Is this rape??

First topic message reminder :

It may not be a classic case of rape....but I think he is still guilty of forcing himself on the woman after she has told him to stop...that to me is rape.

"A man who was jailed for rape after he allegedly continued having sex with a woman after his condom broke and she said stop has been found not guilty.
A jury had found Simon Bragg, 32, guilty at his original trial and he had already served a three-year sentence when the conviction was overturned on appeal last year."



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-jailed-rape-after-continuing-9791087

Syl wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
well when it has happened to me in the past I have not realised until after the deed has been over and nor has my partner.

was it stated in the article that they found out during the act. the sex was consensual to start with wasn't it. It sounds like they were both willing partners.

I think when they found out the condom split would be very pertinent.

Had the couple found out the condom was split AFTER the event I don't think any  man would be found guilty of rape.
If a woman agrees to sex then cries rape afterwards it's obviously she who is in the wrong.

So.....the details given from the first trial is that the condom split DURING.....the woman knew this, asked him to stop, he carried on.
So it then became rape when he carried on having sex without the womans consent.

its hard to say what went on in the first trial from that article, all it says is the prosecutor claimed the condom split.
We have no idea why he won his appeal and was subsequently acquitted from what came from that article.

the fact is that the prosecution offered no evidence at the second trial.

could that be the womans story changed or was discounted. We dont know because it does not say. All it actually says is he was acquitted, which means he is seen to be innocent of the charge now and no doubt due some compo for the 3 years he was banged up.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Had the couple found out the condom was split AFTER the event I don't think any  man would be found guilty of rape.
If a woman agrees to sex then cries rape afterwards it's obviously she who is in the wrong.

Not if she said no.  The condom is irrelevant.

I know that Quill.
I was answering Deans point about when did they find out the condom had split.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not if she said no.  The condom is irrelevant.

I know that Quill.
I was answering Deans point about when did they find out the condom had split.

Of course. But the condom is irrelevant. If mere guilt pangs had come up, and even if she had kept them to herself, she can say no anytime she wants.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not if she said no.  The condom is irrelevant.

I know that Quill.
I was answering Deans point about when did they find out the condom had split.

from the article, the condom splitting is crucial to why she said no. this is an actual case not some hypothetical rape scenario.
However it is virtually impossible to know what went on in the first trial as the only mention is where it says the prosecutor claimed the condom split. I may have missed it but it does not even mention that is why she said no.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Syl wrote:

Had the couple found out the condom was split AFTER the event I don't think any  man would be found guilty of rape.
If a woman agrees to sex then cries rape afterwards it's obviously she who is in the wrong.

So.....the details given from the first trial is that the condom split DURING.....the woman knew this, asked him to stop, he carried on.
So it then became rape when he carried on having sex without the womans consent.

its hard to say what went on in the fist trial from that article, all it says is the prosecutor claimed the condom split.
We have no idea why he won his appeal and was subsequently acquitted from what came from that article.

the fact is that the prosecution offered no evidence at the second trial.

could that be the womans story changed or was discounted. We dont know because it does not say. All it actually says is he was acquitted, which means he is seen to be innocent of the charge now and no doubt due some compo for the 3 years he was banged up.  

The info is sketchy...I have tried to find more detailed accounts from their local paper but it just says the same thing.

http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/man-s-rape-conviction-overturned-after-he-already-served-three-year-sentence/story-30124592-detail/story.html



We have to go off the info given, and the new overturned verdict certainly does not infer that the woman changed her mind or altered her story
To be honest....I cant understand why he won his appeal if nothing changed....seems like another case of the CPS making a bad decision to me.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I know that Quill.
I was answering Deans point about when did they find out the condom had split.

Of course.  But the condom is irrelevant.  If mere guilt pangs had come up, and even if she had kept them to herself, she can say no anytime she wants.

You are preaching to the converted Quill.

