She got very drunk one night and woke up to realise that she had sex with someone in a corridor and could not remember whether or not she had consented to it. The man in question says she was aware they were having intercourse. She says she wasn't. So she files a case and the judge says - drunken consent is still consent. And therefore, rules that she was not raped.
The case has sparked off a tizzy.
What's your take? Rape? Drunken sex? Fair judgement?
.. how foolish was she.. but how dare that guy.. was he drunk too?.. how dare the courts traumatize her.. but would other girls misuse this excuse to suit their purpose if the courts had supported her... hmm..
What settled my thoughts a bit: "'I did blame myself. Not entirely, I mean, deep down, with something like that you know it's not your fault but you think about how others would see it and you reckon they're going to think: "She was drunk, she asked for it." But as far as I know, getting drunk isn't a crime. The people at the party could obviously see I was in such a state I had to be escorted home. If I was in that much of a state, it must have been clear to anyone that I was incapable of consenting to anything. I was put into his care, for him to ensure that I got home safely. He was the thing I should have been kept safe from.'"
this is unfortunate and, well obviously diturbing.if the guy took advantage of the fact that she was probably too drunk to remember any thing then he needs to be set right.
I agree with the statement, "Drunken consent is still consent". I think it was extremely irresponsible of the girl to not take care when we read about predators every day! And what is the proof that she didnt really consent. By being irresponsible enough to get so drunk as to lose sense of everything around her, I think she just lost her credibility.Also, from the comment above, it seems as if she expects the people at the party (her friends or whoever) to take her responsibility when she was clearly not in a state to do so....I mean, why in the world should anyone else care when she herself doesnt care?????
to those who have commented and might....
this is one of those really disturbing stories i have come across. i cannot believe that women are like so vulnerable all over and that absolutely no woman seems to be safe. what kind of a cruelty is this? and a court that isnt blaming the rapist? not very different from our indian courts. is getting drunk so much of a big thing and does that make this asshole not guilty? why is the system so anti-women? and why is rape all abt consent and non-consent? so what if this girl is drunk, wht gives this guy the bloody right to rape her? the very account of her feeling sick and upset over the whole thing is so pathetic. and shows the kind of an animal this guy was. and why does everyone discuss abt the victim? look at this guy, this rapist! he has taken advantage of her state and the world would rather choose to believe him and not the victim rite? is this whole world anti-women? so sickening!!! the victim seems to have gone through such trauma and it is more than evident that this guy has clearly raped her! wht a foolish and a male chauvinistic judgement!
secondly, evn if this girl had given her consent, how cruel of this guy to have evn asked her for sex when his job was to take her home safely? and he very well could see that she was almost unconscious! so in the end he had only wanted for her consent!or atleast he knew he can slip out with this she-consented argument! right? isnt this inhuman? barbaric? and wht gall, the courts actually blame her....
agreed the courts traumatized her! but i dont think there is anything foolish abt the girl. she was having fun. and getting drunk is not foolish. and no, getting drunk in the night, in parties, is also not foolish! it is perfectly fine as long she doesnt think it to be foolish! and no i dont think girls would misuse it! that sounds more like an excuse for such a chauvinistic judgemnet!
amazing! profound ideas!
My blood boils here u know..to look at how the victim has suffered? she has been irresponsible? and is that because she got drunk and ya 'got' herself raped?? or rather as u say, she 'would' have consented?
u know my blood boils even further! tell me something! okie, she is irresposible. she got drunk. does that justify the whole incident? so any and every rapist can rape 'irresposible' girls??? and tell me wht is the proof that she did consent? that rapist's verdict? too mind blowing...ur argument that is! why do u choose to believe the rapist? and not her? this is so disheartening!
and piece of advice...try reading the actual account...
The principle of natural justice says that even if 100 guilty go unpunished, 1 innocent should not be punished by mistake.
I think that the judge interpreted the law correctly. One, the law is/was silent on "consent when drunk" issue, and second there was no way to refute what the accused said. The accuser acknowledged that she had no recollection of events of previous night. People do stupidest things when they are drunk, even dancing naked in the street. She could have seduced him in the corridor as he says.
Its an established fact that inhibitions go down after drinking. They call alcohol as panty remover. Adding a clause which likens sex while drunk to rape would open a flood gate of frivolous charges.
