The secret video story
The Dom Post reported yesterday:
A man who secretly filmed himself having sex with a woman used the recording to clear himself of rape suspicions.
Then police prosecuted him for making the film.
Haimona Kenneth Gardiner, 25, was charged with intentionally making an intimate visual recording of another person on May 21, court documents show. He works as a private secretary in Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia’s ministerial office at Parliament.
Although the maximum penalty for the offence is three years in jail, he completed diversion and the charge was withdrawn in Wellington District Court last month.
It is understood police began an investigation after a member of the public found a woman wandering along The Terrace one morning in May.
The woman, aged in her 40s, claims to have little memory of the night before but officers traced her back to Gardiner’s nearby home.
It is understood he argued they had met at a central Wellington bar the night before and the sex had been consensual – and as proof he handed over the recording.
Police viewed the tape and, on the basis of that evidence, decided against laying more serious charges.
I’ve had conflicting thoughts on this story. In rough order of occurrence they were:
- Thank God he had taped the encounter, otherwise he might be facing an eight year sentence for rape.
- Oh yuck what sort of person secretly tapes sex sessions, without consent from the partner.
- Is taping sex sessions a good idea, to protect you from false rape allegations?
- Possibly, but you should get consent regardless from the other party.
- The Police probably got it about right, by charging him but agreeing to diversion.
- Does Haimoana routinely pick up strangers in bars, have sex with them, and secretly film them?
- If so why, if not why so on this occasion?
- Should the act of secret filming be the offence, or should it be the act of using the secret film for a bad purpose? Is there a difference between making a secret film to defend yourself from a false rape allegation and making a secret film to humiliate the other party or blackmail them etc?
- Nope, the act should be the offence. There is never a valid reason to film sex without consent from all parties.
- But wait, what if you are being raped by someone in a position of authority over you. Is filming them to prove they are a rapist then okay?
- Yeah I’d say so.
- But not okay to film someone to prove you are not a rapist.
- Hmmn it does get complicated, but at the end still not okay as in the other scenario you are filming an actual crime, rather than a potential defence which is highly unlikely to ever be needed.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:04 am
David
I was nodding as I read your 1 to 13.
It does get complicated though!
July 8th, 2010 at 11:06 am
You know what? All of this can be avoided if you’re married to someone before you have sex with them, or (at best) in a committed relationship. Not to say that rape cannot occur in marriage, but it would stop all this one night stand proof-of-rape rubbish. It’s sad that sex is now considered a pleasure akin to going down the road for a beer.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Fletch: Right on!
July 8th, 2010 at 11:10 am
My big concern about that story is this: is the woman who made the false allegation going to be tried and convicted for it? Absent a deterrent for false complaints, you’re going to get too many of them, and inevitably innocent people are going to be put away.
The woman making the false complaint absolutely must be punished for doing so.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:10 am
A sound recording will probably protect you about as well. Is this illegal?
July 8th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Dimes trick (as told to me by my cop brother)….
If you have a one night stand, grab a pic the next morning of the two of you laying in bed smiling. not nude. just faces. smiling.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:13 am
There will be a variety of opinions on where the line should be drawn David. However what you didn’t touch on was another aspect of this report.
It appears that the person in question is on an all-expenses paid (by you and me presumably) tour of the US put on for young parliamentarians. He is the only non-MP on the tour.
questions:
Does it not strike you as strange that the Maori Party didn’t have an MP available so sent a “staffer”?
Does it not appear odd that a “staffer” can morph into a “parliamentarian” for the purposes of a fully funded overseas trip?
Are “staffers” generally party loyalists and if so how much credence can anyone put on the output of their “research”?
Are staffers paid from the public purse? What are the pay scales and conditions?
Are “staffers” cleared under the OSA?
Do “staffers” on jaunts for young parliamentarians enjoy any special diplomatic &/or travel privileges?
Are they paid well? and is it a case of jobs-for-the-boys?
How many “staffers” are meant to roll up for work each day in our parliamentay system?
This is a bit of a blank for those who are not on the parliamentay inside it would seem.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Perhaps a Labour/Marxist/UN party in the future will make videoing of all sexual encounters compulsory? These would automatically be uploaded (bring on cheap fibre-to-the-door) to a special panel of reviewers to make sure nothing illegal is taking place.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Some of those thoughts ran through my mind too. Along with, does he have a library and does Shane Jones know about it?
