This little story just makes me too sick to speak. In Preston, five men have been acquitted of rape and conspiracy to rape on the grounds that the woman they raped had kinky fantasies about multiple sex partners.
The defendant turned up at the house of Olatunji Owolabi, 28, of Bradbourne Close, who she had met online, to be greeted by six men, all expecting sex from her. When she refused, five of the men raped her in succession. But when the defence produced MSN conversations she had conducted with Owolabi where she mentioned that the idea of group sex was appealing to her, the judge ordered the jury to clear the defendants of all charges.
Prosecutor Michael Leeming refused to help the defendant any further after the chatlogs were shown, saying that'It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words 'her morals go out of the window'... This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned'
'Not to put too fine a point on it, her credibility was shot to pieces', said the Judge, Robert Brown
In other words, if a woman admits to having sexual fantasies, she asked for it. If she is forced to undergo elements of those sexual fantasies as part of a violent assault, her rapists and attackers committed no crime, because she had no 'credibility', no 'morals'. Apparently, it is impossible to rape a woman with no 'morals', where male recalcitrants get to be the judge of what is and is not moral. Apparently, when a woman admits to having 'entertained the notion' of being sexually experimental, that's a green light for men to rape her. And they have the gall to call feminists the cocking thought police.
Of course, it's not just the sexual fantasies of women which are policed and interpreted as indicators of criminality in this strange, pseudo-Victorian, porny-but-prudish culture- especially following the recent legislation against 'extreme' pornography. But only women have to endure having their sexual fantasies imply guilt when they are the victims of violent crime. I can't imagine what this poor woman, this woman who is the same age as me, must be feeling right now, having been told that because she dared to have a sexual fantasy about multiple partners, her 'credibility is shot to pieces' and the men who gang-raped her committed no crime.
Just in case you really do believe that a woman's fantasy implies consent and that's all that matters, consider this. Let's say, just for example, that my boyfriend is a little bit of a masochist. Let's say the idea of being smacked, spanked and hurt in a sexual context excites him; that we've discussed his fantasies and even acted some of them out in bed. Does that, then, mean that I'm entitled to beat him up in the kitchen whenever he annoys me? Can I punch him, cut him, smash his head into the cooker, and know that a jury will acquit me? Does the fact that he has kinky fantasies make it okay for me to physically abuse him in any context, with or without his consent?
No, of course it doesn't make it okay, and because he's a man and it's not a rape case, we all understand that that kind of response is never even close to okay. This anti-sex, anti-woman culture makes me fucking sick sometimes.
ETA: The excellent Pandora Blake -kinky model, actress, activist and feminist - has also responded to this story. ['Desire is not consent. Consent is consent' <3]
Totally agree. Ten years ago women were blamed for rape if they had an active sex life. Now they're being blamed if they think about an active sex life.
ReplyDeleteIf one more man tells me I don't know how good I have it being a woman and a minority that has their interests looked after by the state, I will fucking scream.
F***ing hell: I thought use of the victim's sexual history was inadmissable? (More fool me.) And that's before we get into a debate about race (correct me if I'm wrong here), sexual fantasy in general, 'unconventional' sexual fantasies, the small matter of *consent*, as well as gender. Oh, and the stupidities of the judicial system.
ReplyDeleteBad news all round.
[redpesto]
It wouldn't entitle to you to beat him up whenever, but if he went to the police with a black eye it wouldn't count as proof beyond reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteWhich is really the whole point, it is about what you can prove.
I think you're being unfair to the prosecutor - the actual quote is
ReplyDelete"It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words 'her morals go out of the window'."
which is rather different from what you've got above.
The reporting on this case has been poor (it all seems to stem from a common source, probably a local wire service), which makes it difficult to be sure what the hell was going on in court.
Wholeheartedly agree that if this is as simple as has been reported, the trial should not have been stopped - the victim's credibility (or lack of it) as a witness is a matter for the jury, and for the prosecutor to pass judgement in this way is entirely wrong.
It cannot be as simple as has been reported (and if it is, then the prosecutor needs looking at - the case should never have come to Court in the first place if the transcripts are as damaging as he said).
