Socrates: I agree with you that the silence and apparent lack of action post the Rotherham report seem baffling and shameful. I say "apparent" because there may be stuff going on behind the scenes that is not being reported.
Personally, rather than have endless inquiries I would want to see actual prosecutions.
It's clear from the Sky News investigation that the rapists in Rotherham don't feel much is going on to stop them.
And those are the ones in Rotherham, which is actually at the best end of the scale in terms of things being done. The ones in Blackpool and Bradford and Oxford must be grinning from ear to ear.
"We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?" - Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
The police asking a suspect how they knew the complainant consented is the same as the suspect being found guilty if they can't prove the complainant consented?
On the grooming gangs, let's remember what women's rights activist Ms Gohir has to say about it:
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
Just read the article about the change in rape laws. Completely disagree with the change, so much for "innocent until proven guilty".
I know there are a lot of scumbags who are "getting away with it", but this is not the answer.
It may well raise the conviction rate, but it will also raise the false conviction rate too. Except they won't be "false" in the eyes of the law, as if you cannot prove you got consent: you are guilty.
That's not the effect of the change.
“We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - [a] how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and [b] doing so freely and knowingly?” (my letters)
As regards [a] this is the reasonable belief test already enshrined in the 2003 Act. A belief in consent must be informed by some conduct on behalf of the alleged victim.
[b] is a change in priority, however. It has always been the case that the victim must have the freedom and capacity to consent. For example, there comes a point where someone is too drunk to consent. However the courts have been rather inconsistent about when this is reached (the headline case, Bree, the woman was practically paralytic on the floor yet could, apparently, have consented - but that hasn't gone for all cases). Thus in light of what hasn't been a great approach by the courts the CPS/DPP have stepped in, as far as the judging of evidence at the pre-trial stage, to ask the same question of consent [a] at point [b]. What grounds did the defendant have to believe the alleged victim was able to consent?
It IS the effect of the change.
"We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?" - Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
The police and CPS have to ask themselves, has a crime been committed? Do the facts warrant further investigation? In doing so, the new guidance says, they should ask "what facts has the alleged defendant been able to tell us which makes us think the victim did have the ability to consent".
As I mentioned, proof is at trial, and we are not there yet. At trial the prosecution will ave to show lack of consent. They may choose to do so by showing that the victim did not have the freedom or capacity to do so.
Ashcroft gives no clue in this interview as to how the seats in Scotland will be decided.A careful analysis of his words indicates that when he mentions Glasgow he is talking about the independence referendum,not the GE.This interview is a subtle lesson in the art of saying nothing in a measured manner. One needs to remember the size of the Labour majorities in Scotland.
On the grooming gangs, let's remember what women's rights activist Ms Gohir has to say about it:
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
On the grooming gangs, let's remember what women's rights activist Ms Gohir has to say about it:
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
I'm struck by the juxtaposition of your compaign to free Chad Evans from his unjust rape conviction while compaigning for more rape convictions in Rotherham. Espcially as your familiarity with the evidence in both cases is an order of magnitude lower than those making the actual decisions.
[For the record, I think the response on Rotherham has been scandolously feeble, and is a continuing source of national shame.]
Last night's tied YG pegs back the Tory lead in this week's "part-ELBOW" so far to 0.2% (0.5% yesterday, 0.4% Tuesday). Libdems and Greens within 0.5% of each other.
Con 32.8 Lab 32.6 UKIP 15.6 LD 7.0 Grn 6.5
The detail of the weighted data actually put Labour 0.75% ahead yesterday!
Socrates: I agree with you that the silence and apparent lack of action post the Rotherham report seem baffling and shameful. I say "apparent" because there may be stuff going on behind the scenes that is not being reported.
Personally, rather than have endless inquiries I would want to see actual prosecutions.
It's clear from the Sky News investigation that the rapists in Rotherham don't feel much is going on to stop them.
And those are the ones in Rotherham, which is actually at the best end of the scale in terms of things being done. The ones in Blackpool and Bradford and Oxford must be grinning from ear to ear.
I agree. The very sad reality is that we - as a society - simply don't care enough about this sort of crime to put in the resources, effort and patient hard work needed to stamp this out and/or catch the perpetrators. Cultural sensitivity may be one reason; a lack of concern for girls at the bottom of the heap is another and, more generally, a comparative failure to take crimes against women/girls as seriously as other crimes, not least because of the evidential difficulties involved.
Fundamentally, there are not enough people with influence willing to fight the corner of the victims loudly and persistently enough that the authorities realise that they need to take action.
Politicians aren't doing anything for them either. Look at the contrast with how a lot of politicians were willing to be photographed with hacking victims, even inviting them into the room to draft legislation, and their near silence when it comes to the infinitely more serious crime of rape.
On the grooming gangs, let's remember what women's rights activist Ms Gohir has to say about it:
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
I'm struck by the juxtaposition of your compaign to free Chad Evans from his unjust rape conviction while compaigning for more rape convictions in Rotherham. Espcially as your familiarity with the evidence in both cases is an order of magnitude lower than those making the actual decisions.