I am not learned enough to argue for or against a clause like this in the law, but in my opinion, enough safeguards needs to be built into the law so that innocent dont get harassed.
Thank you for your time and patience
It is strange and downright insulting that you should say:
I agree with the statement, "Drunken consent is still consent".
So, does that mean, if a girl is drunk, she is consenting to sex? Does being drunk equate with consent towards sex? And if a person is not in a state to say 'yes' or 'no', and another person takes adavntage of her, does that mean a 'consent'?
In truth, there is nothing like 'drunken consent', the term is ridiculous. It is like saying ok you can steal my belongings because i am too drunk to say 'no'. If that happened, will you blame the thief or the drunk person. Should the drunk person, in that case, never press charges agaisnt the thief? In that case, would you still say, 'It's the victim's fault'?
Why does your judegement change because it was 'rape' and not 'theft'?
She thought that the people in the party were her friends, not everyone thinks that eberyone else is a predator...do you think that everyone is a murderer when you step out on the road? You are blaming a girl for being drunk when thousands of guys also drink themselves silly at parties at friend's places...so does that mean they are all being irresponsible?
Bravo!!! What profound thoughts!!!
She could have seduced him in the corridor as he says.
She was drunk, she was practically unconscious...and she was seducing him? Wow...wouldn't that be your fantasy come true?
I am not learned enough to argue for or against a clause like this in the law, but in my opinion, enough safeguards needs to be built into the law so that innocent dont get harassed
Are you *ahem* one of those 'innocents' or planning to be one? I don't blame you, this verdict was designed to encourage the likes of you.
Anyways, the judge could easily have seen that the girl was a victim, and at least, if they did not humiliate the rapist, they could have handled the victim with the same 'dignity'...yes 'dignity'!!!! Just because a girl got drunk is not a criterion to rape her, and not a criterion to harass her publicly. The court had no right to do this to her...never!
Foolish... Irresponsible... seductress... Wow! Look at the way men speak! How easily without any reluctance they come to the help of a stranger just because the creature is a man and start accusing a woman! This is the sign of unity! This is the sign of togetherness. But only if it could have been humane!
Yes it is inhuman to even talk about the woman or the victim. It is very clear that the man (so called a human being!) has eploited the woman of her situation. why is that men who have accused the woman did not even speak about the man? Is it foolishness for a woman to even get drunk? What kind of a world do we live in? It is very clear that we are living in a world which is unsafe for women.
So if a woman is drunk she should accept the man's demands? That is what the judgement or the arguments here by some men prove to be.
As aparna clearly pointed out rape is a crime! How could one give a consent for crime? Where does the point of consent come here? It is very clear that she was unconscious after being drunk,then logically or legally a consent given by a person when he/she is unconscious should not be considered at all!
And to those who have commented in favour of the rapist! Dare not speak about the victim. Why cant u guys move ahead and disuss about the morality or the ethics of the rapist's behaviour?
i feel very depressed after reading this account. i always thought that white west countries are very safe for women compared to asian and middle-east countries. now i feel so sick.
a legal contract is void if a person puts his signature on the contract under the influence of alcohol. but not so in case of sex. a man can have sex if he gets drunken consent.
i wonder if a guy had been raped by a homo, would the verdict be the same?
It is unfortunate that when it comes to rape cases, the legal system seems keen on humiliating the female victim and debasing her character. No means no. On the other hand, if you're going to get drunk at a dorm party, bad things will happen. I'm not saying that is an excuse, but we have to be realistic and realize that not every guy who gets you a drink is interested in who you are as a person.
No question at all. This was sexual assault.
This man worked as a part-time security guard and was asked by a member of the university staff to walk her home. He was given a duty and then abused that duty.
To even raise the possibility of consent was a miscarriage of justice.
I think my comment has been misconstrued. I did not in any way believe or support the rapist neither am I discounting the fact that HE should have behaved more appropriately. However, I still think that SHE should have been more careful. Getting drunk is not a crime, but getting drunk as to lose sense of yourself and sort of make yourself vulnerable to the world was foolish and irresponsible.
I do not in any way think that the guy was justified, but I do not want to believe the girl just because she was the victim. I am more inclined to think that such a thing can be avoided from happening to you if you are wise enough to not put yourself in such a vulnerable situation.I would have been the first one to believe the girl if there was no drunken-ness in the picture.
