They’d love one day to be able to run that headline with “not always” replaced by “never”. Their attitude to rape is probably the thing about the Mail that pisses me off most. These headlines make me so angry.
The problem is that a minority of women do cry rape when they have had too much to drink and are embarrassed/can’t remember sleeping with somebody. It’s these women who are a danger because they prevent real rape victims from being heard.
can the DM buy me a new laptop – I threw my old one out the window in disgust.
It says something that the first comment I agreed with was from Oklahoma
Before we all jump on the ‘dispute with everything the mail prints’ bandwagon.
a) they’re saying it’s bad that such a thing has been said.
b) it’s a mis-quote
c) It’s a perfectly legitamit statement. A lot of people have beer goggles and then cry rape after the alco-pops wear off. I’m not saying some men take don’ty take advantage cause some men do. But why is it thought that a drunkan man should be able to stop his urges while a drunkan woman shoulde’nt.
d) false acusations ruin lives. Women who cry rape should be sentanced with the same sentance as they would a man accused of rape.
P.S. in no way do I endorse rape. Only monsters rape. Women are there to be loved and treated.
I wonder if this stupid ruling could also run to:-
I was drunk, I drove the car. I later explained that I would never drink and drive. I only did it because I was drunk.
a) they’re saying it’s bad that such a thing has been said
read the comments on the mail’s website, somehow i don’t think your average mail reader thinks it’s a ‘bad thing’
b) it’s a mis-quote
the mail, misquoting a source to suit their own small minded, racist agenda?? has the world gone mad??
c) It’s a perfectly legitamit statement. A lot of people have beer goggles and then cry rape after the alco-pops wear off. I’m not saying some men take don’ty take advantage cause some men do. But why is it thought that a drunkan man should be able to stop his urges while a drunkan woman shoulde’nt
ignoring the fact that the grammer and spelling here is so appaling i can hardly read it, rape is rape, you take advantage of a girl who’s pretty much passed out, you’re raping them. controlling your ‘urges’ doesn’t even come into it
d) false acusations ruin lives. Women who cry rape should be sentanced with the same sentance as they would a man accused of rape.
this is already the case.
P.S. in no way do I endorse rape. Only monsters rape. Women are there to be loved and treated
wow, you don’t endorse rape?! you champion of morals, next thing you’ll be telling us that murder is wrong and people who beat up black people in the street should go to prison??
Well done the Judge. Every case should be judged on the evidence, That is what a Judge is for, not just to carry out what the labour government tells him.
Thom, Women are not on this earth to be loved and “treated” (whatever that may be). I love my wife and daughters but not every woman, that would be a bit odd. As Lisa points out it is respect that should be expected (to and from all people). On the last point, to be honest, I do have a slight problem with Dacre and Littlejohn.
I shall now be giving a sermon in the local Methodist Church.
P.S. Perhaps the rampant feminist behind you doesn’t hate ALL men, just a thought.
“It works both ways. A drunken woman tried to rape me once. It wasn’t very pleasant. I just regarded her as being pissed rather than a rapist.”
Hmm, an interesting point. Surely unless she had a shitload of Viagra, female on male rape would be difficult if not impossible? Male on male rape would be a far bigger issue, I’d imagine.
Well done the Judge. Every case should be judged on the evidence, That is what a Judge is for, not just to carry out what the labour government tells him.
A fool writing he may be, but Thoms post is not ill-intended. He probably didn’t think his thoughts through before posting.
I agree with him on 2 points; women who falsely accuse men are shamefull and have reduced the crime of rape so much that the real victims of rape see no justice. Also, rapists are monsters, deserving everything they get while locked in prison.
“If you must have sex outside marriage, get the woman’s consent first, in writing, and preferably with a witnessed signature. That way she can’t cry rape the next day when she changes her mind.”
That head line is starting to piss me off. I would say that I have had sex with an intoxicated women at least as many times than I have with a stone cold sober woman. That head line implies that I might be a rapist. It was consensual and that judge is still a twat.
The headline is bollocks, drunkenness is not really the issue. What it actually should say is “It’s not always rape when someone claims it is” – surely just common sense? And of course, the Mail makes a front page issue out of it, willing its readers to think that women constantly cry rape against innocent men, which is certainly not the case.