July 8th, 2010 at 11:21 am
“The woman making the false complaint absolutely must be punished for doing so.”
Not in New Zealand ben, because the feminazi directed Ministry of Injustice turns a blind eye to false allegations made by females.Fact, name one woman charged for giving false testimony too Family Court and I will jump in the Avon naked your honour. Gender discrimination is unlawful Sir !
July 8th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Shit…there goes any hope of a rational debate.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Actually, despite the growing trend to jump on the ‘no name suppression’ bandwagon this case is a classic example of where it should have been applied.
There is no reason why Mr Gardiner should have had his name released, doing so is not in the public interest, if it is good enough for the slapper to have her name suppressed then it should also have applied to Mr Gardiner.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Not biting blouse until you get treatment for your obvious problem. Stick to topic.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
DPF you left out the most important question, how long a sentence should the false accuser get ? I’ve always thought that sentencing for false accusations ( of anything ) ought to begin at the maximum punishment for the crime they falsely accused someone of. Someone walking around with the assumption that anything she can’t remember must be rape, is a hazard to justice.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Put it away – I don’t think any women at the local prison are there for making “false accusations” .
Is perjury still a crime in New Zealand?
July 8th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Where does it say that she made any accusations? She “claims to have little memory of the night before”. It would seem that the Police were pursuing their own line of questioning. With his name out there point 6 might become interesting.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:42 am
So the cops assumed that because she had been plastered and ‘couldn’t remember’ the events of the night before that she must have been raped and this joker had to hand over his cell phone video of them having consensual sex to prove otherwise? An accusation must have been made or else the NZ police just became a junior branch of the Mutawas.
My big assumption is that he threw her out afterwards and she got the hump.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:44 am
At the risk of opening a can of worms, I happen to think that if either partner is so plastered during the act that they can’t remember what happened the morning after, their so-called ‘consent’ is null and void anyway..
July 8th, 2010 at 11:47 am
david @ 11.13 raises a good point, how many of these ‘young leader’ type jaunts are we funding?
This week we have the total waste of time that is the ‘yoof’ parliament, it achieves nothing, costs a small fortune and is a colossal waste of time.
We have the annual ‘speakers’ trip which cannot be justified, ‘fact finding’ trips to warmer climates in the middle of winter and god knows what else.
I would love to hear the justification for these trips, to me it is simply another example of our out of touch parliamentarians wasting my fucking money on themselves and their inner circle.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:54 am
That’s how I saw it. Some seemed to have jumped on the “false accuser” idea without reading the report properly.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:55 am
A signed contract perhaps before proceeding to any potentially actionable activity ?
July 8th, 2010 at 11:56 am
My big concern about that story is this: is the woman who made the false allegation going to be tried and convicted for it? Absent a deterrent for false complaints, you’re going to get too many of them, and inevitably innocent people are going to be put away.
The woman making the false complaint absolutely must be punished for doing so.
I don’t believe that in this case the women claimed rape – my understanding is she was found wandering and disoriented on the Terrace and the police, as they should have, set out to discover how she came to be in that state.
The whole thing is incredibly sleazy and an indictment on our culture. What ever the fellow Gardiner is Sir Galahad he aint.
Still having powerful parents and friends goes a long way.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:57 am
If she was too drunk to remember the events of the night before perhaps she was too drunk to remember consenting to the filming?
July 8th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Just what exactly is sad about that, Fletch?
I know that some of you Christians just have a problem with any kind of pleasure, but that’s just your problem.
July 8th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
“It’s sad that sex is now considered a pleasure akin to going down the road for a beer.”
Sad? Sex will always be a joyous pleasure, regardless of any desire (pun intended) to harness it by either religion or state.
July 8th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
It’s sad that sex is now considered a pleasure akin to going down the road for a beer.
As luck would have it, my taste for “beer” increased after I got married and I can understand that if I weren’t married right now, I’d be “down the pub” more than not, out of necessity.
July 8th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
@exzett @Manolo, I wasn’t commenting on that. I was commenting on the casualness of it all.
Christians don’t have a problem with pleasure but we believe everything has it’s time and place. Everything can be misused. The Romans even had Vomitoriums. They would feed up big in their huge feasts, get so full they couldn’t take anymore, then go vomit it all out and go back feasting again. There is nothing wrong with food when it is taken in the right amounts at the right time, just as there is nothing wrong with sex when it is done within the context of a loving relationship.