Redpesto: yup, we do have that law on papaer [another small Labour victory that people, including Labour, tend to forget] but it's been proven to be ineffective: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media560.shtml
ReplyDeleteMTPT - I've used the actual quotes in the piece, and I haven't changed the sense of them, just made them into a complete sentence. But if you like, I'll change them to what the BBC have, nonsensical as it is.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't it be as simple as it has been reported?
Thank you for writing this. I thoroughly agree, unsurprisingly.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter what Olatunji Owolabi thought or wrote - what happened does. She said 'no'. That does not mean 'yes'.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right, TimLiberate - but Olantunji Owolabi is the name of one of the attackers, the female victim herself cannot be named due to UK court reporting laws.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC quote makes sense - the prosecutor's saying the victim fantasised about "no holds barred" group sex with strangers. The original quote above suggested he was making a judgement, rather than quoting her. ('course, he's a barrister; not generally noted for using clear language.)
ReplyDeleteIt can't be as simple as it has been reported because the case would never have gotten through the police investigation, three court hearings which have already taken place, or the many, many man-hours of preparation which have been spent to bring it to trial.
Why the transcripts didn't come to light until now is an interesting question. Frankly, it's surprising they didn't come to light when the defendants were questioned, as they can be used to support their version of events (consensual group sex). The victim herself must have been questioned about her relationship with Olatunji Owolabi, and the MSN chats should have come to light then.
Assuming that it's right that the defence, not the police or prosecution, found the transcripts, only two explanations are credible: firstly that the prosecutor simply threw in the towel (in which case questions need to be asked about his conduct); or secondly that the transcripts showed the victim had lied about her prior contact with Olatunji Owolabi (in which case her credibility with the prosecution was gone).
I'm not saying either explanation is correct, but that I can't see what else is credible - the real problem is the poor reporting, which creates too many questions. The only thing that's clear is that something has gone badly wrong.
That's horrifying.
ReplyDeleteThis is so, so outrageously unpardonably WRONG and batshit insane, I can hardly begin to wrap my head around the fact this ACTUALLY HAPPENED. D:
ReplyDeleteI've been feeling nauseated since Elly mentioned the article on Twitter. So utterly wrong. And sad. :(
You've described the woman in the case as the defendant in your rendition of the case above.
ReplyDeleteMore crucially, although I'd never argue that women have it easy in the legal system, or that patriarchy isn't a problem or feminism is no longer needed, I'm very uncomfortable with your take on this particular case.
From the evidence available to the judge and the jury, the woman who is accusing the men of raping her turns out to have been involved in online discussions with at least one of the men, whose house she subsequently visited with the intention of having sex, in which she reportedly discussed wanting to participate in group sex sessions with strangers.
Perhaps you're right and she didn't mean that she wanted sex with that group of men, or perhaps she initially did and then changed her mind. Either way you'd be right that if she told the men involved then their actions constitute rape, but I can't help feeling that the jury couldn't possibly convict beyond reasonable doubt that this is what happened.
To condemn the men involved as rapists in the face of this decision by the prosecution not even to enter evidence against them is a stretch, I think.You've described the woman in the case as the defendant in your rendition of the case above.
More crucially, although I'd never argue that women have it easy in the legal system, or that patriarchy isn't a problem or feminism is no longer needed, I'm very uncomfortable with your take on this particular case.
From the evidence available to the judge and the jury, the woman who is accusing the men of raping her turns out to have been involved in online discussions with at least one of the men, whose house she subsequently visited with the intention of having sex, in which she reportedly discussed wanting to participate in group sex sessions with strangers.
Perhaps you're right and she didn't mean that she wanted sex with that group of men, or perhaps she initially did and then changed her mind. Either way you'd be right that if she told the men involved then their actions constitute rape, but I can't help feeling that the jury couldn't possibly convict beyond reasonable doubt that this is what happened.
To condemn the men involved as rapists in the face of this decision by the prosecution not even to enter evidence against them is a stretch, I think.
I'd like to believe there's something more to it, 'cos otherwise it's so phenomenally hideous.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if a woman admits to having sexual fantasies, she asked for it. If she is forced to undergo elements of those sexual fantasies as part of a violent assault, her rapists and attackers committed no crime, because she had no 'credibility', no 'morals'.