As far as me agreeing to the "Drunken consent is still consent" statement is concerned...once again, I did not imply that "if a girl is drunk, she has consented"...I just think that if she really did consent when she was drunk, why should she be discounted and her consent not taken seriously when she is an adult who can take care of and is expected to take care and make good decisions for her well-being? If she didnt consent then there is no question of the statement above arising in the first place.
When he can do it while he is drunk and its not an offence.... she realising later as a rape is an offence... No!!
its always that NO in hosh aur awaz is considered as a rape not when she is drunk... so definitely its an offence even if she consents unknowingly in drunken state.
I deeply regret that such a misfortunate incident took place. On one hand, YES any girl (including me) has the liberty to drink if she wants to , smoke when she desires and not be inhibited by environment. But then again, you have to realize your own limitations when you are drunk.....Simple as that... People are always ready to take any kind od undue advantage. Until you dont lobby for proper legislation, cannot much can be changed at the ground level.
I think the principle Himanshu speaks of is Blackstone's principle (and not a principle of natural justice) but yes, in criminal cases the burden of proof is higher. However, in cases of sexual assault on women and children, the courts normally tend to take a more lenient view.. and accept even uncorroborated statements from the victim.
Further, I present to you a similar case with a different result in another jurisdiction -
In a trial that attracted huge media coverage in Singapore, Vidya Shankar Aiyar, who had worked for state-owned ChannelNews Asia television, was convicted on two charges of outrage of modesty.
District judge Victor Yeo said it was a case of where a completely sober man took advantage of a drunken colleague at a housewarming party.
During the trial, the court heard the woman had left the party in a drunken state and Aiyar had offered to take her home. She woke up the next day naked in Aiyar’s bed.
The court was told that Aiyar had helped her out of her clothes, including her underwear, and while she was getting dressed in the morning, had tried to kiss her pubic region.
Yeo described Aiyar as a “hunting wolf in sheep’s clothing” at the end of the trial in December. Each of two molest charges carried a penalty of up to two years in prison or a fine or caning, or two of the punishments.
Singapore, where prostitution is legal but oral sex is not, put a 27-year-old police sergeant in jail for two years for receiving oral sex in November last year. The public generally supports Singapore’s tough laws — including the death penalty for drug smugglers, bans on pornography and curbs on political dissent — as part of a social contract that in return has delivered years of economic prosperity.
I have a copy of the judgement, in case anyone wants it - please leave a comment on this page (alongwith email ID)
let's turn the situation around. let's say this man had been drunk and then he got robbed by a group of friends at the party. once the man is conscious he realises he is stripped of his money. he goes to court and blames his friends. his friends say "but he SAID we could just TAKE his money. he SAID this and he GAVE it to us." and then the court sets the friends off the hook because, well as ya all know, the man gave his CONSENT....
anon, isn`t drinking wrong? I dont say that this man has done right thing. But u must understand that drinking and smoking is absolutely wrong(4 both sexes, I mean). Where our youngsters are going now?
was the guy drunk too ? If not then he has raped the girl because he knew she was not in her senses so her consent doesn't count. He took advantage of the situation.
And yes ultimately protecting yourself will always be in your own hands ..
We are not living in the wild wild west. Drinking by a woman ( that too outdoors) is social anti-thesis. The lady is responsible for her predicament.
Knowing that Man is a tail-less monkey, and knowing Darwin's thoery of evolution ( man descended from monkeys) - to provoke a monkey and crying "foul" is foolishness of the highest order.
My only regret is - why I never came across such a woman IN MY LIFE !! Well, life is not always fair, buddy !!
Vidya Shankar Aiyar's Singapore case is very different. There were numerous witnesses who said the woman had been coming onto the man at the party. While that is not a crime, and certainly should not be taken as implied consent for sex, it does throw some doubt about whether there was consent later or not.