When i was talking about going down the road for a beer, I meant that that is how people approach sex these days. As temporary and casual pleasure
July 8th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
The Romans even had Vomitoriums.
An advanced civilisation indeed. Now-a-days we have toilets in every home and an important point of social contact has been lost.
July 8th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Pertinent question; Rather covienient that he is oversea’s when this hits the press. Smacks of manipulation of the news. Now who would do that do we think?
It should be pointed out that DPF’s reactions are normal but fail to consider that one can barely walk down the street or drive anywhere anymore without being filmed. And that means doing whatever you are doing including going to public loo’s etc. Just because it involves another bodily function, that we can watch nightly on TV, why the humbridge at someone doing the same in their own house.
More and more today people are hooking up camera’s inside their houses to recorders and their cellphones for the purpose of security. That one should capture the actions of people is exactly their point.
As long as the films remain “in house” so to speak and are kept for the purpose of security then no one can really complain. Were they to be used in any other way then there is an issue.
So the issue is then the use of the film and that’s where any legal activity should be the focus of the force of law.
July 8th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Sounds like we need an “iConsent” application on our phones. Both (or should I say all – not always just 2…) parties register their intent, tick the ‘no duress box’ etc – Bob’s the guy your auntie sleeps with….
July 8th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Some people have always approached sex that way Fletch. Why do you have a problem with it? I have no problem with you having a different opinion. No-one is forcing you to do it and if both parties consent then it it not mine, yours, or anyone’s business but theirs.
July 8th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Zapper
Perhaps the business of 3.7 trillion youtube watchers….
July 8th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
The first thing I thought, was that they are both despicable characters.
The woman should be prosecuted, considering the accused could have been sent to jail for a long time based on her filthy little lies. She also brings discredit to other woman who may genuinely have been raped.
The guy is a little pervert caught between a rock and a hard place.
Overall, a nasty little tale.
July 8th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Actually the iConsent application has just become ( © burt. ) Thinking it would need a website as well, imagine the data mining possibilities…..
July 8th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Keep one of these in your wallet, next to the condom!
http://www.loveologyuniversity.com/FCKeditor/editor/filemanager/browser/default/connectors/aspx/FckUploadedImages/Image/The%20University/cms/Sexual-Consent-Form.pdf
July 8th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Back to the guy… Charge him & charge her for making a false complaint. I have no issues with woman going out getting hammered picking up randoms. It’s all good if you ask me. But when woman go out drinking then wake up in the morning with that familiar feeling of having had some last night but have no recollection…. they need to own that as a consequence of being drunk and flirting with strangers. Hard to claim rape when self inflicted drunkenness takes the memory away.
Completely different story when the level of drinking or drug consumption wasn’t voluntary.
July 8th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
wreck/burt – nothing in the story suggests the woman made a false complaint or lied (apart from down).
July 8th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Pete George
If that’s the case then how did this story get to: Man uses secret recording to avoid rape charge…..
Look I’ve picked up and shagged more than my fair share of strangers and to date I’ve never turned up at the police station the next day on the off chance there may be a rape complaint.
July 8th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Put it away (923) Says:
July 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
I concur and not just women but all false accusers. good point start at 50% of the sentencing chart for the crime and go upwards to 100% dependant on the level of status and damage it does to the persons life.
I did wonder if she had been date raped as she was disorientated and disheveled, but then smashed on alcohol and/or drugs can do the same. I trust the police have searched his office and home for other recordings.
If it all was just as he alleged then it’s just as well he did tape it, but secretly?
That’s why I wondered at date rape….
Yes a nasty little tale and ownership is needed on both sides.
Getting plastered is a choice and there are consequences and some of them are unintended.
It is self inflicted like pregnancy.
July 8th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Yes there’s been nothing reported that says she made any accusations. He probably pulled the video out when the Police asked if she was actually conscious at the time.
July 8th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Perhaps Haimona Gardiner knows Robin Brooke
July 8th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Actually I’m pretty much on Haimona Gardiner’s side here.
1) Police charged him with intentionally making an intimate visual recording of another person. From memory (which admittedly does get hazy with time) that offence was introduced due to the prevalence of recording ability on phones etc, and several instances of people taking pictures up women’s skirts, or in toilets and such. I think Police used the general nature of the law to charge him but don’t really think he deserved it
2) Police do not usually lay charges without a complaint. There are numerous examples of Police saying they can’t do anything until a complaint is made. Here’s one about Veitch where they say that. So she must have laid a complaint, or else Police pick and choose which offences they pursue.