Not quite. The logic, according the news report, was that because the accuser expressed a desire for group sex, she must always it - anytime, at any place, with anyone. She doesn't just deserve to be raped, she can't be raped - it must always be consensual. Extraordinary.
I read the name in the same way as TimLiberate. Do you mean victim instead of defendent in that sentence? I am totally confused.
ReplyDeleteThankyou for this article - I've quoted you in my own response, here. You might be interested in Chivers' research, if you aren't familiar with it.
ReplyDeleteI'm too tired to articulate my shock and disgust more than I already have, but thankyou for expressing my feelings so eloquently. I feel like this is the patriarchy's answer to the affirming and positive effect the internet has had on female sexuality, in giving women a forum to openly express and discuss their sexuality in a way that is still taboo in 'real life'. Part of me hopes it's too late, there's no going back now, but setbacks like this are sickening. Judge Brown is a privileged, moralising bigot and I hope everything he's ever dreamed about comes true.
This is so unbelievable. How can the judge get away with this? A fantasy is just that - a fantasy, initiated and controlled throughout by you, totally different from reality.
ReplyDeleteArgh! I'm so sorry guys, I'm not having a terribly alert day. Owolabi is the accused, the defendant, the person who may have raped the unnamed woman. It's the victim who is unnamed. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteThis does sound pretty horrific, given the 'philosophy' that is implied to be behind the verdict, i.e. 'she expressed a fantasy therefore she asked for it to happen in real life'. In a more general sense, it shows an inability on the part of the legal system to distinguish fantasy from desire/intention. Which is, as you note, the complement to the logic behind making certain forms of 'extreme' pornography illegal. (There are also parallels in some 'terrorism' cases, I think).
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is, I really hope that the logic was not as straightforward as that, and I would cling onto the hope that the BBC reporting is making this sound worse than it is.
I won't speculate as to details, but I do think this probably warrants further investigation than the press coverage so far has given. Not that that would be a very pleasant job. But it would be worth it if only to prove that the situation really is as clearcut as it sounds, because this case would set a very bad precedent.
The loical extension o this thinkin is mindblowing. If a wman has thouht about x, discussed x even, she must (always)want it. Ergo,if i've thouht about sex, discussed wantin it, even mentioned the fact that i've thouht about wantin it to somebody, imust always want it, and it's impossible to rape me. I have no desire or need to control who penetrates my body, havin expressed somewhere the desire for penetration senouh.
ReplyDeleteSo rapedoesn't exist, so discrimination doesn't exist. We've all become Roxxxy .
The british legal system triumphs once again.
ReplyDeleteHow disgusting. Only Women would stand for this judgement. Its way past time for change.
When will people learn that internet encounters have consequences in the real world.
I would blog about this myself, but I have no words for it. Once again, the British legal system shows that it cannot distinguish between thought and action, between fantasy and reality. That's one way of describing insanity!
ReplyDeletePresumably the refusal to continue the case (and the prosecutor's remarks) ultimately come down to the idea that the defendant clearly had a "reasonable belief" that the victim was consenting.
Unless the chat logs said something like, "here's what I'd like to do when I come and visit you, do you have friends who can help make it real?" then there's no way it should have been admissible - it's like taking a crime-fiction author's manuscripts as evidence that she (or he) is actually planning hideous crimes! But because it's about sex, suddenly it has to be all real.
It is sickening.
Though I doubt it's worth anything, I am extremely disappointed in you Penny Red. I find many of your articles to be intelligent and insightful, but here your objectivity appears to have flown the coop.
ReplyDeleteYou write: "When she refused, five of the men raped her in succession."
This is an allegation made by the defendant and refuted by the accused, it is not, as you have presented it, a fact. Your language shows an unforgivable bias, especially in the light of a not guilty verdict.
As well you know rape is a crime difficult to prosecute due to the fact that in the absence of a violent physical assault it will often leaves no evidence to distinguish it from consensual sex.