In this case, the girl did not even know the man. Sex is far more improbable. And the guy should have, ethically, not have had sex with a drunk woman entrusted to his care, even if she had come on to him. Obviously, it's a big, bad world out there.
swetha: drinking is wrong?! we are not standing in moral judgement here!
t: I dont want to get into the vidya shankar case..but satya raises an interesting point about the burden of proof. is it lighter in cases involving sexual assault; is her possible lack of clarity or rememberance that night made up for by the fact that she was, in a sense, inherently vulnerable through her biology ie she could be raped? does the court work her vulnerability into the decision? does anyone know?
hi i am just here to differentiate myself from SWETHA
i do not agree with whatever she said, i do not want anyone confusing the two of us!!
well lets look at the famous janis joplin and jim morrison case.if ppl who are reading this dont know who these people are,then to put it in short.jim morrison was the vocalist 4 the band called "the doors"(considered the best ever in the rock and roll era of the late sixties) and janis joplin known 4 her distinctive voice.now these 2 had what we could call an affair ,they got drunk(like they shat everyday!) and ended up in a situation where morrisson asked janis 2 give him oral pleasure.she was drunk but she said no.she even broke a bottle on his head.the affair ended in tears and they still continued to perform together.janis died of an excess dose of heroin and supposedly so did morrisson.janis in 1970 and morrison in 71.now if this was someone as simple a person as judith and some guy ....u know some guy....(here morrison being drunk is no issue,coz him being drunk meant him being normal).we would "lodge"comments like the ones up here .what do u guys think abt this case.and dont be judgemental for they are drunk and died of dope .its their life and their wish.i leave u guys with this story 2 ponder abt.but what i say is .every man and every woman's security is her own issue.its not worth lodging a comment.u need 2 gulp down the fact ur in a vulnerable situation and deal with it ....we are talking abt the era where equivocal justice 2 both the sexes is the idea.
She was raped. Since the judge let the guy get away with this case, the guy might just rape someone else again.
I am reading this quite late, and my reactions are mixed.
I also sense some feminist sexism in the outrage against 'drunken consent', whereas if a man had backtracked the next day and said " i don't remember what happened between us" we would be up in arms against him.
This is indeed a grey area of law. But rape is a crime, and criminal law cannot punish a person until proven guilty, and lack of consent has to be proven for the case to be established. "I don't remeber" creates doubt that it may have been rape, and "may have been rape" is not enough to convict a person.
Of course, morally I believe that like in the morrison-joplin case, if both parties are drunk, it's their business. But if the man was sober and conscious of the fact she was drunk, i think it was morally abhorrent that he made a pass at her, and took advantage of her situation.
And yeah, the 'irresponsible" argument i think, is completely redundant as what is 'responsible' is 1) subjective to socio-cultural values of a person, 2) it's not a facotr that makes any kind of sexual assault more acceptable, or less abhorrent.
this is for dark abyss.. If you ever get shot on the roads in broad daylight, then tell your family not to file an F.I.R. coz after all, all men are ANIMALS right?
You can't hold them accountable for anything after all it's in their genes .. Poor poor men ??
I agree with Atreyee's comment above to a large extent. My heart goes out to the girl who had to go through such a traumatic experience. Getting drunk is definitely no offence.
At the same time, I cannot but relate this to an incident in my life. I was given the responsiblity of dropping a girl who got drunk. She came on really heavy and it took every ounce of will power for me to remain sane and drop her without incident. But that is probably because I was not half as drunk as she was.. I'd like to think that I would have done the same even if I was as stoned as she was... but it may not be true. And the girl in question was a very likable decent fellow professional.. not some street bum.
I guess its time that all of us drank responsbily and avoided such sordid incidents. Unfortunatly that is not going to happen in a hurry... and unfortunately the women take the brunt of mistakes..
Its a stupid mistake on boths sides! I have friends who drink... and know what the impact of it can be if they get totally stoned.
If the man had been her friend, he might'ave cared enough to make sure he did'nt take advantage of her. But he might'ave been just this guy looking for a good time that night (idiot!).... And if he had thought that she was one such person too...he might not have seen that she was completely out. Again...nobody there was qualified to tell the truth at court.
I have nothing against drinking. But like Sonal or Himanshu says...everyone should know their limits!!
If you want to get totally drunk...take a friend along who could bring you back safely...or drink in your house! This goes for both men and women!
someone talked about a Singapore case! That is because it is illegal there!
Here in the US, oral sex is not illegal. So if someone had oral sex when drunk....no one gets arrested! You have to live with it! It is upto you to decide if it is okay!
We are educated people who hear of incidents happening all over. Should we not be more careful! People get raped/robbed even when they are in the best frame of mind! Should we not be extra careful when under influence??
If a drunk person hurts someone.... are we gonna give excuses that he/she was drunk? Does'nt the law punish him/her for the mistake?