Having sex with someone who’s pissed doesn’t make you a rapist. Having sex with someone who’s unconscious or practically so through drink does. The Mail seems to imply that getting pissed constitutes consent in itself.
very strange…this headline can only be aimed at alleged rapists who can then pick up their Daily Mail and go “phew…told you mum, she was well pissed, slut”
as JamesN says we live amongst these people and as for the comment he quoted, I’d like to think I’ve never slept with a woman whose woken up the next day and “changed her mind” – must be a common problem in DM land – or am I deluding myself?
And to slightly defend Thom, I don’t think he was being malicious just not very clear in his explanation.
Hmm, if girls do sometimes wake up and “change their mind” then falsely cry rape (and how fewer must those cases be than the genuine rape victims who never see the rapist brought to justice, through shame of coming forward or lack of evidence?), should the Mail and their ilk not take some of the responsibility for those girls’ warped logic? Who harps on about promiscuous sex by females at every turn? Who constantly emphasises the sexual double standard and demonises sex in general as something which is at best a bit naughty and taboo, and at worst, the act of some hormone-fuelled being with no control over their urges? The Mail has a Victorian fear of sex, and in particular the female libido.
Personally, I think false rape allegations must be pretty rare. Who would put themselves through the invasive procedure of a full body examination and smear test, and then have intimate questions asked of them in front of a court full of people, just to get out of having people think they were easy for sleeping with someone whilst drunk? Surely girls who would be willing to do this must mostly be fantasists or suffering mental ill health of some kind.
maybe the article really does disagree with what has been said… but the headline seems to imply the opposite.
as far as i know, the government was thinking of bringing in new definitions of consent including a new one called “drunken consent” and the judge said there is no need for this as the system is fine as it currently is (the present system is that they judge each case on the facts of that case, looking at factors like how drunk the woman was, whether she was so drunk that she didnt know what was happening, etc.)
I read the article, it definitely approves the judge’s comments (especially since they oppose the Government). The comments were, however, made in a far more moderate and sensible vein than the one in which this headline presents them: this is, as usual, an over-simplification of in-depth comments to give a skewed and biased view of what was actually said.
This is scandalously irresponsible journalism. The double meaning has been pointed out already, I think the fact that there is a double meaning or any ambiguity in such a serious subject is very worrying.
Middle Wing – “The problem is that a minority of women do cry rape when they have had too much to drink and are embarrassed/can’t remember sleeping with somebody.”
- I really, genuinely don’t think that going up in front of a court, thinking up and telling a story of graphic violent crime happening to yourself, letting your parents think the absolute worst thing has happened to their daughter, and putting up with perhaps stifling over-protection from friends and siblings for years afterwards, is really the easy way out. It’s not something you’d do if you were just embarrassed, or couldn’t remember properly. It’s not something most women can face, even when it has actually happened.
I have to agree with Lisa here, women “crying rape” is very rare, it’s more often the defence used by rapists who know the woman won’t have enough physical evidence to conclusively prove what’s happened.
P.S. Hello all, long time Mail-hater, first time poster!
Thought I’d see if I could find any stats to back up my arguments here. I found this, from a Q and A session in the House of Lords:
“Home Office Research Study 293, A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape Cases published in 2005, which aimed to explore the issue of attrition in rape cases, also looked into the issue of false allegations. In-depth analysis of case files as part of the study indicated that approximately 3 per cent of cases reported to the police were false allegations. None of these cases got beyond the investigative stage of the criminal justice process.”
So the official figure for false rape allegations (none of which ended in a court case) is approx. 3% of all allegations. That’s 97% genuine allegations then.
False reporting of rape is lower than the false reporting of most other crimes, around 3of all rape claims made. Considering that at present only 5% of all reported rapes result in court, with only 1% of all rapes reported resulting in conviction.
False reporting of rape is obviously not a good thing, but right now there are far more women and men being raped and not getting any justice than there are evil hussies making false reports.
boyinthesnow – if a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is an offence, it’s not called rape it’s called something else instead (can’t remember what), but the maximum sentence for it is the same as that for rape.
One of The Fail’s more sensible comments had to come all the way from New York!
