• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

News Premier League star arrested on suspicion of rape

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

LeParisien said:
To be clear, I fully support her in getting justice. Partey should be suspended immediately until this case has run its course. The prima facie evidence is overwhelming.

I am wondering what the legal change is that helps her. Official government guidance doesn’t suggest there is a change that could help her but there may be a lawyer with more information ?


Thats not a technicality. It’s something that should be handled in Spain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't know the specifics of this case, but the Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes a section on dual criminality. So, he could only be prosecuted in UK for the sexual offence committed overseas, if its an actual offence in the overseas jurisdiction. In other words, more of an issue with Spanish consent laws rather than UK legislation
 
Herclueless said:
Really?

The first line of that doesn't strike you as a somewhat troublesome path to go down? Especially in the wake of Heard/Depp???
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think it's probably more appropriate to say that the potential victim should be ' fully supported' rather than 'believed'.

It's a difficult one, but we need to ensure that victims are able to come forward and be taken seriously.

I don't think there's enough actual support for potential rape victims.
 
Warehouse Eyes said:
I don't know the specifics of this case, but the Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes a section on dual criminality. So, he could only be prosecuted in UK for the sexual offence committed overseas, if its an actual offence in the overseas jurisdiction. In other words, more of an issue with Spanish consent laws rather than UK legislation
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This makes complete sense to me.

She has claimed there was a rule change that would mean if it happened today she could now receive help. Perhaps that change was in Spanish law rather than in the U.K.

That in fact seems likely (from 26 May this year): Spanish parliament approves ‘only yes means yes’ consent bill

It seems the MET are supporting her with the domestic allegations but Spanish law’s definition of consent meant her case would not succeed in Spain. Sad and shocking.
 
Herclueless said:
Really?

The first line of that doesn't strike you as a somewhat troublesome path to go down? Especially in the wake of Heard/Depp???
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No it does not strike me as troublesome. Is Amber herd proof that all women are devious witches or just a one off. Are we comfortable in condemning all women as troublesome liars or should we accept that most if not nearly all are genuine when they come forward and face monumental legal, social and mental barriers when they come forward.
 
Arse mania have a no disucussion policy on this r/soccer bans all posts related to the topic, and now r/gunners have done the same.

I don't see this as "protecting the victim/accused" at all, this is plain censorship. Rights of the involved parties shouldn't affect freedom of speech like this.
 
Dogstar said:
No it does not strike me as troublesome. Is Amber herd proof that all women are devious witches or just a one off. Are we comfortable in condemning all women as troublesome liars or should we accept that most if not nearly all are genuine when they come forward and face monumental legal, social and mental barriers when they come forward.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And you accept that if you instinctively believe every woman that makes an accusation then you are also instinctively deciding that the accused is guilty?
 
KaneIsAble said:
Arse mania have a no disucussion policy on this r/soccer bans all posts related to the topic, and now r/gunners have done the same.

I don't see this as "protecting the victim/accused" at all, this is plain censorship. Rights of the involved parties shouldn't affect freedom of speech like this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If that is the case, on this rare occasion, any reading goons feel free to use this forum to air your thoughts and I assume displeasure. Some things bigger than football rivalry.

I hope they urgently sort themselves out
 
LeParisien said:
This makes complete sense to me.

She has claimed there was a rule change that would mean if it happened today she could now receive help. Perhaps that change was in Spanish law rather than in the U.K.

That in fact seems likely (from 26 May this year): Spanish parliament approves ‘only yes means yes’ consent bill

It seems the MET are supporting her with the domestic allegations but Spanish law’s definition of consent meant her case would not succeed in Spain. Sad and shocking.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The only silver lining is that the Spanish law is finally catching up with modern values and ethics. Long overdue
 
Herclueless said:
And you accept that if you instinctively believe every woman that makes an accusation then you are also instinctively deciding that the accused is guilty?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You can believe what you're being told without condemning the accused. False accusations are incredibly rare statistically. There's a big difference between 'I believe & will support you' and going off to begin a witch hunt against the person they're accusing.

Believe & comfort the potential victim, and recognize the right of the accused to defend themselves.
 
Dogstar said:
No it does not strike me as troublesome. Is Amber herd proof that all women are devious witches or just a one off. Are we comfortable in condemning all women as troublesome liars or should we accept that most if not nearly all are genuine when they come forward and face monumental legal, social and mental barriers when they come forward.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why are you believing the foreign court over the British one?

Id 100% trust the British judges ruling over a jury in Virginia.

I can understand Americans preferring their legal process but it’s really strange to hear (presumably) British people do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top