3) My understanding is that it is OK to make a secret voice recording as long as one of those being recorded is aware of the recording. This is how an employee can secretly record abuse from their boss, or how Fergie gets stung for soliciting kickbacks. Now I’m pretty sure it would be OK for a video recording to be made as long as one party knows about it. The problem with this one is the ‘intimate’ nature of it.
4) The problem with the smiling photo, or the iPhone app or contract is the matter of duress. No way to prove it wasn’t done under duress, and in any case someone that drunk probably couldn’t be able to do anything requiring dexterity anyway.
I’m all for protecting oneself against nasty accusations that are hard to disprove. I don’t think making a video recording to keep in a drawer ‘just in case’ is bad or wrong or sick. Imagine if he hadn’t made the recording. He would have been subjected to months of innuendo and discredit when he didn’t do anything wrong.
However if he were to use those recordings to blackmail, upload to YouTube, share with his mates or anything of that nature my support for him would disappear. There is no suggestion that he had or has ever done this.
July 8th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
This story reminded me of the man in the US (North Carolina, as I recall, but not positive). He had bought and insured a very expensive cigar. At some point, he decided to smoke it. Then being a clever joker, he put in a claim to the insurance company because the cigar was destroyed in a fire. (Really, I am not making this up!)
The company took him to court, but _lost_. (This was in the USA after all.) And as he collected the claim from them, the police stepped up and charged him with arson.
July 8th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
From reading the press reports I doubt that a complaint was actually made. I suspect the cops found the woman disorientated, thought that she may have been raped and backtracked her with their enquiries leading to the production of the video.
Like others I would like to know why junior MPS are on an expensive junket at a time when everyone else is cutting back, and why Tariana’s Gofor gets a taxpaid perk as well.
July 8th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
First, if you don’t want to be filmed having sex, then perhaps you shouldn’t get so plastered as to not notice your intended partner setting up a tripod in the corner of the room and pushing the button marked “record”, which then makes that red light blink all the while you’re at it? Alright it may have been more subtle than that, but hopefully the point is obvious. Keep your wits about you and you’re far less likely to be entrapped. At 18 you might be excused for forgetting that – at 40, I think not.
Second, the “offence” committed by the taper should surely come down to intent? After all it is, for instance, legal for the police to possess child pornography provided their intent in so doing is to investigate its distribution. No matter how unpleasant the offence, there’s always a question of intent – which can partially or totally exonerate the alleged offender. So it would come down to whether this guy had a meticulously catalogued library of conquests dating back years, or just seemed to be keeping his last few for long enough to be sure they weren’t going to cry “rape”.
In answer to david’s questions:
Absolutely not, at least in my day. When a multi-party group of MPs flew to Tahiti to protest French nuclear testing at Mururoa the general consensus amongst them was that at least one staffer needed to go as a wrangler, otherwise they’d all claim to outrank one another and no one would be in charge
I was asked to go (in typical fashion, the request came the morning of the day they were taking off) but there were apparently strict rules on staffers vs MPs and in the end Winston bought my ticket himself.
Yes they are, but their “research” is used internally, for political purposes (as opposed to policy purposes). Unbiased research is meant to come from the Parliamentary Library (and does, no matter what Herr Reichminister Tolley thinks) and the public service. Having said that, it’d be a bit pointless giving your MPs made-up “research” because they’d just end up looking stupid.
No, they don’t get diplomatic passports etc. I felt quite nervous being scowled at by gendarmes armed with sub-machine guns because I knew if anyone “accidentally” got shot it’d be me… far less red tape to untangle
July 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Why would he take the video in the first place?
To protect himself in case he was accused of an offence? Why would he think that an accusation could be possible? Did he expect his liaison to be in potentially risky territory? Does he know the risks from picking up near comatose women?
If it wasn’t to preempt a possible investigation then why?
Anyway you look at it it’s eyebrow raising at least. As is – as Rex says – the woman presumably voluntarily getting into that state.
July 8th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Pete – perhaps he just wanted some wanking material for when he was on his taxpayer funded trip overseas. A bit of home made personal porn to wile away the hours now that renting hotel pornos on the taxpayer’s dollar is out.
