Anyone else see the BBC news report *MNHQ amending title to warn of graphic content*

[Ownedbykitties]

BBC reported a trial of men who had cut off body parts of other men.

One gave consent to having his penis and testicles cut off. Another his nipple and yet another his leg.

AIBU to wonder who is standing next to you in a queue in the post office?

The older I get the more I realise men are fucking sickos.

If you haven't realised that many humans have a propensity for weird shit and many humans are also mentally unwell, you've been living a very charmed life.

'Consent is not a defence'

Kate Mulholland, the Crown Prosecution Service specialist prosecutor for London, said: "Consent is not a defence to the illegal surgical procedures the men willingly took part in to remove their ringleader's penis, leg and nipple, in non-sterile and on occasion life-threatening circumstances."

Shame judges don’t make ‘consent is not a defence’ their mantra when men kill women and claim it was ‘rough sex’.

Wasn't it the same man who had all the bits chopped off him?

Yep, it’s all the same man.

One of them was a nurse.

Working in a hospital.

They were doing this for sexual kicks.

As said repeatedly on MN... First post nails it

Please- a warning on this post!!

Well now I'm going to wonder...

It was a pay to view and I think you could watch in real time, why the fuck anyone would want to this or watch is beyond me.

You are joking 😬

Eh?

The guy that did the cutting kept the bits in jars horrific.

Nothing surprises me in this world just when you see someone and you think wow that's messed up,you see something on the news that's really worse.serious question will some men literally go to any lengths for a bit of gratification?

The ringleader has a Facebook profile still up. He seemed pretty normal a few years back!

Whose? The man who parts were removed? It's a pretty one off thrill if so.

How does a person become a person who wants parts cut off

Consent isn't a defence in those cases either, although it's become a common catchphrase. In law it's about the intent of the accused, not the consent of the victim.

Usually, mental illness.

Yes it is a defence in those cases.

The campaign group, “We Can’t Consent to This”, with support from MPs from across the political spectrum, have lobbied the Government on what had been reported to be an increasingly successful use of a claim made by defendants that their victim had died or sustained serious injuries as a result of ‘rough sex gone wrong’. We Can’t Consent to This stated that 60 UK women have been killed by men who made such a claim which colloquially became known as the ‘rough sex defence’. In the last five years, the campaigners also claimed that this defence was successful in seven of the 17 killings of a woman which reached trial, with the man being found either not guilty or, much more frequently, being convicted of manslaughter.

I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot of men are very sick and most of it is all about sex. On the news today about the perverted men in Rochdale still getting their kicks grooming and raping children. It’s a sick world we live in…

This thread should have a warning @mumsnet

All of this is reported in daily newspapers. It’s nothing other than that.
The topic is horrific, but there is nothing terrifying in these posts

Why?

How does a person become a person who wants parts cut off

Maybe he thinks he's trans/ non-binary.

That's what the campaigners say. It's not actually what's happening in court, which is being misrepresented a tad.

It is a basic principle of law in this country that one cannot consent to injury etc. That is cast iron and has not changed.

In the "rough sex gone wrong" cases, the defence is not that the victim consented, but that the accused didn't intend to cause them death or serious harm (because it was part of BDSM).

There is a trend of people trying to claim this defence, that is undeniable. However, the defence is being misrepresented as "the victim asked for it so it's OK" when that is not what is actually happening. Or indeed, legal.

This case is a very similar situation. Doesn't matter how much the victim consented. Doesn't matter if the accused claim in court they have signed affidavits and videos of them agreeing to it. If the accused intended to cause them death or serious enough injury that death was a realistic possibility, then they would be guilty of murder.