[For the record, I think the response on Rotherham has been scandolously feeble, and is a continuing source of national shame.]
It's interesting how you're more interested in having a go at Socrates than addressing the issue being discussed.
The rape laws in this country are a dangerous joke.
Like the guy who was convicted on the sole basis that he ejaculated inside her "without her consent"...
This is being echoed on my facebook by quite alot of my male friends, I think there is a real danger of an anti-male leftwing groupthink becoming an accepted norm about all this, the rape laws are as bad as the "family" laws for men now.
A guy and girl meet up on a night out, go back to his place and have sex. In the morning she regrets it and tells her existing boyfriend that she was raped.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
A guy and girl meet up on a night out, go back to his place and have sex. In the morning she regrets it and tells her existing boyfriend that she was raped.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
"" came the reply.
What exactly is his defence at this point?
She walked back from the bar with me (capacity)? Asked me to join her in the bedroom while I was having a shower (fact of consent)?
"The 2010 election was supposed to be the one to lose, wasn't it?"
You want to lose the election, but make the winner's victory Pyrrhic.
Labour didn't do that in 2010, as LibDem+Tory has proved very stable.
If the only outcome of May 2015 is an unstable coalition, it may be better to lose it -- and wait for the next bus, which will come along within 12 months.
I have been thinking that the difference between a narrow Con led coalition and a narrow Lab led coalition could have a big impact on 2020.
The last implemented boundary review was based on electorates in 2000
The cancelled review was based on electorates from 2010. This review would have seen a reduction of 50 seats overall and Wales losing its over-representation. By party this was predicted to lead to 7 Con losses, 28 Lab losses, 11 LD losses and 4 losses for other parties leaving the Cons 1 short of a notional majority on the new boundaries.
Now while the last review was cancelled, to my knowledge the legislation has not been repealed. This means a new review will kick off shortly after the election based on 2015 or 2016 electorates.
Now bearing in mind there is a long term trend of electorates falling in the north and growing in the south, then it seems likely there may be a further benefit to the Tories just from demographic changes.
However, we also have the impact of individual electoral registration. This has already led to many people falling off the register (e.g. 20,000 in Cardiff) particularly affecting students who have moved. Another tranche of people who don't match up with the DSS database will be removed in December 2015.
Now bearing in mind most of the removed voters will be mainly in urban areas this promises to make the boundary review even more favourable to the Tories.
If the Tories lead a coalition (and they have any sense) then they ought to make their red lines an EU referendum and the full implementation of the boundary review and IER
If Labour lead a coalition then they could revise the legislation to go back to the old system of boundary reviews and try to undo IER. However, even that will still lead to losses for them due to demographic change. If they only have a narrow seat lead it might be tempting to try and scotch the whole review process altogether.
Socrates: I agree with you that the silence and apparent lack of action post the Rotherham report seem baffling and shameful. I say "apparent" because there may be stuff going on behind the scenes that is not being reported.
Personally, rather than have endless inquiries I would want to see actual prosecutions.
I would agree cyclefree - We have had too few prosecutions of abusers. I think we need proper sentencing as well. If you think we should have prosecutions of officials then anyone who hides clear evidence of wrongdoing should be open to prosecution if that can be proved. Can it? The police themselves were hardly brilliant.
Pickles' investigation is indeed into whether Rotherham covered anything up. I don't think it is unusual to take some time to digest these things - not least since its results might well result in prosecutions. Lets be fair, in the past when a minister (Balls) acted in haste it resulted in massive compensation.
A guy and girl meet up on a night out, go back to his place and have sex. In the morning she regrets it and tells her existing boyfriend that she was raped.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
"" came the reply.
What exactly is his defence at this point?
She walked back from the bar with me (capacity)? Asked me to join her in the bedroom while I was having a shower (fact of consent)?
The second is a question that has always been relevant.
The first is one that many investigating officers would have asked and are now being asked to make sure they go through this thought process, rather than just quizzing the alleged victim on how much she'd had to drink, how much she can remember, etc.
A guy and girl meet up on a night out, go back to his place and have sex. In the morning she regrets it and tells her existing boyfriend that she was raped.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
"" came the reply.
What exactly is his defence at this point?
She walked back from the bar with me (capacity)? Asked me to join her in the bedroom while I was having a shower (fact of consent)?
She was drunk and didn't know she was walking back to your place.
A guy and girl meet up on a night out, go back to his place and have sex. In the morning she regrets it and tells her existing boyfriend that she was raped.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
"" came the reply.
What exactly is his defence at this point?
The police don't have the power to find somebody guilty of a crime, so I don't know what bearing this has on your earlier claim.
Obviously the answer would be what anyone would say: She wasn't very drunk, she seemed in control of her actions and her decision-making didn't seem impaired. She was relaxed, gave every indication she wanted this, showed no signs of being afraid, etc., etc.