Syl wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
its hard to say what went on in the fist trial from that article, all it says is the prosecutor claimed the condom split.
We have no idea why he won his appeal and was subsequently acquitted from what came from that article.

the fact is that the prosecution offered no evidence at the second trial.

could that be the womans story changed or was discounted. We dont know because it does not say. All it actually says is he was acquitted, which means he is seen to be innocent of the charge now and no doubt due some compo for the 3 years he was banged up.  

The info is sketchy...I have tried to find more detailed accounts from their local paper but it just says the same thing.

http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/man-s-rape-conviction-overturned-after-he-already-served-three-year-sentence/story-30124592-detail/story.html



We have to go off the info given, and the new overturned verdict certainly does not infer that the woman changed her mind or altered her story
To be honest....I cant understand why he won his appeal if nothing changed....seems like another case of the CPS making a bad decision to me.

he in fact won two cases as he won the appeal meaning there was a second trial and he essentially won that as no evidence was offered which presumably means the evidence offered at the first trial was wrong, faulty or non existent.

Syl wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
its hard to say what went on in the fist trial from that article, all it says is the prosecutor claimed the condom split.
We have no idea why he won his appeal and was subsequently acquitted from what came from that article.

the fact is that the prosecution offered no evidence at the second trial.

could that be the womans story changed or was discounted. We dont know because it does not say. All it actually says is he was acquitted, which means he is seen to be innocent of the charge now and no doubt due some compo for the 3 years he was banged up.  

The info is sketchy...I have tried to find more detailed accounts from their local paper but it just says the same thing.

http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/man-s-rape-conviction-overturned-after-he-already-served-three-year-sentence/story-30124592-detail/story.html



We have to go off the info given, and the new overturned verdict certainly does not infer that the woman changed her mind or altered her story
To be honest....I cant understand why he won his appeal if nothing changed....seems like another case of the CPS making a bad decision to me.

it doesn't mention the woman at all.
something has changed between the first trial and the appeal and subsequent second trial.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course.  But the condom is irrelevant.  If mere guilt pangs had come up, and even if she had kept them to herself, she can say no anytime she wants.

You are preaching to the converted Quill.

however if as claimed by the prosecutor the condom splitting was why she wanted to stop them when it was discovered it split is crucial.

If she just said stop then he should have stopped. however the prosecutor in the first trial seems to have made a thing of the split condom.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Syl wrote:

You are preaching to the converted Quill.

however if as claimed by the prosecutor the condom splitting was why she wanted to stop them when it was discovered it split is crucial.

If she just said stop then he should have stopped. however the prosecutor in the first trial seems to have made a thing of the split condom.

The timing of the split is crucial in this case I agree...that's when she told him to stop.
However....there is no indication anywhere that the split happened AFTER...it says DURING.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course.  But the condom is irrelevant.  If mere guilt pangs had come up, and even if she had kept them to herself, she can say no anytime she wants.

You are preaching to the converted Quill.

Yeah I know. Go ahead.

Syl wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
however if as claimed by the prosecutor the condom splitting was why she wanted to stop them when it was discovered it split is crucial.

If she just said stop then he should have stopped. however the prosecutor in the first trial seems to have made a thing of the split condom.

The timing of the split is crucial in this case I agree...that's when she told him to stop.
However....there is no indication anywhere that the split happened AFTER...it says DURING.

we dont know that as the original case is hardly mentioned.
The split condom may in fact be a red herring.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Syl wrote:

The timing of the split is crucial in this case I agree...that's when she told him to stop.
However....there is no indication anywhere that the split happened AFTER...it says DURING.

we dont know that as the original case is hardly mentioned.
The split condom may in fact be a red herring.

I think you mentioning the split condom is a red herring is a red herring.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

You are preaching to the converted Quill.

Yeah I know.  Go ahead.

I did....I said rape is rape if a man is having sex with a woman without her consent.

Whether she changes her mind because the condom split (as in this case) or she feels guilt or she just remembered she has left the cooker on makes no difference, OR she may just change her mind no reason given.... NO means No...and STOP means stop.

I agree.

