get my head around this.

The woman wouldn't have run out and asked strangers to call the police if it was serious.

It's just too horrible - and scary. Strangling almost seems fashionable at the moment.

I'm furious and upset about the Grace Millane case. His story is that she asked him (on the first night they met) to strangle her, and she accidentally died - it was 'sex gone wrong'. The evidence also shows that while she was dead he watched porn, he took photos of her body, and then the next day he went on another date where he told the woman that he had just got out of prison for accidentally killing his girlfriend in a sex game...Despite all this the defence has said that they are going to present evidence from her sexual history proving that she was into being strangled to death. So now her parents have to sit through a murder trial where their daughter's name is dragged through the mud and all her private thoughts are released to the world.

Honestly, I think the law has to be changed. If you strangle someone and they die there should be an automatic presumption that it was not an accident, and consent should be irrelevant. People have been convicted of murder for spur of the moment single punches. If you have your hands around someone's neck long enough to kill them, why shouldn't this be seen as an intention to end their life?