This often leads to cases built on circumstantial evidence which attempt to show that the alleged victim would not have consented. In this instance evidence has come to light to suggest that the alleged victim would have consented. It does not show that she did consent, but the burden of proof remains on the prosecution who are now unable to suggest that consent would have been unlikely.
This doesn't mean that the courts consider raping a woman by performing a sex act on her that she has previously fantasised about is not rape. It means that "beyond reasonable doubt" could not possibly be reached.
It is a "he said/she said" and in treating the men as obviously guilty you are treating a woman's word as so above contradiction as to allow conviction even in the absence of evidence. At the same time you are discarding the testimony of the men as worthless.
We have trials and investigations for a reason. Neither a woman nor a man's word is ever enough.
For shame.
I am fucking appalled.
ReplyDeleteWhat are we doing about this? Where are the protests/petitions/fires?
I genuinely have no conception of how something as horrifying as this could have legal standing. Part of me wants to think that there must be something more to it, but another part of me realises that, as terrifying as it seems to be, there are people who think this is eminently reasonable.
ReplyDeleteWhat astounds me is that there seems to be no recourse out of this, no appeal or method by which we can change the perceptions of judges who think that women who entertain sexual thoughts must be, by definition, impossible to rape.
I'd love to say that this was a call to action, but what action? It's just thoroughly, 100% depressing.
I'm concerned about this too, Penny, and about what I too think is the huge problem of "unsafe acquittals" in rape cases. It seems extreme to withdraw the case from the jury based only on webchats alone - I'd have liked to trust them with judging the credibility of all the witnesses. And there must be a danger after this that rapists will actively target women they know embarrassing internet details about.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know more about the details of the case, though - it's always very easy to blame the CPS without knowing what the statements said and therefore the extent to which her credibility was undermined, and it's always easy to rail at the "stupidity" of law and judges. The quotes from the judge sound unbelievably old-fashioned and moralistic reading them in the press, yes, but might not if we knew the whole context. I don't want to speculate about what the evidence might have been, but it is conceivable that the web records directly contradicted the woman's evidence in some way.
I don't think it helps just to assume these men are automatically guilty because they were accused, something people would never do in any human rights or civil liberties context other than the law of rape. The end logic of that thinking is simply that people should be imprisoned on accusation, without trial. The issue isn't whether they were "entitled to rape" her, but whether they did rape her or not. Using your example of a masochistic boyfriend, of course his masochism wouldn't excuse your beating him without consent; I don't think anyone would suggest that or has suggested it. But if he claimed you'd simply attacked him one day with a belt out of the blue, and had bruises to back his claim, I do think it'd be unfair if, in support of your claim that it was actually with consent, you were completely banned from letting the jury know about his blog in which he's been writing for years about how much he likes being belted by his girlfriend, but has recently posted that he's pissed off with you for some other reason and is thinking of a way to get back at you. Just an example: I'm not remotely suggesting the Preston case was like this of course, because I don't know. Just trying to show that there can be unfairness in entirely erasing history from the evidence.
I think the issues in a case like this, and in prosecuting rape generally, are more complex than people sometimes assume - for instance, as I understand it some of the difficulties with the legislation limiting sexual history cross-examination comes from the Human Rights Act - so there isn't simply one "side" it's obvious liberals have to be on. This is also an area in which I think some people on the left may before long be calling for jury trial to be abolished - which would worry me, although rape trial by jury obviously problematic. I'd much prefer to see piecemeal reforms step by step until we start to feel we are reducing the number of "unsafe acquittals".
But I don't think the answer can be simply to ban the admissibility of this sort of evidence in all possible circumstances, or prevent the CPS from taking any account of it.
"Unless the chat logs said something like, "here's what I'd like to do when I come and visit you, do you have friends who can help make it real?"
ReplyDeleteThat still wouldn't imply consent. The victim said she was raped.
Not quite. The logic, according the news report, was that because the accuser expressed a desire for group sex, she must always it - anytime, at any place, with anyone. She doesn't just deserve to be raped, she can't be raped - it must always be consensual. Extraordinary.
ReplyDelete===============
No the argument is that it shows the woman at least was not totally averse to the idea. It introduces some doubt.
