The Governments way of protecting Women

[Taffy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4802420.stm

All looks good to begin with. But when you read into it more, you begin to wonder just how it's going to protect women. I mean, it's hardly like a real rapist is going to be put off doing it again because of some daft woman on a bill-board with no-entry written all over her knickers, is it?

I think its daft the way that the government thinks that advertising is going to stop all criminals from breaking the law. That job should be left to the police, not advertising companies.

And if they are trying to protect the men who fall victims to evil women who consent to sex then go crying rape afterwards, then why do they think this is going to make the blindest bit of difference? Those men still won't be able to prove that the woman consented, and the women aren't going to be put off what they're doing, because they know that their case is a lot stronger than the mans.

It's just a waste of bloody money, and it makes me angry

 

[Gopha]

i must agree with this, I personally think that rapists are the worst sort of people . Although ,women can call rape after they have had sex with a guy without a consent form and when they are no longer going out then they use the "rape card" as it were.

Edit: took out malicious comment sorry

 

[Ronin Storm]

Transactional Analysis has stuff to say on this -- that is something TA calls "a game". I've seen that game described as "Cry Rape", but I have found an article which covers this subject from a TA perspective.

http://www.ericberne.com/games/games_people_play_rapo.htm

It is important to note that these games, in TA, are considered aberant or abnormal behaviour, and the basic rule I expound here is "don't play".

[mod]As an aside, I suggest some real caution on this topic. Please avoid likening rape or rapists to other subjects or people. This is highly inflammatory subject matter if treated without care and a great deal of respect.[/mod]

 

[Haven]

looks interesting but not something I should read at work *saves it for another time*.

 

[thatbloke]

How many high profile footballers have you heard about in the past year who have been accused of rape??? and how many of those accused were proven guilty??? none that I can remember... which makes me feel that more women are scheming and are golddiggers than the police and government and some people want to believe

 

[Taffy]

My point exactly!

I hate true rapists, those sick, twisted people who get thrills out of stuff like that *shudders*

But I quite possibly hate the goldiggers even more.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

My point exactly!

I hate true rapists, those sick, twisted people who get thrills out of stuff like that *shudders*

But I quite possibly hate the goldiggers even more.

Its the same with a lot of things really. I believe (without trying to veer this topic off course) that asylum seekers (or at least some of them) also play this kind of game, whereby anything negative brought upon them is automatically classified as racially motivated. Worst thing is, the government actually panders to this kind of thing, neglecting the (geographically) true descendants of the UK in order to gain a more politically favourable image.

Example: Baa Baa Black Sheep being doctored to Baa Baa Wooly/Rainbow Sheep. Which I find, by all accounts, ridiculous.

Anyway, back to females. Yeah, in some strange way, the 'tarts', 'slappers', 'golddiggers' actually use their feminine vulnerability as a weapon, which is grossly unfair. Sad thing is, its really hard to counter gold digging. Where women receive a lot of protection from the government as far as rape is concerned, and they are forever fighting for 'equality', its really hard to be able to turn round and take some of that away from them if the case looks iffy, since the vast majority of women truly do need protection from the government. An obscure case to be sure.

 

[gringotsgoblin]

the (geographically) true descendants of the UK

Which geographically true descendents of the UK would you be referring to?

The French invaders post 1066?

The Norwegians Vikings from around the same period.

The Celtic tribes, who originated from (possibly) Germany. or any other of three score of races: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Britons

Maybe we should establish a template of people who are 'true geographic descendents'. People with blonde and blue eyes, perhaps?

 

[Gopha]

lets not get into the aryan race argument

 

[gringotsgoblin]

lets not get into the aryan race argument

Quite.

 

[gringotsgoblin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4802420.stm

And if they are trying to protect the men who fall victims to evil women who consent to sex then go crying rape afterwards, then why do they think this is going to make the blindest bit of difference?

[This post is for Gopha to make sure the thread stays on topic...sorry Gopha ]

I think the problem was some women who said "I never said yes!" and the mens' argument was "But she was obviously up for it..!"

The law is going to be changed so that unless the woman *definitely* says yes, you shouldnt have sex with her. The law protects women who get too drunk and do something they would have not done when sober.

The problem is that the law will now imply that drunk women arent responsible for their actions. But the man (who is also probably drunk) will be held responsible for their actions!!

This is a serious issue - as it's very hard to prove/disprove date rape, and undoubtedly some men have got away with committing rape, and some women have had men unjustly convicted of rape. But this wont fix anything.

 

[Gopha]

Basically there are flaws with the system which will need to be overviewed over the years?

 

[gringotsgoblin]

Basically there are flaws with the system which will need to be overviewed over the years?

If by 'overviewed' you mean 'scrapped', and by 'over the years' you mean 'straight away', then yes.

