You need to consider what impression you make on others when you defend getting drunk as a “right” when any health-care professional will tell you it is a form of self-harm.

Actually, I just think you’re being stupid, sexist and offensive, and not just to me. And the proper response to that is arguing with you rather than asking that you be banned.

When are you going to have the honesty to turn round to Sunny and the rest of the team and tell them that, and that I should therefore be banned from LC? Because nothing less than that will ever satisfy you.

Jesus wept.

Actually, there is someone moderating this thread. It’s me. I didn’t delete the comments that personally slandered me, and so no, I will NOT delete the best feminist response we’ve had on this thread yet, not even if it makes you really, really uncomfortable.

Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, and sons of friends that it’s not okay to rape someone.

Funnily enough, that’s exactly how I say goodbye to all of my friends and relatives.

“Don’t rape anyone tonight,”

“I’ll do my best,”

I mean, FFS.

Just to remind you all, Arson is also illegal – so don’t start any fires – I’m looking at you, Killingworth.

And as for swan twaddling. . .

We’ve all gotta be a lot more careful about posting comments on this or any other thread. If any of us saw someone who was raging angry in real life, we wouldn’t seek to engage them in debate, we’d find a reason to go into the next room or the other end of the coffee bar or whatever. We’ve gotta learn to do that on the ‘net as well.

If it helps balance things out for you, I think you are both a twat and a dick. And an arsehole incidentally.

I hope none of your friends, if you have any, choose to confide in you if they are unfortunately sexually assaulted or raped, as you’ll probably demand a court verdict or tell them to stop slandering, insensitive cock that you are.

What Laurie Penney is trying to say here and she does it very well is that police officers should be working on catching rapists and preventing rapes, rather than telling women that they have to change their behaviour.

ACPO didn’t ‘tell’ “women that they have to change their behaviour” – it advises women to not get intoxicated. It also tells men to get proper consent. Police officers are working on catching rapists.

Some people might do well to read this text from a “Men Can Stop Rape” poster that was made a few years ago:

“Much has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn’t have long hair and women shouldn’t wear short skirts. Women shouldn’t leave drinks unattended. Women shouldn’t dare to get drunk at all.

Instead of that bullshit, how about:

If a woman is drunk, don’t rape her. If a woman is walking alone at night, don’t rape her. If a women is drugged and unconscious, don’t rape her. If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don’t rape her. If a woman is jogging in a park at 5AM, don’t rape her. If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you’re still hung up on, don’t rape her. If a woman is asleep in her bed, don’t rape her. If a woman is asleep in your bed, don’t rape her. If a woman is doing her laundry, don’t rape her. If a woman is in a coma, don’t rape her. If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don’t rape her. If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don’t rape her. If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don’t rape her. If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don’t rape her. If your step-daughter is watching TV, don’t rape her.

If you break into a house and find a woman there, don’t rape her. If your friend thinks it’s okay to rape someone, tell him it’s not, and that he’s not your friend. If your “friend” tells you he raped someone, report him to the police. If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there’s an unconscious woman upstairs and it’s your turn, don’t rape her, call the police and report him as a rapist.

Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, and sons of friends that it’s not okay to rape someone.

Don’t just tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape. Don’t imply that she could have avoided it if she’d only done/not done x, y, or z. Don’t imply that it’s in any way her fault. Don’t let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he “got some” with the drunk girl. Don’t perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can too help yourself. Rape is not about sex, it’s about control and power, and what kind of power comes from taking advantage of others? No power anyone should ever desire.

If you agree, repost this. It’s important.”

Testimony is evidence. The way the law stands at the moment, there can be no testimony brought by, e.g., the accuser’s friends, to say that she had told them about the incident.

I’m not sure what difference that would make unless there was a dispute about the length of time that had passed before the report was made. For example, if the victim immediately confided in a friend or requested help or support, I’d have thought that that could be considered, in order to demonstrate that the victim clearly believed themself to be a victim at the time.

Beyond that, what could a victim’s friends add? They could only repeat what they have been told by the victim, and the victim is already testifying.