July 8th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Morale of the story: When hunting Cougar, it’s worth having a gun camera.
Generally I agree fully with DPF’s 1-13.
If the guy made the recording purely for kicks, then well played by him as it converted serious charges to minor ones so he should consider himself a lucky man. Taping your scores is a bit bad form, but I’m not certain it should be illegal.
If the guy made the recording with the express intention of using it later to deflect rape charges, then that would be more sinister as it implies he is in the habit of doing stuff that carries a risk of rape charges. But there is absolutely no proof of that as far as I can see?
July 8th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Either he recorded it for defence against rape allegation, or for some other reason.
Some other reasone = creepy.
Defence against rape allegation suggests, that:
This is routine just in case he is accused
or
He had reason to suspect the act might lead to an accusation of rape, which means that either he knew that the woman had a propensity to make false allegation, or he knew that the woman would remember so little and wake up in such such a disoriented state that she thought she may have been raped.
To me any of those possibilities are not a good look.
July 8th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Where’s Luc “wandering hands” Hanson when you need the objective opinion of a true pervert?
[DPF: 30 demerits]
July 8th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Thanks Rex,
Although you really don’t expect me to believe that the MP’s put you in charge of anything other than their baggage do you?
I find it hard to believe that Hone would have personally chipped in for this guy’s airfare in the same way as WRP supposedly did.
July 8th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Has the tape been uploaded onto youporn?
July 8th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
If he was using a cell phone to record the act surely she would have noticed ? I guess there are some positions e.g. doggy style where he may have grabbed the cell phone from the bed side table and shot off a few seconds of footage without being noticed but most other positions she would have had a clear view of the camera. Maybe if she was fellating him she might have been otherwise engaged mentally ( especially if pissed) but otherwise she can’t really claim he secretly filmed her.
Using a cell phone indicates that it was a spontaneous act rather than premeditated. If he had a miniature camera hidden in a book shelf that would be different.
July 8th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Some of my questions answered … from stuff
” Gardiner is at present on a two-week trip to the United States, sponsored by the American Council of Young Political Leaders.
The council is paying for the group’s costs while in the United States, but Parliamentary Service is funding the business class return flights. Participants were nominated by each party and approved by the Speaker. Gardiner is the only one who is not a politician. “
July 8th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
The above from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3895531/Gardiner-may-face-inquiry-over-sex-film
July 8th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“perhaps he just wanted some wanking material for when he was on his taxpayer funded trip overseas. A bit of home made personal porn to wile away the hours now that renting hotel pornos on the taxpayer’s dollar is out.” – Brian Smaller
Sounds a likely scenario though he may have wanted it to show his mates: a conquest momento.
July 8th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
you know what, this to me seems like a form of insurance.
I had a few one night stands back in my yoof, and some of them were post pub and a wee bit drunk (but not to drunk to make a choice, i did turn down a couple where they were too drunk).
Around the time i knew of someone who had been accused of rape from someone who had felt embarassed about the whole thing (i also knew of a girl who wanted to claim rape against another guy and her female flatmates explained very calmly that shame does not equal rape). What struck me was that if the cops knocked on my door and asked me to prove i had not raped one of my one night stands i had no evidence other than my word. and from seeing the witch hunt the accused guy went through at the time he was basically ruined, despite being found not guilty. i ended up meeting my wife soon after all that so i never had to think about it again.
So if i was single now and felt like the old one night stand i would be working out some way to ensure i could prove consent afterwards. if that meant filming then so be it.
i think considering the charge this guy has avoided that being told off for filming is better than being charged with rape. he has taken a wee bit of insurance that if he ever gets questioned he is safe. sadly now he is going to be pilloried for doing something legal (casual sex), becuase he was clever enough to protect himself against a rape claim.
AL
July 8th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
If he had filmed the woman looking into the camera in one contiguous shot with close up of her munching his truncheon he would have excellent proof her knowledge of the camera.
July 8th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
david:
Apparently TV back home used several seconds of me standing on a stump handing them all their marching orders for the day. When there’s too many chiefs, sometimes the only way to achieve anything is to put the indian in charge
The only time I had anything to do with baggage was when a certain National MP used my duty free allowance to purchase himself additional bottles of cheap spirits 8-|
Winston did pay, I’m certain. For all his other failings he was generous to a fault with his own money on friends and staff. Until the advent of Laws, NZF would have been the best place I’d worked… it then changed to the worst.
