gnu

1. I am not having a philosophical argument with you. I am informing you of how the courts deal with these issues in the UK.

Go and read about evidence in court.

Witness testimony is a form of evidence.

The court has to decide which evidence to trust.

When numerous unconnected women all testify that they have been raped by the same man, the court these days recognizes that accumulated evidence as giving the victim credibility whilst damaging the credit of the rapists testimony.

2. I know you didn't say your posts. I said I see no evidence that you have engaged with anyone elses. Your posts on the other hand stand as evidence that you have made no effort to engage with any of the points that have been raised. Your last post is a perfect example as you have failed to understand simple english.

I'm used to you being a witty and reasonable observer and i don't know why you are being so obtuse on this thread.

I'm sorry if asking you to think makes you feel tired.



Don.

1. I think I may have accidentally given the impression that the question of whether Jack did or didn't rape tony is one that I have the remotest interest in.

To clarify - I am interested in the wider conversation in this thread and in looking at examples given in the context of the discussion being had.

I don't know whether Jack Raped Tony or not.

Neither do you.

You have your reasons for believing Jacks story.

You may well be right.

But neither of us is likely to ever know the truth.

2. "I do believe that "forceable rape" can be established "beyond a shadow of a doubt.""

If you know of a reliable method of establishing this fact I suggest you let the courts and the police know, as currently rape is notoriously difficult to prosecute and prove so I am sure they would welcome a failsafe method with open arms.