Testimony is evidence, but the testimony of a single witness is not, in and of itself, always enough to secure a conviction. We might believe the testimony, but we have to believe it beyond reasonable doubt.

It does allow the court to decide that evidence of the accuser’s sexual history is pertinent to the claim, but a history of allegations against the accused is inadmissible.

I must admit I don’t really understand why the accuser’s sexual history is important. Can anyone explain this? As for the history of accusations, I’m unsure. I suppose we have a general prejudice against admitting hearsay or unproven allegations in court, and this is a general principle that is not specific to rape cases.

All these things are evidence in law, and I think you can see that there’s a pattern of evidence in rape law being cherry-picked to favour the accused and not the accuser.

“Cherry-picked” is a bit strong. But I think it’s fair enough to say that the law generally tries to ensure that only verifiable facts are presented to the court and that guilty verdicts are only handed down where the evidence of guilt is clear.

Actually the burden of proof in criminal cases is always on the state. The way you framed this statement is very telling of the prevailing attitude within society about rape legislation.

Well, yes, this is true (and the fact that the state brings prosecutions explains why the burden of proof is on them and not on defendants who are presumed innocent). In the kind of case we’ve been discussing, however, the prosecution relies heavily on the testimony of one witness. So, when I say that “the burden of proof is on the accuser”, I only mean that their evidence has to be unimpeachable.

The way the law stands at the moment, there can be no testimony brought by, e.g., the accuser’s friends, to say that she had told them about the incident.

Why should there be / what difference would it make?

All these things are evidence in law, and I think you can see that there’s a pattern of evidence in rape law being cherry-picked to favour the accused and not the accuser.

I think you see what you want to see.

The principle of shifting some of the burden of defense onto the accused is not so innovative; it exists in our libel laws,

Which no Conspirator likes, AFAIK…

Please read the CPS guidance, I think you are a bit out of date.

A prosecution relies on evidence. Should the police believe a rape claim? Yes. Should the courts? Only if there’s evidence to back it up.

Testimony is evidence. The way the law stands at the moment, there can be no testimony brought by, e.g., the accuser’s friends, to say that she had told them about the incident. It does allow the court to decide that evidence of the accuser’s sexual history is pertinent to the claim, but a history of allegations against the accused is inadmissible. All these things are evidence in law, and I think you can see that there’s a pattern of evidence in rape law being cherry-picked to favour the accused and not the accuser.

The risk of imprisoning innocent people is an avoidable harm which we avoid largely by insisting that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Actually the burden of proof in criminal cases is always on the state. The way you framed this statement is very telling of the prevailing attitude within society about rape legislation.

The principle of shifting some of the burden of defense onto the accused is not so innovative; it exists in our libel laws, for example, and although I myself am no jurist, I’m sure there can be a reframing of the law in such a way as to ensure a minimum of miscarriages of justice. To reiterate, the rate of false allegations is so low, and they come to trial so incredibly rarely (if at all – it’ll be homeopathy-like rates of dilution by that stage).

Depending on the particular circumstances of each case, the man was charged either with actual bodily harm or with grievous bodily harm (both of which I think are called something else in Canada).

This seems a promising answer I know to the conundrums I raised in [204]. However, I have no idea whatsoever whether the rate of reporting, conviction or false imprisonment is higher or lower in Canada than here.

I could cite anecdotal evidence, which doesn’t detract from the balance of the argument, and who knows, maybe most of these are laughing up their sleeves at cheating the system and exploiting some poor woman.

http://www.daftmoo.org.uk/mooforum/forumdisplay.php?f=18
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201224/Mother-cried-rape-jailed-years.html
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/2008/07/03/exclusive-teenager-slams-justice-system-after-rape-lies-hell-86908-20629201/
http://gothamist.com/2009/09/19/man_falsely_accused_of_rape_thank_g.php
http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/Falsely-accused-given-right-compensation/article-1013358-detail/article.html

The law, however, isn’t about percentages; it’s not about trading the rights of one against the liberties of another – it’s about the burden of proof, and that HAS to remain inviolate.

Scare quotes for “feminist” and double ententres designed to draw attention to the fact that we’re all just one decent rogering away from seeing the light? Original!