It is not men can rape woman because she fantasised about group sex. It is men could not be convicted because of the lack of sufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
That is the standard that has to be met, innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
OK regardless of anything else she has the right to say YES or NO to whomever she pleases.(example) She could have had the conversation on line,and she could have said yes to 4 of the 5 men, and refused the fifth. If the fifth then decided he would go ahead and force sex on her it's RAPE regardless of how many people she said yes to BEFORE. No means no.
ReplyDeleteJared, I fully agree with your comments. Very well said.
ReplyDeleteI am a rape survivor and I'd like to see women take more responsibility for their part in the sick society we are finding ourselves in today. Penny Red, you are driving men into a corner with your sweeping statements. Is that what feminism is all about? Let's see how many men we can insult today - is that what it's all about? If that is the case, then all the good that has come from feminism in the past will be undone.
Share your outrage over this, although I'd point out that if you subjected your partner to domestic abuse he'd likely have a higly hard time getting you prosecuted for it. I suspect that the lads down the police station would laugh at him, owing to your respective genders.
ReplyDeleteOf course if a women dreams about certain sexual desires it's not a defence against against rape. They still have to say yes to it. I don't think anyone is aruging against that.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is proving it in open court.
The trouble with prosecuting rape is that it often boils down to she said/he said as you rarely have independant witnesses and often booze complicates matters.
Remember the jury and the judge has to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the men in the dock raped the woman, the chatlogs don't and should never excuse rape but they serious doubt on her version of events and introduce reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.
Why did it even get to court if the prosecutor thought that the chat logs would lead to there being no reasonable prospect of a conviction?
ReplyDeleteOr was he unaware of them until they were introduced by the defence? That would explain why he said "This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned." Perhaps it was a wholly different light from what the prosecution had said so far and the statements the victim had made?
I don't think any of us can really know from just reading the BBC report.
- Francis
Unless the chat logs said something like, "here's what I'd like to do when I come and visit you, do you have friends who can help make it real?"
ReplyDeleteThat still wouldn't imply consent. The victim said she was raped.
I entirely agree. But my point was that the logs weren't even relevant. If they had said what I described above, then they would at least have shown she was initially consenting beforehand, but they certainly would not show anything about withdrawal of consent at some later point.
As it is, the logs should bear no relation at all to real-life events.
***
Jared:
This is an allegation made by the defendant and refuted by the accused, it is not, as you have presented it, a fact.
No, this is completely false. Since no case was presented, there was no attempt to disprove it. To refute something, you must prove that it is not true. That didn't happen. What happened was that the jury was instructed to believe that the woman was lying about what happened to her (that is, to find the defendant not guilty - which could only be the case if she had lied). Her word was never tested, the evidence of the case was never put to the test.
In the absence of any real reason to doubt her word, and in the absence of any obvious reason why the victim might wish to lie about such a traumatic event; in the light of the fact she must have gone through evidence-gathering by the police (which can be quite invasive), must have filed a report that convinced the police there was a case to present to the CPS, and that the CPS decided was strong enough to present as a case in court (by which stage the majority of rape allegations have already been dropped before they even reach the courtroom) - I'm willing to come down and say on the balance of probabilities that a rape did occur.
If you're willing to sit at your keyboard and claim that 94% of rape allegations are lies, that's fine - but we don't have to agree.
The people defending it are missing the point.
ReplyDeleteWHY would these chatlogs throw the woman's credibility out of the window? The law allows, or should allow, for someone to say no to something they might otherwise want to do. It allows for spousal rape, for God's sake.
Yes, we are aware of the problems with the legal system not taking the testimony of rape victims seriously. There is an expectation built into the culture, particularly among men, that somehow there exists a kind of woman who "cries rape" at the slightest provocation, despite the fact that these women appear to be statistically absent. The high number of acquittals is the only evidence people have that women are "making it all up", which if you think about it is the most circular argument there is.
But what was the defense doing that they allowed this to happen? Presumably, rather than making the case on behalf of their client, they agreed with the judge's decision that sexual desire implies sexual consent. Or possibly implies that men, knowing such things about a woman's inner life, will be so overcome with their manly virilities that they won't be able to understand concepts like yes and no.