If a woman cannot give consent because she is too drunk, she cannot and does not give consent. That means NO in my book, and for a man to have sex with her at that point is wrong, and is sexual assault, i.e. rape.
I’m glad I don’t live in Britain. Shame on this judge!
- Marie, New York
Nice one, Marie. Pity you had to share your thoughts with irrational Fail readers who will probably resent and reject them. As I always say: feck ‘em.
[...] The Daily Mail is so fed up with people poking fun at its readers, it’s touring the UK’s public relations agencies in the hope they’ll put more advertorials (that is paid ‘editorial’ that proper PR people don’t dirty their hands with*) their way. The problem is that the advertising industry is beginning to question the quality of the Daily Mail’s readership, concerned that those who take its editorial seriously aren’t really the kind of people on which a marketing budget should be spent. [...]
Contrary to what the Mail thinks. What about if she’s wearing a short skirt?
They’d love one day to be able to run that headline with “not always” replaced by “never”. Their attitude to rape is probably the thing about the Mail that pisses me off most. These headlines make me so angry.
And check out the comments on this story too:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444804&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&ct=5&expand=true#StartComments
‘Once a ‘Lady’ has drunk more than lets say 2 bottles of wine she should lose the right to cry rape.
- Donald Dehaviland, Fleet Hampshire ,England’
What a lovely fella
Is this story a combination of rape law and Labours relaxation of the drinking laws?
The problem is that a minority of women do cry rape when they have had too much to drink and are embarrassed/can’t remember sleeping with somebody. It’s these women who are a danger because they prevent real rape victims from being heard.
Why underline always?
If a man is drunk and a woman seduced him could he claim rape?
- Keith Comley, Roseau Dominica
yes that right
can the DM buy me a new laptop – I threw my old one out the window in disgust.
It says something that the first comment I agreed with was from Oklahoma
Before we all jump on the ‘dispute with everything the mail prints’ bandwagon.
a) they’re saying it’s bad that such a thing has been said.
b) it’s a mis-quote
c) It’s a perfectly legitamit statement. A lot of people have beer goggles and then cry rape after the alco-pops wear off. I’m not saying some men take don’ty take advantage cause some men do. But why is it thought that a drunkan man should be able to stop his urges while a drunkan woman shoulde’nt.
d) false acusations ruin lives. Women who cry rape should be sentanced with the same sentance as they would a man accused of rape.
P.S. in no way do I endorse rape. Only monsters rape. Women are there to be loved and treated.
P.P.S.
I know thats a pretty awful post, but you get the gist – I’m trying to write it without the hardcore femminist behind me reading it! shssh!
She actually hates men!
I wonder if this stupid ruling could also run to:-
I was drunk, I drove the car. I later explained that I would never drink and drive. I only did it because I was drunk.
“A lot of people have beer goggles and then cry rape after the alco-pops wear off”
A lot? Do you have any statistics to back that up?
“they’re saying it’s bad that such a thing has been said”
From which part of the article do yolu get this impression?
“Women are there to be loved and treated”
Thanks for clearing up our life purpose for us. Dogs are there to be treated. I think most of us actual people would settle for basic respect.
a) they’re saying it’s bad that such a thing has been said
read the comments on the mail’s website, somehow i don’t think your average mail reader thinks it’s a ‘bad thing’
b) it’s a mis-quote
the mail, misquoting a source to suit their own small minded, racist agenda?? has the world gone mad??
c) It’s a perfectly legitamit statement. A lot of people have beer goggles and then cry rape after the alco-pops wear off. I’m not saying some men take don’ty take advantage cause some men do. But why is it thought that a drunkan man should be able to stop his urges while a drunkan woman shoulde’nt
ignoring the fact that the grammer and spelling here is so appaling i can hardly read it, rape is rape, you take advantage of a girl who’s pretty much passed out, you’re raping them. controlling your ‘urges’ doesn’t even come into it
d) false acusations ruin lives. Women who cry rape should be sentanced with the same sentance as they would a man accused of rape.
this is already the case.
P.S. in no way do I endorse rape. Only monsters rape. Women are there to be loved and treated
wow, you don’t endorse rape?! you champion of morals, next thing you’ll be telling us that murder is wrong and people who beat up black people in the street should go to prison??