If you cause an accident when driving under influence....it is still a crime! If you consent when drunk...it is still a consent!
man, all the time they like it when theyre drunk and laid (it goes for the male sex too) but when it's over, then the guilt sets in (it's a conservative society after all and anyway people get drunk and laid because they are trying not to face too much reality and like to get in some pleasure edgeways) ..and then the anger and then of course why not slap a suit on to the guy whose attention you enjoyed drunkenly? Poor soul,this woman! The worst kind of woman is this kind who turns her own weakness into an accusatory weapon against men!!!
So there, you know where the blanknoise resides ...!!!
the verdict is right on. she was drunk - he can claim the same and that they did something stupid and regretful. only the individual can define wat it means to them - to her "rape" and to him "a drunken romp". but the courts have no evidence to stick a "rape" tag on him. she just needs to run him down on the street sometime and make road kill out of him.
After having read all the comments on this post.. Its is unfortunate, but it is true.
Drunken Sex is what I would Conclude. Drunken consent is still consent. Why drink if you have no idea how it affects your thinking!!!
I have to agree with Anjaan. And when we drink, we know we won't react normal, but no one forces us to drink.
It's about being responsible
if you stay sober you'll know if its consented sex or not.
Once you take something to court, you are dealing with the law - which is always not the same as morals or ethics.
If we argue that drunken consent is not consent, we have to clarify that. What is drunken? When the female feels drunk? Male feels drunk? When the female doesn't feel drunk and the male thnks she is? When she feels drunk and the male thinks she isn't? When the friends at the party think she is drunk? There is no red light that starts blinking when someone reaches a particualar 'drunken' level after which consent doesn't become consent.
If we want to enable the law to deal with such things where there are no witnesses, we need to provide people with forms where they can sign that they consent. "I hereby consent to having sex with this man/ women and my signature below is evidence that I am not under the influence of alcohol.." Perhaps, the man and women involved should be legally required to include a witness too, every time tey have sex to vounch for their soberness.
There are things that law cannot deal with. Law is not equipped to judge every crime accurately and justly. It will never be.
If she was at the point of not remembering, he took advantage of the situation.
That upsets me.
i think goverment should set a new term such "if someone is drunk, no consent is valid"
"Drunken consent is still consent" , consent should be come from the person when he/she has a clear mind.
if the guy scare the lady will say she was not consent to the sex then he should stay away from the lady instead of having sex with her.
if he just cannot resist to take opportunity when there is a lady very drunk, well its mean he just lose control of his self.
just my point of view
Joe said: "There is no red light that starts blinking when someone reaches a particualar 'drunken' level after which consent doesn't become consent."
I thought in this case there was, because the security guy was called in because the girl was totally drunk. Had he been a random equally drunk party-goer it might have been a different case. Maybe still rape but impossible to prove.
In this case the perp knew the situation so he cannot plead that she consented - since he was told that she was out of it.
K, so people have the opinion that she was being irresponsible, huh?
I think she has a right to get drunk if she wants to. Who the hell are you to judge to what extent she should drink or not?
hello people, she has not driven over people or committed a crime after she got drunk. She is the victim here, remember.
And if someone took advantage of the situation, he had better get punished. The very fact that she didnt feel good about it and sought justice is reason enough to claim rape, isn't it? Think about it.
Give me one reason why any woman would have an ulterior motive to punish a guy by claiming rape, in a society like ours which automatically gives her a bad name? And, the proof of this society is people like those of you who have commented that the judgement was right.
Honest free speech indeed.lol.What happened to my comment?
Iv had more than one of my girlfriends have the same thing happen to them. It affected their life so badly later on. For the guys its just a moment but that one thing will be a nightmare haunting her the rest of her life. It will change the way she looks at life and people. I saw one of my best friends loose faith in herself that nothing seemed to matter anymore. Even being a guy I cried seeing someone I loved go that way There is no excuse for a guy who takes advantage of a woman like that. Why do they say "Dont drink and drive?" "Shut up you are drunk?"? It just goes on to say that no person who is drunk is in their real senses. He or she is not her normal self. They cant think, talk or act the way they want to. Any guy who did this is a creep of the highest order.
If she was drunk enough that she couldn't remember, she was too drunk to consent.