You gotta feel for a guy who is told to stop when he is just on the vinegar sttokes

My god Angry, I agree with you !

Angry Andy wrote:You gotta feel for a guy who is told to stop when he is just on the vinegar sttokes

The info given wasn't that basic...he may have just started.

Angry Andy wrote:You gotta feel for a guy who is told to stop when he is just on the vinegar sttokes

Really?

Do you think sex is all about only the man gaining pleasure from this Andy and then even worse continuing after being told to stop?
Anyway, who said he was on the verge?
Anyway, there are many other ways to bring a man off, without intercourse.
I mean, the person would have to be selfish/irresponsible for even wanting to continue and also without consent to do so.
I mean why did he not just go down the shops and pick up some more?
She would have felt reassurance, that he was placing her needs first here in regards to safe sex.

Angry Andy wrote:You gotta feel for a guy who is told to stop when he is just on the vinegar sttokes

That was the conversation I had with my friend to whom this happened. He said his response was "EXCUSE ME?"

Hahahahahaha I can certainly tell you, even from a woman's perspective, it gets to a point where it's very difficult to stop.

Syl wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
we dont know that as the original case is hardly mentioned.
The split condom may in fact be a red herring.

I think you mentioning  the split condom is a red herring is a red herring.

you are arguing about what is rape while I am trying to get at the heart of this case and what little evidence is available in the article(s)

of course if a woman says stop you should. But I think here we are trying to establish when she actually said that with the condom perhaps not having anything to do with things.

I still am not sure they would have known it split unless he had pulled out and shown her as contrary to what lez thinks it isn't that easy to know when it happens especially if you are in the throws of passion and I don't think anyone has suggested this didn't start out as anything but consensual sex.
An appeal court obviously decided this conviction was unsafe, much like the condom, and a second trial was ordered. No evidence was presented by the prosecution so something must have changed in the last 3 years.

so what conclusions can be drawn from that I wonder.
either her evidence was discredited, she changed her mind, or he didn't rape her.
it is impossible to tell from what information we have in those 2 articles so we are just going round in circles.
A court has decided he isn't guilty now is the only actual facts WE have here.

Maybe someone else would like to look up the court records and fill us all in.

I have been talking about this case, not hypothetical instances, just to be clear.

Thorin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:You gotta feel for a guy who is told to stop when he is just on the vinegar sttokes

Really?

Do you think sex is all about only the man gaining pleasure from this Andy and then even worse continuing after being told to stop?
Anyway, who said he was on the verge?
Anyway, there are many other ways to bring a man off, without intercourse.
I mean, the person would have to be selfish/irresponsible for even wanting to continue and also without consent to do so.
I mean why did he not just go down the shops and pick up some more?
She would have felt reassurance, that he was placing her needs first here in regards to safe sex.

Agree with all thorin's reasons
Plus could have just swapped to 69
And of course it's rape

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think you mentioning  the split condom is a red herring is a red herring.

you are arguing about what is rape while I am trying to get at the heart of this case and what little evidence is available in the article(s)

of course if a woman says stop you should. But I think here we are trying to establish when she actually said that with the condom perhaps not having anything to do with things.

I still am not sure they would have known it split unless he had pulled out and shown her as contrary to what lez thinks it isn't that easy to know when it happens especially if you are in the throws of passion and I don't think anyone has suggested this didn't start out as anything but consensual sex.
An appeal court obviously decided this conviction was unsafe, much like the condom, and a second trial was ordered. No evidence was presented by the prosecution so something must have changed in the last 3 years.

so what conclusions can be drawn from that I wonder.
either her evidence was discredited, she changed her mind, or he didn't rape her.
it is impossible to tell from what information we have in those 2 articles so we are just going round in circles.
A court has decided he isn't guilty now is the only actual facts WE have here.

Maybe someone else would like to look up the court records and fill us all in.

I have been talking about this case, not hypothetical instances, just to be clear.

