Written By:
- Date published:
5:30 pm, April 28th, 2023 - 3 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
A man is proven to have known of two other men who drug and rape women and then has (what he claims is consensual) sex with another women has been drugged. Another man is convicted of drugging and raping that woman and he is not. The judge made that call. If the other man has been convicted of rape, it was not with consent. A higher court than my opinion should render that judges perspective with the respect it deserves.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/04/28/drink-spike-case-man-beats-rape-allegation-despite-video/
This kind of bureaucratic muddle is why community groups stop working with government agencies.
DoC local office fails to put in the paperwork, and hangs local volunteer groups out to dry with the EPA.
"It was decided that the groups were not going to be penalised, but a file would be kept on them in case of further incidents."
This was massive overkill (pardon the pun) from the EPA – who should have saved their ammunition for DoC.
Talk about a chilling effect on volunteerism.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/300863368/volunteers-told-they-could-face-jail-500k-fines-after-doc-paperwork-mistake
@SPC
Two were found guilty of 126 charges so the case of the one who got off was presumably the only incident that that defendant was involved in. If it cannot be proved that he knew of the drugging, and the woman's lack of consent was not conveyed to him in any way (the woman said that she was aware of two men being involved), the judge probably had no choice. A judge can only act on the evidence presented.
Te defendant who got off probably went out and bought a lottery ticket, thinking it was his lucky day.