Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Former Judge Says Rape Conviction Rates Will Not Improve Until 'women Stop Getting So Drunk'

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/former-judge-says-rape-conviction-rates-will-not-improve-until-women-stop-getting-so-drunk-9691911.html

A former judge has claimed rape conviction statistics will not improve until women “stop getting so drunk”.

Retired judge Mary Jane Mowat said it is an inevitable fact of being “one person’s word against another” during rape trials, of which the national conviction rate currently sits at 60 per cent.

She told the Oxford Mail conviction rates will not improve unless women stop drinking so heavily.

Judge Mowat, who retired this month, said: “It is an inevitable fact of it being one person’s word against another, and the burden of proof being that you have to be sure before you convict.

“I will also say, and I will be pilloried for saying so, but the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk.

“I’m not saying it’s right to rape a drunken woman, I’m not saying for a moment that it’s allowable to take advantage of a drunken woman.

“But a jury in a position where they’ve got a woman who says ‘I was absolutely off my head, I can’t really remember what I was doing, I can’t remember what I said, I can’t remember if I consented or not but I know I wouldn’t have done’. I mean when a jury is faced with something like that, how are they supposed to react?”

A spokesperson for Rape Crisis England & Wales told The Independent that while Judge Mowat makes clear that it is never "allowable" to rape a "drunken woman", her remarks could still be potentially “very harmful”.

Katie Russell said: “The point that she and other influential people within the criminal justice system should be making clearly and publicly is that the legal responsibility is with the defendant in a rape case to evidence how they sought and received consent.

“And if a woman is incapacitated through drink or drugs then she is not capable of giving her consent."

The problem of the reliable witness, if the victim has no idea what actually happened what is the jury meant to do?

Great to see Katie Russell on the ball the defendant is clearly guilty until they prove otherwise. Clearly this is how justice should work and it works brilliantly in China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done the judge for speaking out and starting the debate.

When I was doing my going out getting drunk in my teens and twenties it was an absolute rule that you looked out for the women (not in that sense, but that too!) and if one of the party got slaughtered somebody had to ensure that they got home safely. You never just left them to sort themselves out or walk home in the dark alone. Blokes were however assumed to be safe unless they were absolutely incoherent. These were basic unwritten rules that you did not need to be told, nothing to do with chivalry or being a gentleman but a basic recognition that a girl walking home alone is at risk so you always look after them.

That tradition seems to have died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done the judge for speaking out and starting the debate.

When I was doing my going out getting drunk in my teens and twenties it was an absolute rule that you looked out for the women (not in that sense, but that too!) and if one of the party got slaughtered somebody had to ensure that they got home safely. You never just left them to sort themselves out or walk home in the dark alone. Blokes were however assumed to be safe unless they were absolutely incoherent. These were basic unwritten rules that you did not need to be told, nothing to do with chivalry or being a gentleman but a basic recognition that a girl walking home alone is at risk so you always look after them.

That tradition seems to have died.

Not while I am part of this World! Of course you look after them! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not while I am part of this World! Of course you look after them! :blink:

You Mr Pin are the perfect gentleman so I expected no less.

I am, however, not. But I still look out for lone females (in a good way) so clearly some people aren't doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That tradition seems to have died.

I don't know if things have changed but it seems that it's common for groups of women to go out on the lash together, which may well make it easier for them to get separated and in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is going to make her really popular. Let the Twitter hatred begin!

Echoes of the Rotherham abuse case, people are afraid to speak the truth if it doesn't conform to the correct PC mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echoes of the Rotherham abuse case, people are afraid to speak the truth if it doesn't conform to the correct PC mindset.

If you are in a position of power or responsibility, you have one opportunity to speak the truth:- the day you retire!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Mr Pin are the perfect gentleman so I expected no less.

I am, however, not. But I still look out for lone females (in a good way) so clearly some people aren't doing this.

I would NEVER approach a lone drunk female - I don't want a false rape allegation made against me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would NEVER approach a lone drunk female - I don't want a false rape allegation made against me.

I, sadly, feel almost compelled to agree with you. My more decent instincts/upbringing would still likely make me at least ask/check briefly to see if such a woman was OK, before continuing on my way.

