Surgically constructed vaginas and all that
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my site using a feedreader or email. Thanks for visiting - Damien.
With the nasty little year it’s been for me, I never got to sit my Summer exams, so had to do the repeats, which were on this week. 3 in total. Property Law on Monday. Yesterday Criminal Law had a question on rape and offered a scenario with a male to female transgendered person with a “Surgically constructed vagina”. The question asked whether she could have been raped. It had lots of other elements in it too like consensual S&M etc. Fun. Today was Tort or “How to sue the shit out of someone”. I seemed to really know the defamation law section of this. Funny that. Anyway, all done and I should get through to 3rd year law. Will I promise to be a good boy next term and study and not skip lectures and that? Come back in 12 months and see.
Now back to living life.
Digg it! |
Reddit |
Del.icio.us |
Stumble Upon |
Google
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Congrats on surviving the exams. You can get back to what you are best at - ranting
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Aha! Mystery solved. When I saw you mentioning it on Facebook yesterday I was quite confused indeed.
Anyway congratulations at finishing the exams and I hope they all went well.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
what kind of crazy sex college to you go to dude?
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Mmm, sex college.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
First case I did in criminal law (yikes, seven years ago) was R v Brown. On consensual S&M (complete with old grey judges discussing different, um, methods) and the law. Gulp.
Hope you get good results from these exams anyway
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
haha
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
(haha to Damien, not to Daithi) although,,,,
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Richard Hearne is going to be around in a minute claiming this is another Google SEO scam for traffic.
DaithÃ, yes, I went into great detail about Brown and made some logical leaps of my own to.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:26 am
Ahhhh the heady days of Criminal Law.
One case sticks in my mind: Derry v Peek - the defendant being a man who got very drunk, stole a red bike on his way home, woke up sober with said bike (nothing sexual, mind) got worried and tried to post it back whence he stole it.
It had a particular resonance with me because the weekend before we studied the case I got very drunk, stole a red bike on the way home, and woke up with said red bike in my back garden.
We’ve all done it.
I fretted for a while, got EXTREMELY paranoid when reading about Derry v Peek, but instead of posting a bike anywhere, I gave the bike to a friend who then chopped it up with an axe and set it down to rust at the end of his garden.
True or false? Well, that’s a matter for the courts to decide…..
Congrats on finishing the exams, Damo.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I though this was Derry v. Peek …
Fraudulent misrepresentation was defined by Lord Herschell in Derry v Peek (1889) as a false statement that is “made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless as to whether it be true or false.” Therefore, if someone makes a statement which they honestly believe is true, then it cannot be fraudulent. See:
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
PS: I think that could be answered as ‘Section 4′ rape or indeed Section 2 of 1981.