This makes me feel a little better about Barrowman. He was reprimanded for his “pranks” and then stopped doing it back in 2008.
They’re still taking him out of a new Doctor Who thingie in the UK, though.
14 Likes
But if she had just been nicer, smiled more, and didn’t wear provocative clothing, would she have had her dress pulled out? I doubt it! /s
14 Likes
Four in five female prisoners in Scotland have a history of significant head injury, with sustained domestic abuse the most likely cause, according to research that experts argue bolsters the case for routine screening of inmates.
So they’re in prison for being violent, in many/most cases due to self-defense against the person beating them. And around and around we go.
16 Likes
More fallout…
7 Likes
Well… so much for my hopes for a new Torchwood series on the TV. Thanks Capt. Jack…
11 Likes
7 Likes
Ugh. I’m not sure what needs to change here. Is it the prosecutor’s procedures, the level of proof they require, the law - or all three?
8 Likes
Is it possible that a judge told them, “You have to try each of these cases separately and none of the accusers can testify in another accusers trial because their testimony isn’t relevant”? In that case, every case would just be a matter of two witnesses saying they didn’t rape anyone versus one witness saying they did. Is there a legal procedure change that is needed to make this kind of thing stop happening?
14 Likes
10 Likes
10 Likes
Great parody of a lot of dudebro arguments that get put on bbs repeat:
12 Likes
JFC
Trigger warning: bad stuff, throughout
10 Likes
11 Likes
Informing on friends and neighbors is a long-standing authoritarian trait. Had to make sure to not miss checking that box!
8 Likes
No comply.
3 Likes
Even if the rest of the law is allowed to stand, that part will surely be struck down, because the whole idea of lawsuits is that only those with standing (i.e. injured or interested parties) can sue. Of course, the rest of the law is still really scary.
… could the State of Texas therefore claim to have standing as an interested party?
… if Texas courts say the State of Texas to have standing, what will the State do and to whom will they do it?
… can the State of Texas, which would of course pay both the judge and the prosecutor, be said to have a conflict of interest and if so, how would it recuse itself?
and also
… what is the financial cost of defending oneself, if accused?
… what costs are borne by the accused that are non-financial but nevertheless negative, such as loss of one’s job, etc., for whatever reason(s), in Texas?
… will this law, for however long it is allowed to stand, be an effective deterrent, or otherwise provide a chilling effect on its intended (targeted) population of women seeking abortions, with disproportionate effects on women of child-bearing age, financially insecure, underprivileged, etc.?
… will the State of Texas continue to ‘move the goalposts’ with every legislative session, every court case, until, if Roe v Wade is not fully struck down by the SCOTUS, it can be at least effectively hobbled to such a degree that it is simply impossible to get an abortion in Texas, for any reason?
So many questions.
5 Likes