Only just recently, by pure chance, late one night on the way home, wife in the passenger seat, did I spy ahead a clearly inebriated young lady just before my wife did. I suggested we slow down to see if she was ok. Wife agreed and we did. Turned out she was almost home and didn't need/want a lift.

But, had I been on my own, I wonder if I would have had the 'courage' to 'get involved' at all - precisely for fear of what you allude. What a sad world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would NEVER approach a lone drunk female - I don't want a false rape allegation made against me.

Ditto for a lot of men these days, although of course some men who might not when sober might when drunk too, but "I was drunk and wouldn't have agreed if I wasn't" only seems to apply to women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would NEVER approach a lone drunk female - I don't want a false rape allegation made against me.

I didn't mean random ones, I meant ones I knew.

There's no way I'd go anywhere near one I didn't know for that exact same reason.

I had one on drugs randomly turn up at my door one night about ten years ago, took me ages to get rid of her and she could have said anything.

I finally managed to discern why she had singled me out; her (presumably equally mad) boyfriend had had a row when walking along my street ?day before and he'd said he regularly shagged his other woman in the back garden of that house, pointing to a big one which happened to be mine. Unlike other houses in the street it had an entirely enclosed and inaccessible garden (as would have been obvious to anybody with an IQ above room temperature) so nobody would have been going in there unless they happened to carry a ladder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto for a lot of men these days, although of course some men who might not when sober might when drunk too, but "I was drunk and wouldn't have agreed if I wasn't" only seems to apply to women...

...who regret their choice of partner the night before. If they lucked out, they will try to make a relationship out of it. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done the judge for speaking out and starting the debate.

When I was doing my going out getting drunk in my teens and twenties it was an absolute rule that you looked out for the women (not in that sense, but that too!) and if one of the party got slaughtered somebody had to ensure that they got home safely. You never just left them to sort themselves out or walk home in the dark alone. Blokes were however assumed to be safe unless they were absolutely incoherent. These were basic unwritten rules that you did not need to be told, nothing to do with chivalry or being a gentleman but a basic recognition that a girl walking home alone is at risk so you always look after them.

That tradition seems to have died.

Has it?

Just a few weeks ago, I was on an evening bus: about 10pm. Two girls get on, one of them very drunk and incapable, the other very clearly and conscientiously escorting her home.

They certainly weren't dressed to be going home anytime before midnight, so one of them had given up her evening for the other.

Mind you, the idea of taking advantage of the drunk one in that condition would've been quite repulsive.

I would NEVER approach a lone drunk female - I don't want a false rape allegation made against me.

Sometime in my 'teens, when I started hitchhiking and there was the prospect of my giving lifts if I got a car sometime, my dad warned me never to give a lift to a lone female, lest I get accused of rape. Evidently this kind of nonsense goes back further than you'd think.

Of course I took no notice, and when I had a car I'd give a lift to anyone unless they were visibly unsavoury. So in practice, anyone but a smoker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Katie Russell said: “The point that she and other influential people within the criminal justice system should be making clearly and publicly is that the legal responsibility is with the defendant in a rape case to evidence how they sought and received consent.


“And if a woman is incapacitated through drink or drugs then she is not capable of giving her consent."



The problem with this is that by that rationale people will infer that it is not that a woman should not get drunk, but that a woman on drink or drugs who indulges in sexual activity has, ergo, been raped.



The modern feminised mindset seems to be that any behaviour a woman indulges in is acceptable. Hence the popularity of things like 'Slutwalks.'


What next - 'P1ssedwalks' with women getting blind drunk and collapsing in public to prove that they have the right to do so unmolested?



Up until the 1960s there was at least some common sense amongst women that you shouldn't put yourself in a position where a man could take advantage of you because if it was your word against his it would be very difficult to prove anything. Obviously this went too far, ie with compulsory chaperoning etc - but in general the advice held good. Since the rise of uber-feminism (as opposed to the more sensible earlier forms of feminism) however this has gone the way of bloomers and chastity belts.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The national conviction rate stands at 60%"

Isn't that quite high?

Especially when juries are bombarded with the kind of nonsense that, for example, hit Ken Clarke when he tried to open a debate on the subject, and that tells all of us that "rape" no longer implies coercion, let alone violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The national conviction rate stands at 60%"

Isn't that quite high?