Which boils down to you simple believing the suspected rapist, over the possible rape victim.
The evidence was not discredited, it was simple her word against his.
Sadly many victims of rape are not believed.
Take victims of sexual grooming gangs for example.
What you should be looking at is whether the story seems credible.
It does for one simple reason. A woman, would rightly ask someone to stop if the sex became unsafe.
The question to ask, is why would she lie on this?
Is there any view made here of the relationship continuing after?
No
Or any view, she sought to continue dating him and he rejected her?
No
So clearly, it does point to her asking him to stop and he did not, violating her.

The question you are failing to even present, is why would she even lie about this?

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

Do you think sex is all about only the man gaining pleasure from this Andy and then even worse continuing after being told to stop?
Anyway, who said he was on the verge?
Anyway, there are many other ways to bring a man off, without intercourse.
I mean, the person would have to be selfish/irresponsible for even wanting to continue and also without consent to do so.
I mean why did he not just go down the shops and pick up some more?
She would have felt reassurance, that he was placing her needs first here in regards to safe sex.

Agree with all thorin's reasons
Plus could have just swapped to 69  
And of course it's rape

Indeed Veya, there is many ways for both partners to sexually pleasure each other.
If a man continued after being asked to stop, he clearly is only thinking of himself and not being rueld by his dick, but emotional pleasures at the expense of abusing the human rights of a woman.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you are arguing about what is rape while I am trying to get at the heart of this case and what little evidence is available in the article(s)

of course if a woman says stop you should. But I think here we are trying to establish when she actually said that with the condom perhaps not having anything to do with things.

I still am not sure they would have known it split unless he had pulled out and shown her as contrary to what lez thinks it isn't that easy to know when it happens especially if you are in the throws of passion and I don't think anyone has suggested this didn't start out as anything but consensual sex.
An appeal court obviously decided this conviction was unsafe, much like the condom, and a second trial was ordered. No evidence was presented by the prosecution so something must have changed in the last 3 years.

so what conclusions can be drawn from that I wonder.
either her evidence was discredited, she changed her mind, or he didn't rape her.
it is impossible to tell from what information we have in those 2 articles so we are just going round in circles.
A court has decided he isn't guilty now is the only actual facts WE have here.

Maybe someone else would like to look up the court records and fill us all in.

I have been talking about this case, not hypothetical instances, just to be clear.

Which boils down to you simple believing the suspected rapist, over the possible rape victim.
The evidence was not discredited, it was simple her word against his.
Sadly many victims of rape are not believed.
Take victims of sexual grooming gangs for example.
What you should be looking at is whether the story seems credible.
It does for one simple reason. A woman, would rightly ask someone to stop if the sex became unsafe.
The question to ask, is why would she lie on this?
Is there any view made here of the relationship continuing after?
No
Or any view, she sought to continue dating him and he rejected her?
No
So clearly, it does point to her asking him to stop and he did not, violating her.

The question you are failing to even present, is why would she even lie about this?

no you are wrong. an appeals court said the conviction was unsafe and ordered a second trial where no evidence was presented which means he was set free.

before we take victims of grooming gangs anywhere I am just talking about this specific case.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

Do you think sex is all about only the man gaining pleasure from this Andy and then even worse continuing after being told to stop?
Anyway, who said he was on the verge?
Anyway, there are many other ways to bring a man off, without intercourse.
I mean, the person would have to be selfish/irresponsible for even wanting to continue and also without consent to do so.
I mean why did he not just go down the shops and pick up some more?
She would have felt reassurance, that he was placing her needs first here in regards to safe sex.

Agree with all thorin's reasons
Plus could have just swapped to 69  
And of course it's rape

although an appeals court order a retrial and at the retrial no evidence was offered.
in a hypothetical instance you would be right, but this is a real world case where there is nothing for any of us to judge the case on except for a sentence about a condom splitting in a totally different trial 3 years before.

so we could speculate that the evidence given in the original trial was dodgy as it was not resubmitted at this trial. should a man always be convicted on the say so of a woman without any actual hard evidence.

