Most comments seem to be very one sided and I am not surprised at the comments on Kaye Adams' show. The reality is that whilst the footballers behaved like footballers do the girl was not exactly behaving responsibly either. That doesn't mean she deserved whatever it was she got, but she has to take some responsibility for what happened. They all sound like a very unpleasant bunch to me. It should be a warning to all, "do not have sex with drunken women, particularly on one night stands", it is just not a very nice thing to do and could land you in a lot of trouble.
I have taught both my son and daughter that they are allowed to say no to anyone who wants to force them or otherwise drunk or not into sex My son more so as males are just as much pressured into doing what they don't want to by unrelenting females To wake up in a hotel room not knowing how you got there isn't good but to be taken advantage of isn't good either both men should have walked away and left her if she was in such a sorry state Who knows what went on there are three sides plus the truth Moral of the story make sure you don't have sexual history and don't go having sex with drunken women
There speaks a mum of a boy Funny how ALL the ads aimed at teenagers show boys bullying, abusing and generally forcing girls into what they want them to do...there's nothing worse than a jealous girl/woman yet they fail to show that. Odd.
The thing is...and I don't have kids so I'm looking at this from a purely personal perspective: All of the people involved in this were adults of reasonable intelligence,some were willingly intoxicated,and as a result the three of them got it together. No one cried rape.The young lady cried out for more.The two guys did what guys do and that should have been the end of it.But someone convinced the young lady that the circumstances and actions constituted rape and as a result she is vilified,one mans career has been shot to pieces and the other party named but unaffected. Now,I'm not particularly smart,but that doesn't sound like rape to me.Nor did anyone break the law. But the Law decided to interpret the actions of one of the participants as breaking the law,and persuaded the young lady to bring a complaint. Now everyday millions of people worldwide will get drunk,wear inappropriate clothing,have sex with people and regret it,in fact many,many adult people of reasonable intelligence will do things tonight,and tomorrow ,and regret it.It's not the laws job to pick over those actions and decide whether they constitute an offence unless,(a) there is evidence that an offence is found to have been committed,,or,(b),a person claims an offence has been committed. Adult,reasonably intelligent people should be allowed,and expected, to take responsibility for their own actions. She got drunk willingly.They all got shagging willingly.If there were any regrets,pregnancies,afterthoughts,then the three of them should have taken it on the chin,without liberal nosy coppers steaming in with their size tens. The old bill should be looking out for rapists and child molesters in Rotherham,not imagining that anyone that can't keep it in their trousers as a rapist
Absolutely, but what happens when they don't, which is all too often the case ? What about if there is reasonable suspicion that an offence has taken place, should the police then investigate to determine whether evidence exists. The thing about this case is that the rights and wrongs can be argued quite convincingly from a number of perspectives.
There was no evidence though,was there? The young lady had to be persuaded that an offence had taken place,she couldn't remember what had happened but the other two involved both said she begged for more. Th police decided,(long after the event,she didn't stagger into the station drunk saying she'd been raped),after viewing the CCTV that her behaviour made her "vulnerable",in other words no longer responsible for her own actions,and convinced her that an offence must have taken place. Funny thing though: if she had got drunk,got into a car and run someone down,she would have been responsible for her actions.Or stabbed someone.Or any other type of crime.If she had committed it while drunk,she would have been responsible. But because she decided to have sex with two men,(no evidence to the contrary remember?),then she was no longer responsible and the State had to step in to protect her.
What it has done is make the two guys think next time and hopefully they will stick with their partners/fiancée instead of thinking they can have sex with any female that throws themselves at them drunk The lady involved hopefully will think about herself before putting herself into a compromising position After all they are supposed to be responsible adults aren't they? Responsible adults could walk away from a situation that may just compromise them especially if your in the limelight and your career may just suffer because of it Play with fire you get caught out
If they are responsible adults then what they get up to in private is nothing to do with the law or anybody else. People get drunk,and do things that they later regret.People also do stuff completely sober which they later regret.It's human nature to do things which they regret afterwards. This wouldn't have happened if the lady hadn't left her handbag behind or something.And I doubt we'd have heard of it if it hadn't been a wealthy footballer:it's ok to behave like an arse if you are on benefits on a council estate,but God help you if you can play football and make a few quid but still be an arse. A responsible person who is drunk is not vulnerable,they are drunk.They were responsible for getting drunk,(in most cases),and they are responsible for the consequences.Those who had sex with her are responsible for their own behaviour. If any of them regret it afterwards,that's their problem,but it's not against the law to not regret it. I've worked quite closely with some pretty famous people,(most not deservedly so),and some of the things I've seen people get up would make my hair curl. Fame and money does weird things to some people,whether they've got it,or when they meet someone with it
A very interesting point you make about responsibility. If you commit a crime while drunk you are responsible but if you are the victim then you are not responsible. I had not thought of things along those lines.
People have to take responsibility for what they do whilst drunk, that much is a given. The problems start if we say that drunk people are responsible for what other people do to them whilst they are drunk. Yes they may put themselves "at risk", and they may be very silly for doing so, but that does not allow others to do to them whatever they want. Having sex with a very drunk woman, who is barely capable of giving consent, and you have never met before, is just not acceptable behaviour and if it lands you in court then who is to blame, not the drunk woman in my opinion.
If a person gets drunk, by their own choice, and as a result they are in a confused state - what if another person takes money from their wallet or purse, or takes their phone, or hits them. Would these acts be the fault of the drunk person, because they chose to get too drunk to prevent them? Or would they be entirely the fault of the thief or attacker? When you have worked out the answer, apply the same principle to sexual offences.
What if you had drunkenly offered the money in your wallet to someone, and then had no recollection of the event one way or the other? When you have worked out the answer ... you will have probably missed the point.
