Anna Rowe

Thanks for the link... But it's not the answer - "serious" and "material" are totally subjective terms - what is to one person may not be to another. She proposes an objective (reasonable person) test... The Courts are familiar with the concept but I'm not sure it would be >

>appropriate for such a serious offence (Courts have tended to apply a subjective test (did this defendant realise) & I'm pretty sure they would here unless Parliament specifically mandated an objective one... Personally I think that if you were to apply such a test you should>

>introduce a lower level offence (max penalty 7 or 10yrs not Life) such as the one I've previously suggested to address other problems with consent (an offence of, for want of a better way of putting it, sex without taking reasonable care to establish consent). An objective >

>test for deceit in obtaining consent could be appropriate for a similar lower level offence.

Where is this that you’ve suggested Peter? Where can I see it? And you’ve answered all your rantings at me in this?? He knew consent would not have even given if he told ‘the truth’ we did not have the freedom to give genuine consent. Why all the skirting around yr questioning..

Over which lie is drawing the line? It’s a bigger picture not individual lies. Nothing is black and white but the ‘dishonesty test’ covers this with ease!

Because you cannot have an offence unless you have a clear test for when it has been committed... (And the dishonesty test DOESN'T provide an answer at all...)