It works both ways. A drunken woman tried to rape me once. It wasn’t very pleasant. I just regarded her as being pissed rather than a rapist.
Quote: “Women are there to be loved and treated”
That’s their whole reason for existence is it Thom? That just says it all.
Well done the Judge. Every case should be judged on the evidence, That is what a Judge is for, not just to carry out what the labour government tells him.
- John, Norfolk UK.
Sound
I wonder what it says about the Mail that they think this is worthy of a front page splash?
Of course it isn’t. I’ve had some excellent drunken sex with girlfriends in the past.
What a strange headline…
Thom, Women are not on this earth to be loved and “treated” (whatever that may be). I love my wife and daughters but not every woman, that would be a bit odd. As Lisa points out it is respect that should be expected (to and from all people). On the last point, to be honest, I do have a slight problem with Dacre and Littlejohn.
I shall now be giving a sermon in the local Methodist Church.
P.S. Perhaps the rampant feminist behind you doesn’t hate ALL men, just a thought.
“It works both ways. A drunken woman tried to rape me once. It wasn’t very pleasant. I just regarded her as being pissed rather than a rapist.”
Hmm, an interesting point. Surely unless she had a shitload of Viagra, female on male rape would be difficult if not impossible? Male on male rape would be a far bigger issue, I’d imagine.
repugnant story
Well done the Judge. Every case should be judged on the evidence, That is what a Judge is for, not just to carry out what the labour government tells him.
- John, Norfolk UK.
…or what the media tells him
Good Lord.
A fool writing he may be, but Thoms post is not ill-intended. He probably didn’t think his thoughts through before posting.
I agree with him on 2 points; women who falsely accuse men are shamefull and have reduced the crime of rape so much that the real victims of rape see no justice. Also, rapists are monsters, deserving everything they get while locked in prison.
He fell over on the P.P.S
xraksx
Oh my god.
Daily Mail reader comments
“If you must have sex outside marriage, get the woman’s consent first, in writing, and preferably with a witnessed signature. That way she can’t cry rape the next day when she changes her mind.”
I just don’t know what to say…
What, i mean…..jesus
Christ
We live amongst these people
‘Judge to Women: you were asking for it’
That head line is starting to piss me off. I would say that I have had sex with an intoxicated women at least as many times than I have with a stone cold sober woman. That head line implies that I might be a rapist. It was consensual and that judge is still a twat.
The headline is bollocks, drunkenness is not really the issue. What it actually should say is “It’s not always rape when someone claims it is” – surely just common sense? And of course, the Mail makes a front page issue out of it, willing its readers to think that women constantly cry rape against innocent men, which is certainly not the case.
Having sex with someone who’s pissed doesn’t make you a rapist. Having sex with someone who’s unconscious or practically so through drink does. The Mail seems to imply that getting pissed constitutes consent in itself.
very strange…this headline can only be aimed at alleged rapists who can then pick up their Daily Mail and go “phew…told you mum, she was well pissed, slut”
as JamesN says we live amongst these people and as for the comment he quoted, I’d like to think I’ve never slept with a woman whose woken up the next day and “changed her mind” – must be a common problem in DM land – or am I deluding myself?
And to slightly defend Thom, I don’t think he was being malicious just not very clear in his explanation.
Hmm, if girls do sometimes wake up and “change their mind” then falsely cry rape (and how fewer must those cases be than the genuine rape victims who never see the rapist brought to justice, through shame of coming forward or lack of evidence?), should the Mail and their ilk not take some of the responsibility for those girls’ warped logic? Who harps on about promiscuous sex by females at every turn? Who constantly emphasises the sexual double standard and demonises sex in general as something which is at best a bit naughty and taboo, and at worst, the act of some hormone-fuelled being with no control over their urges? The Mail has a Victorian fear of sex, and in particular the female libido.