Especially when juries are bombarded with the kind of nonsense that, for example, hit Ken Clarke when he tried to open a debate on the subject, and that tells all of us that "rape" no longer implies coercion, let alone violence.

Yes but it's clearly not high enough. That's why women need to stop drinking.

That's what they are saying by improved rape conviction statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The national conviction rate stands at 60%"

Isn't that quite high?

Especially when juries are bombarded with the kind of nonsense that, for example, hit Ken Clarke when he tried to open a debate on the subject, and that tells all of us that "rape" no longer implies coercion, let alone violence.

Dawkins had a load of sh1te thrown at him by the Feminazis for making a similar point recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Mr Pin are the perfect gentleman so I expected no less.

I am, however, not. But I still look out for lone females (in a good way) so clearly some people aren't doing this.

I didn't know that Frank! :blink: Nobody is perfect, but you don't send an inebriated woman walking home across the Toon Moor at 02:00!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Katie Russell said: “The point that she and other influential people within the criminal justice system should be making clearly and publicly is that the legal responsibility is with the defendant in a rape case to evidence how they sought and received consent.

“And if a woman is incapacitated through drink or drugs then she is not capable of giving her consent."

Excellent idea Ms Russell, that way all the genuine rapists will know exactly what to say to avoid prosecution....

Katie Russell said:....“And if a woman is incapacitated through drink or drugs then she is not capable of giving her consent."

....so make sure you play down the amount she drank and have a plausible story in place before you talk to the cops.

Right, that's every drunken lass fair game, next week on Rape Crisis improvers guide to sexual offences: "stalking, abduction and how to get away with it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent idea Ms Russell, that way all the (incredibly rare) genuine rapists will know exactly what to say to avoid prosecution....

unless you want to move to South Africa

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/lies-damned-lies-and-rape-statistics/

Statistic: “1 out of every 4 women will be raped in her lifetime.

Truth: Ah, here’s the doozy. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the source of this statistic: a study by Mary Koss that has been discredited countless times. Around three-quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred.

So, what do statistics collected from non-feminist sources say? Well, let’s try the FBI statistics. According to an FBI report, which did not account for differing definitions of rape, whether or not the rapes were convicted, or whether or not female-on-male rape was included, the United States had a rate of 29 reported rapes per 100,000 people in 2009. That’s not going to get us to 25%, but I’m feeling generous, so let’s look at the country with the highest rate of rape in the past decade–South Africa, with a rate of 116 rapes per 100,000 people in one year. Percentage wise, this is .1% of the population. Now, I’ll admit that I’m worse at math than anything else in the world, but even I know this isn’t even close to “1 in 4″.

“But wait!” the feminists are saying, “Most rapes are never reported to the police!” Well, I’ve heard a number of different figures on just how many. Some say 45%, some say 60%, and some even say 80%. But hey, I’m feeling EXTREMELY generous, so despite the fact that feminists are basing these numbers off evidence that is dubious at best, I’ll go with the highest estimate. .1 times 5 is…half of one percent. In other words, one-fiftieth of what feminists claim it is.

Now, I hear them whining that I missed the key phrase “In their lifetime”. Okay, since empirical data shows that rates of rape drastically decrease after the victim turns 45, whether they are male or female, in prison or out, I’ll just be accounting for a 30-year window. Sorry, feminists, but even my generosity has its limits. I’m not going to pretend that the wackos who rape grannies aren’t extreme outliers. This means that 15% of South African women will be raped in their lifetimes. A grisly figure to be sure, but then again, this is South Africa we’re talking about–it has the second-highest crime rate in the world. The rate of rape in the U.S. is one-quarter of that, so in our most generous of moods, it is correct to say that 3.75% of women will be raped in their lifetimes. I’m puzzled as to how that can be mistaken for 1 in 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that Frank! :blink: Nobody is perfect, but you don't send an inebriated woman walking home across the Toon Moor at 02:00!

Werewolves are a bigger worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistic: “1 out of every 4 women will be raped in her lifetime.

I've never heard of that stat before, is anyone seriously claiming that is the case?

Maybe they are referring to the statement above, that a woman who has consumed alcohol or drugs cannot consent to sex. Therefore, logic dictates, any woman who has had sex while consuming any alcohol or drugs is considered to be raped. I would say 1 in 4 would be very low in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.