The revealed transcripts were cited as shooting her credibility to pieces without anyone explaining why. It is just assumed. That this assumption still sits at the heart and soul of our legal system, that it can be reported on so blithely without anyone in the mainstream news media calling foul, or without anything like a sniff of outrage unless you go trawling through the "radical feminazi" section of the internets, shows how thoroughly ingrained this is in our culture, and how radically we need to change it.
Mike Semple Piggott and I briefly touched on this case (in the context of televising trials) today in Mike's Charon QC podcast.
ReplyDeletehttp://bit.ly/78mlJD
(About half way through).
I assume the 'credibility out of the window' part comes from these chatlogs showing that it was, in fact, likely consensual, and the judge considered therefore that she'd probably changed her mind about having consented after the fact.
ReplyDeleteThe rape conviction rate is horrendously low, but it doesn't help that the reform measures to make it easier to convict are usually also the same measures that simply take the victim's word for it.
I'm sure some people would be happier in a system where someone who had consensual sex could simply retroactively decide that they didn't consent, and that the other participant was therefore a rapist and should go to prison. Rather an easy way to get back at your sexual partner if you become angry with them later, certainly... but I had thought you were more reasonable than supporting this sort of measures, Penny, and are being horrendously biased and prejudiced in your reporting about this.
After all, we have law and trials to determine guilt for a reason. Despite how some might like it, being accused of rape does not automatically make one a rapist, either legally or ethically.
Thing that gets me is that the police that she initially went to believed her enough to actually gather the evidence to make the case to the CPS. The CPS looked at the evidence and thought that they had a reasonable chance of winning, i.e. securing a conviction. And despite all that, one barrister and one judge still think there's no case to answer. And a bunch of people who have no idea what's involved in getting a rape case to court, the overwhelming odds against that happening, still think there's nothing wrong with what happened.
ReplyDelete/sigh
@Mcduff:
ReplyDeleteI think it's you who's miss the point, when you suggest the court "just assumed" the chatlogs undermined the woman's credibility. The point is that, without knowing what the evidence was in detail, it's you who can only assume that the court "just assumed" things.
Yes, it's possible the decision was the result of pure, sexist assumption. I don't know what the evidence was so I can't exclude that. But I doubt the CPS would accept the idea that its case was destroyed unless the chatlogs really did undermine the case. I think it's tasteless to speculate on what the detailed evidence might have been that was so undermined, but I gave a different example above, in response to a point Penny made about sadomasochism, which shows how someone's evidence can be entirely undermined once you know of some prior fact. It may be that something like that happened here - I don't think you can say for sure any more than I can.
@earwigca:
You say "the victim says she was raped", assuming she was a rape victim and citing the accusation as in effect conclusive evidence that she was raped. That absolutely sums up the problem here.
I don't doubt that the overwhelming majority of women who say they've been raped, were raped. I think it's a real problem that rape conviction rates are low, and I'm willing to consider and support legal innovations to try to address that. I'm very strongly in favour of jury trial, for instance, but would be prepared to consider rape as a possible exception.
But the single most basic principle human rights principle in criminal law is that people should not be presumed guilty of crimes merely because they are accused of them. I think a worryingly common response to the rape conviction problem is to jettison that basic protection as though it were of no importance, and assume in every individual case that any man accused of rape is ipso facto guilty. That seems to me plain wrong, and the one route we should definitely not go down.
Yes, of course in a rape case, the complaint itself is evidence. To be absolutely clear, I am not saying a man should not be convicted of rape on the evidence of his accuser alone. I think he can be. I have no problem at all with that, so long as the trial has been fair and the court is satisfied.
By the way, I also prefer issues of credibility to go before the jury for its judgment, rather than being withdrawn from them, as here.
But if without knowing anything else about the case or any real detail about the evidence, the fact that "the victim said she was raped" makes you approach the case on the fundamental assumption that the accused must have been guilty, then you have abandoned the presumption of innocence entirely.
Plus, if you also take the accusation in itself as justifying the exclusion of evidence from the defence case, without knowing enough detail to understand why or how it was relevant, you've also simply abandoned the idea of a fair trial.
