Sawdust what was being misunderstood?
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you - works busy. I listened to Emma Barnett programme (in the first link) which has WomanDareTo on it. She explains that it was after the Natalie Connolly murder trial that she started the We Can Not Consent To This website. That website is here. She had been concerned because she believed that the Defendant in that case, John Broadhurst, had been acquitted of murdering Natalie Connolly because his defence had been, that although he had indeed murdered her, because Natalie had consented to violent sex, then he shouldn't have been found guilty of her murder. (and in fairness, this was how the press were reporting it).
In reality, what happened was that Broadhurst was charged with murder and went to trial on that charge. However, during the trial it was shown that the CPS didn't have evidence that he had caused Natalie's death. Broadhurst had caused injuries to Connolly but the Court heard evidence from expert witnesses that these injuries hadn't caused her death. So the murder charge was abandoned or the judge directed the jury to acquit him of it - either way he was found not guilty of murder.
.....I'll break off there for a bit of background on murder (I used to be a criminal defence solicitor). At a trial the prosecution need to prove that the defendant had killed the victim AND that he had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. There's been a lot of case law on the question of intention. Part of the definition of murder included the term malice aforethought, but this doesn't mean there is need to prove that the defendant had been planning ahead to the killing - so if two people start to argue and in the course of that one of them picks up a knife and and stabs and kills the other with it, then this is murder. That is intention enough. If the prosecution can't proof intention but can prove that A kills B, then A is guilty of manslaughter.
Broadhurst was not found guilty of straight forward 'manslaughter' - as he would have been, had he caused her death. Instead, he was found guilty of a lesser crime that of negligent manslaughter - which is only used when a legal 'duty' exists by the defendant over the victim. Because what had happened that night, the Court decided that Broadhurst had created that duty and as such he should have done more to save Natalie's life.
However, WomanDaresTo claims that Broadhurst had killed Natalie i.e. murdered her, but had claimed (a non-existant) defence that she had provided her consent to the violence - and that this defence was Broadhurst's route to being convicted of 'manslaughter'. Complete nonsense - but lapped up by those that want to believe it happens.
There is more to say, but time marches on.......