That Wacky.....no....Demented United Arab Emirates

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

So.....did it happen or not? Was it consensual or not?!

M.V.

 

[Badran]

Namaste,

So.....did it happen or not? Was it consensual or not?!

M.V.

We can't possibly know with the amount of information available so far.

 

[Falvlun]

Namaste,

So.....did it happen or not? Was it consensual or not?!

M.V.

Nobody except them know for sure (though it seems pretty clear cut to me), but the woman was convicted of having consensual sex, so apparently "innocent until proven guilty" only exists in the case of the rapist, and not the potential victim.

 

[Poeticus]

Nobody except them know for sure (though it seems pretty clear cut to me), but the woman was convicted of having consensual sex, so apparently "innocent until proven guilty" only exists in the case of the rapist, and not the potential victim.

Namaste,

Convicted for having consensual sex?!

Watch me get convicted in the future for brushing my teeth, then.

Judge: M.V., the court hereby charges you with brushing your teeth!

M.V.: But, my teeth consented! My teeth consented!!!!!!!
----------
M.V.

 

[Falvlun]

Then you misunderstand my quote, I was responding to the specific issue at question. I'm sorry if I didn't provide the entire list of charges when I was referencing the relevant issue, I didn't figure that would be necessary in relevance to the actual subject at hand.

My issue is that the intention, or at least the result, of your unilateral interest in only one of the charges is to convey that they were justified in convicting and throwing this woman into jail for reporting a rape.

 

[Shermana]

Nobody except them know for sure (though it seems pretty clear cut to me), but the woman was convicted of having consensual sex, so apparently "innocent until proven guilty" only exists in the case of the rapist, and not the potential victim.

Why does it seem clear cut to you?

 

[Shermana]

My issue is that the intention, or at least the result, of your unilateral interest in only one of the charges is to convey that they were justified in convicting and throwing this woman into jail for reporting a rape.

I don't see how the other two charges remotely factor into the situation, if anything I am justifying the concept of arresting people for falsely reporting rape and then changing their story to that it was consentual in what otherwise would be, assuming she did lie and then changed her story, a waste of police reports and a malicious false charge on what would be, by her admission, an innocent man, but I'm not even justifying that concept altogether here. You're reading too much into what I said in how I corrected your misunderstanding of what exactly transpired.

Saying that I'm saying its justified to be thrown in jail for "reporting a rape" is either a gross misunderstanding or a deliberate twisting of what I said, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with the former.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't see how the other two charges remotely factor into the situation, if anything I am justifying the concept of arresting people for falsely reporting rape and then changing their story to that it was consentual in what otherwise would be, assuming she did lie and then changed her story, a waste of police reports and a malicious false charge on what would be, by her admission, an innocent man, but I'm not even justifying that concept altogether here. You're reading too much into what I said in how I corrected your misunderstanding of what exactly transpired.

Saying that I'm saying its justified to be thrown in jail for "reporting a rape" is either a gross misunderstanding or a deliberate twisting of what I said, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with the former.

The fact that you think that the fact she was convicted of having consensual sex to "not remotely factor into the situation" says it all.

You do realize how hypocritical this makes you whenever you cry "innocent before proven guilty" right?

Not to mention, I love how you make it seem like she was purposefully and maliciously lying just for ***** and giggles, and how you characterize her as "falsely" reporting rape.

 

[Falvlun]

Why does it seem clear cut to you?

Because my reason is not predicated upon the mistrust of women.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not what you asked for. Of course it doesn't suggest that it was consensual, nobody knows that.
What you asked was:
Which is stated in the video to supposedly be something she said.

This confuses me.

 

[Revoltingest]

So far, everything indicates to me:
- She reported her being raped.
- There is no evidence that she changed her story.
This seems very unlikely, because either:
A) She initially complained the sex was consensual, & changed it to non-consensual.
B) She initially complained of being raped, & then changed it to consensual.
She wouldn't have complained in case "A". There is no evidence of "B", which would be inconsistent with the testimony I've seen so far.

Lying cops & prosecutors seem most likely, because of motive & propensity.