I googled the following: "victims group outraged 'Michael Leeming' 'Robert Brown'.
ReplyDeleteSadly, there were two hits (Penny's post being one). Surely there should be more outrage?
I think I'm going to write a letter.
ReplyDeleteMinistry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)20 3334 3555
Fax: +44 (0)20 3334 4455
general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk
This prosecutor and judge are meant to be helping victims of crime, not making ridiculous comments. A woman's consent to someone else's actions would not be presumed to have been given just because of her general opinions if she was doing anything else. Such as buying a washing machine or having an ingrowing toenail removed! You actually have to say, "Yes, I am buying this machine, here is the money" or sign the toe nail removal consent form or whatever.
This is totally ridiculous.
Many people reading this blog will be tax payers and therefore will be paying these misogynists, and even those of us on low incomes not paying income tax also deserve better.
Many readers here will be familiar with the somewhat adventurous practice known as pegging from the 'Bend over Boyfriend' video and DVD series; as the name suggests, pegging involves an energetic woman, a strapon and a husband or boyfriend willing to bend over and take it like a man.
ReplyDeleteRight? Let's say a mentally-adventurous bloke confesses online to a long-felt desire to be pegged by a coven of determined feminists and is invited around by a sympathetic woman who offers companionship and maybe more.
To his surprise and, possibly, to his utter dismay, the fellow finds himself energetically pegged by a gang of wimmin, shreiking with merriment the while.
Would any sensible judge or all-female jury convict? I think not, sistahs!
The chap got his just deserts, so there!
Jared wrote, "In this instance evidence has come to light to suggest that the alleged victim would have consented".
ReplyDeleteFrankly, no. No such evidence came to light. Expressing an interest in doing something is not the same as agreeing to it. Would you want shopkeepers to sue you for coming into their shops and not buying things that you looked at?
Clearly consent is the crucial issue here.
ReplyDeleteEven someone who has expressed an interest in these forms of sexual activity has the absolute right to say NO at any point.
They must have control over the situation, even if they want to have the thrill of feeling that they haven't.
If not, just don't go there.
Sex is easy to start, but hard to stop.
I have no sympathy for the men in this case, who just behaved like sexual predators.
But it's extremely unwise for any woman to discuss issues like having rape fantasies with unknown people.
Whether it's on the internet, or anywhere else, and then arrange to meet them.
Even if the woman had said NO at this point, there was no one there to corroborate the fact.
Had she resisted violently, she might have been at risk of serious injury or death.
No one really wants to be injured or hurt.
So she put herself in the position of providing evidence of consent.
Prianikoff
Thank you for writing this. I thoroughly agree, unsurprisingly
ReplyDeleteVanilla Rose: "Jared wrote, "In this instance evidence has come to light to suggest that the alleged victim would have consented".
ReplyDeleteFrankly, no. No such evidence came to light. Expressing an interest in doing something is not the same as agreeing to it."
No, but expressing an interest in doing something does make the idea that you consented to it less than utterly implausible. That's the nub of it.
When a woman has gone to a stranger's house and five men have had sex with her, and when she says it was non-consensual and they say it was consensual, in the absence of other evidence, it's very hard to believe the 'rapists'. You're close to getting to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So maybe that's why the case went as far as it did.
When evidence comes to light that the woman was at least considering the scenario, that takes it away from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to more ambiguous territory. You might say that on the balance of probabilities (women generally don't 'cry rape' after all) she's still the one telling the truth, but balance of probabilities isn't enough for a conviction.
It really is important to note that no one is saying (I hope!) that a vague intention equals consent. It's just that when you know the idea was expressed, and that the 'victim' consequently went to the stranger's house with an intention of some kind of sexual liaison (if that was roughly the case), in the absence of any other evidence, it becomes impossible to be 100% sure that her version of the subsequent events is accurate. 60, 75, 85% sure maybe, but you need to get to that 'beyond reasonable doubt' to find someone guilty.
Global Türkey Sohbets : sohbet & sohbet odaları & dini sohbet & dini chat
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing this. I thoroughly agree, unsurprisingly vaillant kombi servisi
ReplyDelete