If you know something that is not in the articles then please share

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Which boils down to you simple believing the suspected rapist, over the possible rape victim.
The evidence was not discredited, it was simple her word against his.
Sadly many victims of rape are not believed.
Take victims of sexual grooming gangs for example.
What you should be looking at is whether the story seems credible.
It does for one simple reason. A woman, would rightly ask someone to stop if the sex became unsafe.
The question to ask, is why would she lie on this?
Is there any view made here of the relationship continuing after?
No
Or any view, she sought to continue dating him and he rejected her?
No
So clearly, it does point to her asking him to stop and he did not, violating her.

The question you are failing to even present, is why would she even lie about this?

no you are wrong. an appeals court said the conviction was unsafe and ordered a second trial where no evidence was presented which means he was set free.

before we take victims of grooming gangs anywhere I am just talking about this specific case.

No it did not, it stated the prosecution had no evidence to offer.
Which means, it was based on hearsay, by each party
In other words the victim is perceived to be lying and her claim not believed.
It shows how and why many victims of rape, are fucked over literally by the system
You failed to answer my question based on the known evidence of the case.

What you should be looking at is whether the story seems credible.
It does for one simple reason. A woman, would rightly ask someone to stop if the sex became unsafe.
The question to ask, is why would she lie on this?
Is there any view made here of the relationship continuing after?
No
Or any view, she sought to continue dating him and he rejected her?
No
So clearly, it does point to her asking him to stop and he did not, violating her.

The question you are failing to even present, is why would she even lie about this?

some people take this view

WHERE is the evidence that the nutbag professor is a "regressive Democrat",  then   ???

Or is that phrase just another of your teabagger/alt.right "one size fits all" meaningless insults for the moment..

The Devil, You Know wrote:some people take this view

Boy, you wrapped it all up with that one: liberals, professors, Muslims and feminists are now associated with rape! And of course, Republicans plan to refund Planned Parenthood to make up for the recalcitrant lefties, eh?

Gd Alt-right thesis, complete with alternative facts.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:some people take this view

Boy, you wrapped it all up with that one: liberals, professors, Muslims and feminists are now associated with rape!  And of course, Republicans plan to refund Planned Parenthood to make up for the recalcitrant lefties, eh?

Gd Alt-right thesis, complete with alternative facts.

No, its simple head not able to counter the points and sees i have posted another thread, which is up for discussion and tries to hijack this one, to discuss the same thing


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19697-jonathan-brown-on-sex-slavery

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Boy, you wrapped it all up with that one: liberals, professors, Muslims and feminists are now associated with rape!  And of course, Republicans plan to refund Planned Parenthood to make up for the recalcitrant lefties, eh?

Gd Alt-right thesis, complete with alternative facts.

No, its simple head not able to counter the points and sees i have posted another thread, which is up for discussion and tries to hijack this one, to discuss the same thing


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19697-jonathan-brown-on-sex-slavery

have you? you really do think I follow you around like you follow me around. I saw this on twitter today and thought it relevant to the discussion in the rape thread.
there are people who will argue that it is perfectly acceptable to ignore a womans wishes.

I had a look at your thread and you are moaning at me for more or less saying what you said in a single picture., how very sad.

the thing is the view expressed there is very prevalent in one religion. women are often seen as chattels to be done with as they like.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

No, its simple head not able to counter the points and sees i have posted another thread, which is up for discussion and tries to hijack this one, to discuss the same thing


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19697-jonathan-brown-on-sex-slavery

have you? you really do think I follow you around like you follow me around. I saw this on twitter today and thought it relevant to the discussion in the rape thread.
there are people who will argue that it is perfectly acceptable to ignore a womans wishes.

I had a look at your thread and you are moaning at me for more or less saying what you said in a single picture., how very sad.

the thing is the view expressed there is very prevalent in one religion. women are often seen as chattels to be done with as they like.

Really, so you end up posting this on the same day I start a thread and yes you do follow me around like a lost little boy

So you only attempted to misdirect this thread after having your views ripped to shreds

As to all your points, stop whinging and grow up