 

[Badran]

(though it seems pretty clear cut to me)

I don't see how it can be clear cut when we have such amount of information and when we've only heard one side of the story.

 

[Badran]

This confuses me.

According to the story available so far and in my understanding, what supposedly happened is that she first reported rape. The authorities (or at least one official) showed signs of not believing her story. Then, she was advised by her former boss to change her statements from rape to consensual sex, so that the case can be over quick (according to him), which was advice she decided to follow as she just wanted the whole thing to end and go home at that point, according to one of the articles.

Then, this of course didn't work out well because of the laws of the UAE, and so she changed her statements back to the allegation of rape. You had asked for any evidence supporting the notion that she did change her words to say that it was consensual sex rather than rape, which i provided in the video of her interview with CNN, according to their account of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to the story available so far and in my understanding, what supposedly happened is that she first reported rape. The authorities (or at least one official) showed signs of not believing her story. Then, she was advised by her former boss to change her statements from rape to consensual sex, so that the case can be over quick (according to him), which was advice she decided to follow as she just wanted the whole thing to end and go home at that point, according to one of the articles.

Then, this of course didn't work out well because of the laws of the UAE, and so she changed her statements back to the allegation of rape. You had asked for any evidence supporting the notion that she did change her words to say that it was consensual sex rather than rape, which i provided in the video of her interview with CNN, according to their account of it.

I must've missed that article (ref: underlined text).
The video did not suggest consensual sex to me at all.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't see how it can be clear cut when we have such amount of information and when we've only heard one side of the story.

Based upon your own series of events in 173, the possibility of her not actually having been raped seems rather slim and unlikely. As I and Rev have pointed out, why would she have reported anything in the first place if she wasn't in fact sexually assaulted?

 

[Badran]

I must've missed that article (ref: underlined text).

Article

Relevant content from it:

Speaking to Gulf News, she says she was encouraged by her former boss early on after the incident to tell authorities that the sex was consensual, and not rape. He allegedly told her it would lead to a quicker resolution of the case and that it wouldn’t go to court. “At that point, I didn’t want to go to court. I just wanted to go home, so I took that advice. And that’s the biggest mistake I’ve ever made.”

The video did not suggest consensual sex to me at all.

It didn't, i never said that it did, and this is not what you had asked for when i provided it for you. What you had asked for was an evidence that she changed her allegation from rape to saying that it was consensual sex, which is found in the video at 0:53. According to CNN, she did change her words and claim it was consensual sex.

 

[Badran]

Based upon your own series of events in 173, the possibility of her not actually having been raped seems rather slim and unlikely. As I and Rev have pointed out, why would she have reported anything in the first place if she wasn't in fact sexually assaulted?

I agree with your assessment of what most likely happened, i just don't agree that it's clear cut. I do think she was raped, and her account of the reaction of the police sounds authentic to me based on similar cases, but we have also only heard one side of the story and in a not very thorough manner.

So i just don't think it's really that obvious, rather only the seemingly more likely scenario.

 

[Shermana]

The fact that you think that the fact she was convicted of having consensual sex to "not remotely factor into the situation" says it all.

You do realize how hypocritical this makes you whenever you cry "innocent before proven guilty" right?

Not to mention, I love how you make it seem like she was purposefully and maliciously lying just for ***** and giggles, and how you characterize her as "falsely" reporting rape.

I don't think you quite understand the situation.

The charge of consentual sex applies to anyone who has consentual sex.

She herself reported to them that she had consentual sex. Whether she did or not. Which would constitute making a "false report" by changing her story.

I understand you believe any and all rape accusations should be assumed true until proven otherwise, but that's another story.

 

[Revoltingest]

It didn't, i never said that it did, and this is not what you had asked for when i provided it for you. What you had asked for was an evidence that she changed her allegation from rape to saying that it was consensual sex, which is found in the video at 0:53. According to CNN, she did change her words and claim it was consensual sex.

That makes sense now.
Still, even if the change is evidenced, her prosecution for any of those charges seems unwarranted.

 

[Badran]

That makes sense now.
Still, even if the change is evidenced, her prosecution for any of those charges seems unwarranted.

I agree.