These “young leaders” programs are offered by all sorts of countries and this is the first time in my recollection a non-MP has ever been chosen to go on one. Does DPF recall any precdent, I wonder? It seems most unusual.
July 8th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Ive always felt that if I were unfortunate enough to have to work among females (teacher, trainer, nurse, etc) that I would insist that a CCTV was running all the time.
One false complaint and youre screwed.
CCTV isnt regarded in anyway as illegal. I have CCTV at my house – on the driveway in two places. If we get robbed I want to know as much as I can about who it was (because the police are unlikely to do anything if there is no evidence).
What i would like to know is this Is his cctv running all the time . If it is, then whats wrong with it.
July 8th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Indeed if the CCTV aimed at his front door got an image of the woman praying at his pork sword how could be guilty of anything?
July 8th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Again, what’s wrong with that? What is wrong with having casual sex between consenting adults?
July 8th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
eszett asks:
Disapproval of freely available casual sex is likely to be inversely proportional to its availability to the respondent
July 8th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
More and more today people are hooking up camera’s inside their houses to recorders and their cellphones for the purpose of security. That one should capture the actions of people is exactly their point.
As long as the films remain “in house” so to speak and are kept for the purpose of security then no one can really complain. Were they to be used in any other way then there is an issue.
So the issue is then the use of the film and that’s where any legal activity should be the focus of the force of law.
July 8th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Leaving asisde any moral considerations – he’s 25, he should be nailing 25 year old hardbodies not wrinkly old booze hags
July 8th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
He should have stuck to sheep. They don’t know what rape is, (or a video camera for that matter).
July 8th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Baaack off, Sonny Jim.
July 8th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
I don’t know about you guys but what a sigh of relief that this didn’t go any further. If I was accused of rape, I’d be doing anything I could to prove that I was innocent. Yes the whole idea of taping the sex is really dodgy, but thank goodness he did it!
July 9th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Aha
Took a quick Google but I found it on YouTube. Enjoy Sex with Lawyers
July 9th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Suff says “A man who secretly filmed himself having sex with a woman used the recording to clear himself of rape suspicions. ”
Not a rape complaint but suspicions. Now the police ought to be suspicious if a women is found wandering around and “claimed to have little memory of the night before”.
Now if the women is so unaware of what happened than she must have been very intoxicated and that leads a person to wonder whether she could have given consent at all.
In a similar case as this, you would wonder whether the women got herself intoxicated or did someone else. And what was the intoxicating substance. And that if someone is going to all the trouble to make a hidden camera recordings of a sex event then you would think that the person is going to put some effort into having a sex event occurr i.e. how far did they go to make sure that a person came back to their place.
In one way having a sex tape could actually stop a rape case happening even if a rape occurred. It’s bad enough for a rape victim to explain what happened, it would be manifoldly worse to have the tape entered into evidence and shown in open court.
July 9th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
The interesting thing is that he kept a charge a secret because he must have known he wouldn’t be allowed to go if this was known by his boss. This is fraud by lying and should be the reason that Haimona Gardiner should be recalled. If he doesn’t then lying is seen to be rewarded.
July 9th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
And now that I think about it, why is it that it is only the woman who has to give explicit consent? That really pisses me off. If I was in the pub and some chick came up and was draping herself all over me and I was in the mood then I don’t think I should have to stand back and ask explicitly for iron-clad consent. She doesn’t have to.
Let’s face it, women have just as much sexual drive as men so this one-sided sexist attitude in this day and age is ridiculous.
The statement already repeated sever times here is correct: If one party has drunk so much they have a black-out then they need to adjust their drinking. It shouldn’t be up to the males to always adjust their moral fibre to fit the morning-after perceptions.
July 9th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Does a video of consensual sex preclude subsequent rape?
July 9th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Interesting question in light of recent developments in the grocers case.
July 9th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
What case is that, Viking?
July 9th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Yes rouppe, but there should also be no excuse for a male to have sex with someone who is unconscious, that’s sick.
July 9th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Ex all black accused of behaving in the same manner as this fellow. No video but apparently other witnesses. It was reported in the paper that the two had had consensual sex at a previous time. Therefore your question raises the same issue.
Its also featured in the Hayden remarks of late.
July 9th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
OK thanks – I must confess my mind switches off when I hear the words “rugby”, “all black” or “former all black”.