Hey all,
Back from the dead!
Sometimes I wish I could talk more about my days at work.
I bought a pair of blue suede shoes today! They have little rosettes on them and I think they have a court heel (? slightly flared at the base?)
Judo was interesting...alot of people rolling around on the floor hugging each other
with their heads in each others crotches'...the little kids were so cute, they look just like white bear cubs fighting 
Okay, what happened yesterday at work was that a lady came in with her children to sign up...she didn't want anything to have her address on it because she had moved to escape someone (she didn't say who). She also told me about how when she tried to take her children to the playground some other kids had hit them, told them to go back to their own country and had effing well broken a mirror and threatened to cut them with it (needless to say I work in bit of a scary area). She is so isolated. It was not nice.
Just ignore this bit!:
Have entered a discussion re. new UK rape laws. The thought that the discussion could turn nasty makes it a bit stressful for me (yes I am one of those overly sensitive types!) So I will write my final comments here (also because I don't want to become a post-whore and annoy people with my inability to stop posting well after the argument is dead in the water).
-If you accept that there is such a thing as a person who is too drunk to be responsible for their consenting to sex, then you have negated their responsibility and therefore it becomes irrelevant as to how they came to be in a state of drunkenness (meaning wether or not the alcohol consumed was administered by their own hand or administered to them unknowingly is well...irrelevant).
-It is a nonsensical double standard to claim that someone who got drunk of their own volition can be held responsible for what they say when in a state of incapacitation, yet also claim that someone who unwittingly becomes drunk via the actions of another individual is not responsible at all for what they say when in a state of incapacition (particularly when combined with the point about people not choosing the degree of incapacitation that they reach).
-How a victim came to be in a state of drunkenness is only relevant when it is related to the culpability of the rapist because it adds elements of predatory and premeditated behaviour to the crime, making it rightfully more serious.
-While people may choose to consume alcohol, they do not choose (and cannot choose) the degree of incapacitation that they will arrive at.
-I think that these laws are designed to protect people who are very drunk (and when I say people..I mean it! Men and women!) because lets face it...it doesn't require much ability verbalise the word "yes", despite the fact that said person is off the planet. I don't think that it is either the point of these laws or a significant potential rammification of these laws that people will find themselves found guilty of rape should they sleep with someone who is drunk (but not dead drunk) and who then has regrets. The point is to protect clearly incapacitated people.
-Alot of posters were claiming that there is a significant potential for abuse of these laws specifically by women (y'know, Psycho Suzy has two beers, sleeps with you, regrets it, accuses you of rape). If you subscribe to this then you are basically saying that there are alot of women out there who are irresponsible and vindictive. I think your attitude toward women is unhealthy. And that's putting it mildly and politely.
-Comparisons between this issue and the issue of drunk driving and other criminal offenses committed whilst the perpetrator is under the influence are flawed. I don't think the degree of incapacition reached by someone who retains the ability to walk to a car, turn it on and actually remember how to drive can be compared with the degree of incapacitation reached by someone who only retains the ability to verbalise the word "yes" (or in the case of the argument of "implied consent" being invoked, someone who is incapable of either verbally objecting or fighting back).
-Clearly standards of what actually constitutes "too drunk" will need to be set because obviously much depends upon the degree of incapacitation of the alleged victim.
Believe it or not...I could go on...and on...and on...
THE END!
Back from the dead!
Sometimes I wish I could talk more about my days at work.
I bought a pair of blue suede shoes today! They have little rosettes on them and I think they have a court heel (? slightly flared at the base?)
Judo was interesting...alot of people rolling around on the floor hugging each other
with their heads in each others crotches'...the little kids were so cute, they look just like white bear cubs fighting
Okay, what happened yesterday at work was that a lady came in with her children to sign up...she didn't want anything to have her address on it because she had moved to escape someone (she didn't say who). She also told me about how when she tried to take her children to the playground some other kids had hit them, told them to go back to their own country and had effing well broken a mirror and threatened to cut them with it (needless to say I work in bit of a scary area). She is so isolated. It was not nice.
Just ignore this bit!:
Have entered a discussion re. new UK rape laws. The thought that the discussion could turn nasty makes it a bit stressful for me (yes I am one of those overly sensitive types!) So I will write my final comments here (also because I don't want to become a post-whore and annoy people with my inability to stop posting well after the argument is dead in the water).
-If you accept that there is such a thing as a person who is too drunk to be responsible for their consenting to sex, then you have negated their responsibility and therefore it becomes irrelevant as to how they came to be in a state of drunkenness (meaning wether or not the alcohol consumed was administered by their own hand or administered to them unknowingly is well...irrelevant).
-It is a nonsensical double standard to claim that someone who got drunk of their own volition can be held responsible for what they say when in a state of incapacitation, yet also claim that someone who unwittingly becomes drunk via the actions of another individual is not responsible at all for what they say when in a state of incapacition (particularly when combined with the point about people not choosing the degree of incapacitation that they reach).
-How a victim came to be in a state of drunkenness is only relevant when it is related to the culpability of the rapist because it adds elements of predatory and premeditated behaviour to the crime, making it rightfully more serious.
-While people may choose to consume alcohol, they do not choose (and cannot choose) the degree of incapacitation that they will arrive at.
-I think that these laws are designed to protect people who are very drunk (and when I say people..I mean it! Men and women!) because lets face it...it doesn't require much ability verbalise the word "yes", despite the fact that said person is off the planet. I don't think that it is either the point of these laws or a significant potential rammification of these laws that people will find themselves found guilty of rape should they sleep with someone who is drunk (but not dead drunk) and who then has regrets. The point is to protect clearly incapacitated people.
-Alot of posters were claiming that there is a significant potential for abuse of these laws specifically by women (y'know, Psycho Suzy has two beers, sleeps with you, regrets it, accuses you of rape). If you subscribe to this then you are basically saying that there are alot of women out there who are irresponsible and vindictive. I think your attitude toward women is unhealthy. And that's putting it mildly and politely.
-Comparisons between this issue and the issue of drunk driving and other criminal offenses committed whilst the perpetrator is under the influence are flawed. I don't think the degree of incapacition reached by someone who retains the ability to walk to a car, turn it on and actually remember how to drive can be compared with the degree of incapacitation reached by someone who only retains the ability to verbalise the word "yes" (or in the case of the argument of "implied consent" being invoked, someone who is incapable of either verbally objecting or fighting back).
-Clearly standards of what actually constitutes "too drunk" will need to be set because obviously much depends upon the degree of incapacitation of the alleged victim.
Believe it or not...I could go on...and on...and on...
THE END!
VIEW 20 of 20 COMMENTS
My exam was a practical demonstration of advanced life-support; so running an arrest and defibrillatiing after identifying the specific heart rhythm
No wonder I was so shit-scared, but it's OVER now so yay!
One day i would love to see a picture tour of all the cool stuff I know you have in your house!!
xx