I don't think the judge has got this right. On the established facts I don't think, on the balance of probabilities, consent or the absence of consent can be determined. Based on this decision, might not a woman willingly get drunk (no I don't buy the argument that Brittney wasn't willing because she was coaxed to drink), go to a private place with a guy, he being inebriated or not, have consensual sex (no I don't buy the argument that a drunk person can't give consent) then after the act, claim rape whether it was or wasn't, then reap the financial reward from the crimes compensation system. Don't tell me that doesn't happen because I know from personal experience it does. It almost happened to me. Only difference is she couldn't prove I'd had sex with her, because I hadn't. And don't get me started on the man I know of who spent nine years in prison on a false claim by his daughters that he had molested them. It was established later that the eldest daughter lied to authorities so she could get crimes compensation money and go shopping. One of the biggest fallacies out there is that children don't lie. The fact of the matter is that in this case these teenage girls convinced a whole lot of experts to believe a lie. So to hear a judge in the Brittany case say that her testimony had a "ring of truth" to it convinces me not at all. We are such a twisted species, it wouldn't surprise me if the judge was having sexual fantasies over Britney himself by finding in her favor. Hope Bruce appeals to keep us all further entertained. If you're going bankrupt you may as well go down owing even more.