Personally, I think false rape allegations must be pretty rare. Who would put themselves through the invasive procedure of a full body examination and smear test, and then have intimate questions asked of them in front of a court full of people, just to get out of having people think they were easy for sleeping with someone whilst drunk? Surely girls who would be willing to do this must mostly be fantasists or suffering mental ill health of some kind.
maybe the article really does disagree with what has been said… but the headline seems to imply the opposite.
as far as i know, the government was thinking of bringing in new definitions of consent including a new one called “drunken consent” and the judge said there is no need for this as the system is fine as it currently is (the present system is that they judge each case on the facts of that case, looking at factors like how drunk the woman was, whether she was so drunk that she didnt know what was happening, etc.)
I read the article, it definitely approves the judge’s comments (especially since they oppose the Government). The comments were, however, made in a far more moderate and sensible vein than the one in which this headline presents them: this is, as usual, an over-simplification of in-depth comments to give a skewed and biased view of what was actually said.
This is scandalously irresponsible journalism. The double meaning has been pointed out already, I think the fact that there is a double meaning or any ambiguity in such a serious subject is very worrying.
Middle Wing – “The problem is that a minority of women do cry rape when they have had too much to drink and are embarrassed/can’t remember sleeping with somebody.”
- I really, genuinely don’t think that going up in front of a court, thinking up and telling a story of graphic violent crime happening to yourself, letting your parents think the absolute worst thing has happened to their daughter, and putting up with perhaps stifling over-protection from friends and siblings for years afterwards, is really the easy way out. It’s not something you’d do if you were just embarrassed, or couldn’t remember properly. It’s not something most women can face, even when it has actually happened.
I have to agree with Lisa here, women “crying rape” is very rare, it’s more often the defence used by rapists who know the woman won’t have enough physical evidence to conclusively prove what’s happened.
P.S. Hello all, long time Mail-hater, first time poster!
“… Equally, if you’re drunk and you get raped (and this applies to men or women – it happens) serves you right. …
- Tony, Doha, Qatar”
That might be the most depressing thing I have ever seen.
It’s better for a woman to take care of her sex and be proud of that,that’s her strength ,I think .
Isn’t it true that legally a man cannot be raped as having an erection counts as consent or willingness to participate?
I thought I read that once.
Anyone who thinks that false rape accusations are common, and who hasn’t witnessed the horrible reality of a rape trial, should FUCK RIGHT OFF.
Welcome Jen!
Thought I’d see if I could find any stats to back up my arguments here. I found this, from a Q and A session in the House of Lords:
“Home Office Research Study 293, A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape Cases published in 2005, which aimed to explore the issue of attrition in rape cases, also looked into the issue of false allegations. In-depth analysis of case files as part of the study indicated that approximately 3 per cent of cases reported to the police were false allegations. None of these cases got beyond the investigative stage of the criminal justice process.”
So the official figure for false rape allegations (none of which ended in a court case) is approx. 3% of all allegations. That’s 97% genuine allegations then.
False reporting of rape is lower than the false reporting of most other crimes, around 3of all rape claims made. Considering that at present only 5% of all reported rapes result in court, with only 1% of all rapes reported resulting in conviction.
False reporting of rape is obviously not a good thing, but right now there are far more women and men being raped and not getting any justice than there are evil hussies making false reports.
boyinthesnow – if a woman forces a man to have sex with her it is an offence, it’s not called rape it’s called something else instead (can’t remember what), but the maximum sentence for it is the same as that for rape.
I know we shouldn’t expect the Mail or its readers to conform to normal standards of human decency, but really what a bunch of utter, utter BASTARDS.
That is all.
One of The Fail’s more sensible comments had to come all the way from New York!
If a woman cannot give consent because she is too drunk, she cannot and does not give consent. That means NO in my book, and for a man to have sex with her at that point is wrong, and is sexual assault, i.e. rape.
I’m glad I don’t live in Britain. Shame on this judge!
- Marie, New York
Nice one, Marie. Pity you had to share your thoughts with irrational Fail readers who will probably resent and reject them. As I always say: feck ‘em.
[...] The Daily Mail is so fed up with people poking fun at its readers, it’s touring the UK’s public relations agencies in the hope they’ll put more advertorials (that is paid ‘editorial’ that proper PR people don’t dirty their hands with*) their way. The problem is that the advertising industry is beginning to question the quality of the Daily Mail’s readership, concerned that those who take its editorial seriously aren’t really the kind of people on which a marketing budget should be spent. [...]