 

[Missy]

Although ,women can call rape after they have had sex with a guy without a consent form and when they are no longer going out then they use the "rape card" as it were.

is it not possible for a man to have sex with a guy and then call rape???? you may not agree with the laws but what if it was your girlfriend, sister, daughter or mother??

 

[Ronin Storm]

The law protects women who get too drunk and do something they would have not done when sober.

Taking a small aside there... alcohol. Should we really be protecting people who have a substance abuse problem? Sure, we should be protecting other people from them, but protecting them?

I know, I know, it's not something one can really distinguish easily in real life situations, legally speaking, but surely people could choose not to get so hammered that they have no idea what they are doing?

 

[Haven]

I've read some more of the examples from that book ronin and its pretty disturbing reading ... mainly because it all rings so true and I find it quite sad that we all get drawn into (or know someone who has) such behaviours. Still on that basis of that I may actually buy the book.

 

[Haven]

Which is the worst case (sit back and evaluate it for yourself):

A woman who cries rape and takes it to court when in-fact it was consensual sex.

A woman who is raped but keeps quiet because she fears being exposed as a fraudster i.e.the woman above.

Personally I believe its better for a woman to come forwards and be proven wrong than to not come forwards at all. The mental damage done to a woman who is too fearful to come forwards to seek help is going to scar her for life so we need to encourage people to come forwards and take what help is available to minimise this.

Obviously the worse case scenario is that a woman who has been raped comes forwards and is falsely shown to be lying about her rape - this is the worst possible scenario and the fear of this is probably one of the reasons many women dont come forwards at all (obviously there will be many other stong motivators such as denial and fear of retribution).

Whereas the woman who is not raped but comes forwards and is shown to be false should not (unless she already has other mental conditions) be overly scarred for life.

Its obviously impossible to show statistics on the number of women who cry rape who are:

a) not raped in the first place
b) raped and proven to be raped
c) raped and proven to not be raped

I would hope that our judicial system is good enough that "a" and "b" accurately reflect the truth and that the percentage of cases where the courts are wrong "c" is hopefully very low.

 

[Wraith]

Whereas the woman who is not raped but comes forwards and is shown to be false should not (unless she already has other mental conditions) be overly scarred for life.

Just to pick up on this point. You're right that a false accusation of rape won't (or at least shouldn't) affect the accuser, but what about the accused? If it goes to trial, the accused will have spent several months in jail, and had their reputation destroyed. They will not be able to get back the lost time, and even being acquited will not necessarily remove the stain from their reputation as a lot of people believe the phrase "there's no smoke without fire" A prime example of this is Michael Jackson. Twice accused of child molestation and acquited both times, yet I've lost track of the number of times people have said they think he's guilty since then.

Also, with regard to the justice system, I think that a lot of criminals escape punishment, due to incompetence, technicalities and other minor reasons. I saw this first hand when I served on a jury last year. A "balance of probability" scenario (as used in civil cases) was used the jury would have decided that the accused was guilty, but as criminal cases have to be "beyond reasonable doubt", the accused was acquited. This was due to the police not closing off the (very minor) chance that the crime could have been done by someone else. (i.e. a door was left open so someone could have snuck in - yeah right ) After that, I just don't trust the justice system. It's so concerned that an innocent should not be locked up, that it probably releases a large number of criminals. I'm not saying this is wrong (as it is important not to imprison innocent people), just that I wish there was a better way.

Wraith

 

[DocBot]

we have the same law in sweden, sort of. I find it alarming, it's almost "guilty until proven innocent" and that's bad. Luckily, so far there hasn't been any court cases where it was only word against word (after the law was implemented, that is). We'll see how this turns out...

 

[Ronin Storm]

I'm not saying this is wrong (as it is important not to imprison innocent people), just that I wish there was a better way.

I suspect that's exactly how our judicial system came into being in the first place. After all, I'm sure there was a time when "the law" was actually "I'm right, you're wrong, and now I kill you" and any form of peer review has probably got to be better than that.

I think this sort of debate rightfully looks at the edge cases where things are no longer so clear cut, where the chances for mistakes are rife. Innocent people should not be persecuted by the judicial system on suspicion that they might be guilty -- wasn't that where the Inquisition really caused people great fear? However, guilty people should not walk away free to commit more crime, doubly so where that crime is seriously harmful to others.

So we come back to our innocent until proven guilty precept, figuring that it is more harmful to hurt the innocent through judicial persecution than it is to let the occasional criminal walk free who really should be dealt with (through whatever mechanism we, as a society, see fit). Unless we can implement some form of thought policing, scanning a person's mind to see if they are a criminal, I struggle to see another way. Of course, thought policing has its problems too...