The story surprises me -- I always assumed the law was clear on this.
holy shit, i can't even believe how stupid some of this is.
is someone raping you a reasonable consequence for having drank too much?
NO. if you think so, you're a complete idiot and don't know very much about anything. shut up.
the only thing useful about the deplorable way men use drunk women is that it often produces women who see the world in an entirely different way. . .
. . .in such a way that they realize that women are sexually exploited in INNUMERABLE ways every day.
but that still is so fucking horrific.
and should stop immediately.
Yeah right .. go take care of urself first and dont get drunk. Dont blame the guy. If the woman in question did not understand
1. The guy wanted her.
2. That she could lose her control.
3. The alchohol could make the guy lose his control.
4. It is dangerous to be in such situations
__then__ do not blame someone else.
Learn to take responsibility.
I have been that drunk in my life once. I couldn't remember a thing how I got back to my room. Let me point out before going further that I am a guy and am not complaining about someone trying to take advantage of me. The point is I didn't know how I got back to my room and was told that I walked back without any help.
The point is my friends didn't notice anything unusual (apart from me being drunk). Rape is a serious crime and you cannot punish a guy when the person doesn't even remember weather she gave consent or not. I could have bet anything that morning that my friends brought me back either in a car or a bullock cart. Instead I was concious enough to decide to walk back and not recall a single incident of that night.
Innocent until proven guilty (not always followed) is a principle you cannot blame the courts for following.
This is not rape, this is mere poor judgement on part of the girl to get drunk too much, she lost sanity as soon as she got drunk too much. I must also say that equally responsible is the bloke who had sex with her, no i shud say more coz he used this situation to his advantage....
say i meet a totally stoned guy and ask for his wallet and he gives it to me, maybe i just take it, nobody is there to confirm, will it not be called stealing? I don't understand what kind of logic people use these days. If the guy was drunk too, the issue had been debatable, in this case it should have been a open and shut case.
its possible she provoked after getting drunk n latar she felt guilty... so filed a case.. as she wos drunk it cant be proved if she seduced the guy or not :(
A woman is responsible for her actions whether she is drunk or not. She was sober when she chose to drink, knowing the possible consequences of her actions. This means women should be aware they may "consent" to a sexual situation while they are drunk. They should not accuse of rape when they firmly consented to this drunken state.
fed up= i am fed up of such statements. no one- naked, drunk , drugged, blind,deserves to be RAPED- no body ASKS to be VIOLATED. WHY do people say- be careful. why can't we make our cities safe instead?
its totally rubbish.i know that drinking is legal but a girl who has no capability of drinking i mean to say that if she lost her sense after drinking is very bad.she drunked and paid the price. if the girl will cross her limit in the eyes of god then she must be punished by the god.
To some it might look like male chauvinism and to a nother section it could be feminism but to a fairer eye the judgement with a stricter warning to both the victim and the accused is acceptable. we are just forgetting about facts and are just travelling on our emotions.....at the end of the day nobody except the two involved know what transpired.....moreover let me make onething clear sex is mutual and it causes as much harm it causes a women to a man also.....given the fact that both were drunk rape happened from both sides.....if it is true that man and women have equal then it includes the sexual aspect too. if the man had impregnated her then its the duty of the man to share responsibility with her because there is a burden caused and under nature it is the women who bares and it is the man who has to care from outside. as far as there is no impregnation the judgement is just fair.....as how the women was drunk the man was drunk too. well it was not violent sex ,it was mutual consent at the time of intercourse and at that time both were not in a state of understanding. the attitude towards sex is different before twenty years compared to now...twenty years back it is a women who is attached to names like chastity,virginity and honour but now in this globalised world there is no inequality as far as sexuality is concerned except for the natural difference. if the women thinks she is harrassed by this sex then it gives the man the right to feel harrassed about the sex. itz about giving and taking...it takes two hands to clap. should the man file a case that he was raped by a women drunk and now harassed and mentally tortured in public and made to run away from the country...nope in my opinion both have been irresponsible and if punished both should be punished and if let scotfree bothe should be let....this is true equality and it takes a feminist or a malechauvinist to turn the attention towards their respective emotional state but then if u are unbiased and fairminded and have considered all the aspects involved from all points of view without taking sides then finally you will arrive at the same judgement the judge pronounced and i believe it is a waste of time to debate on this issue. thank you and all the best....
Post a Comment