Of course you can't prove any of this, but proof is irrelevant at the stage of talking to the police because they're not a trial. Nor will your inability to prove it mean you'll be taken to court, because the police and prosecutors are aware of the presumption of innocence and know that your inability to prove this wouldn't get you found guilty. They don't want to waste court time.
The rape laws in this country are a dangerous joke.
Like the guy who was convicted on the sole basis that he ejaculated inside her "without her consent"...
Which guy would that be?
OK, I don't know the ultimate outcome, since he was not named. But the High Court overturned a decision not to prosecute on the grounds that, even if she agreed to let him bang her, provided he didn't ejaculate, if he did in fact ejaculate that could meet the definition of "rape".
On the grooming gangs, let's remember what women's rights activist Ms Gohir has to say about it:
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
I'm struck by the juxtaposition of your compaign to free Chad Evans from his unjust rape conviction while compaigning for more rape convictions in Rotherham. Espcially as your familiarity with the evidence in both cases is an order of magnitude lower than those making the actual decisions.
[For the record, I think the response on Rotherham has been scandolously feeble, and is a continuing source of national shame.]
It's interesting how you're more interested in having a go at Socrates than addressing the issue being discussed.
Fascinating, isn't it. Not sure how 'being struck by a juxtaposition' is 'having a go', mind you.
@paulwaugh: EdMili today on SNP/Lab Coalition:"We don’t need, we don’t want + we are not planning for that" Ed Balls, Monday, on SNP-Lab Coalition:"No"
The rape laws in this country are a dangerous joke.
Like the guy who was convicted on the sole basis that he ejaculated inside her "without her consent"...
Which guy would that be?
OK, I don't know the ultimate outcome, since he was not named. But the High Court overturned a decision not to prosecute on the grounds that, even if she agreed to let him bang her, provided he didn't ejaculate, if he did in fact ejaculate that could meet the definition of "rape".
OK, I see.
This is a particularly quick moving part of the law. The Assange case (considered under English law for extradition reasons) drew the conclusion that if I consent to intercourse on the basis that he will wear a condom and he doesn't, then that could be rape. The alleged victim is going to have to be pretty clear about this though.
I think then, once you're picturing a woman who cares enough to make that clear at the outset, we might just have a difference of opinion about whether she has been harmed.
Good afternoon everyone and I see for the 2nd day in a row Shadsy has indicated things are moving from red to blue. This time its the Tory price in Southampton Itchen which is closing in on the Labour one. I look forward to seeing the rather pompous and trivial Rowenna Davis lose.
Will you vote Conservative or try and keep Thurso in place ?
I have only ever voted Tory at a GE. We don't yet have a Tory candidate and frankly I would rather keep my distant cousin as my MP than let in the separatists or the socialists. However I wont be telling anyone on here how I vote.
A guy and girl meet up on a night out, go back to his place and have sex. In the morning she regrets it and tells her existing boyfriend that she was raped.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
"" came the reply.
What exactly is his defence at this point?
The police don't have the power to find somebody guilty of a crime, so I don't know what bearing this has on your earlier claim.
Obviously the answer would be what anyone would say: She wasn't very drunk, she seemed in control of her actions and her decision-making didn't seem impaired. She was relaxed, gave every indication she wanted this, showed no signs of being afraid, etc., etc.
Of course you can't prove any of this, but proof is irrelevant at the stage of talking to the police because they're not a trial. Nor will your inability to prove it mean you'll be taken to court, because the police and prosecutors are aware of the presumption of innocence and know that your inability to prove this wouldn't get you found guilty. They don't want to waste court time.
If what you are saying is true, then there would have been no need for the DPP to make a big song & dance about the changes.
What do you think the changes actually, specifically, mean?
Just read the article about the change in rape laws. Completely disagree with the change, so much for "innocent until proven guilty".
I know there are a lot of scumbags who are "getting away with it", but this is not the answer.
It may well raise the conviction rate, but it will also raise the false conviction rate too. Except they won't be "false" in the eyes of the law, as if you cannot prove you got consent: you are guilty.
That's not the effect of the change.
“We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - [a] how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and [b] doing so freely and knowingly?” (my letters)
As regards [a] this is the reasonable belief test already enshrined in the 2003 Act. A belief in consent must be informed by some conduct on behalf of the alleged victim.
[b] is a change in priority, however. It has always been the case that the victim must have the freedom and capacity to consent. For example, there comes a point where someone is too drunk to consent. However the courts have been rather inconsistent about when this is reached (the headline case, Bree, the woman was practically paralytic on the floor yet could, apparently, have consented - but that hasn't gone for all cases). Thus in light of what hasn't been a great approach by the courts the CPS/DPP have stepped in, as far as the judging of evidence at the pre-trial stage, to ask the same question of consent [a] at point [b]. What grounds did the defendant have to believe the alleged victim was able to consent?
Consent to sex is often (perhaps mostly) implicit rather than explicit. Say, two people start kissing each other, and gradually progress towards having sex with each other, without either party saying at any point "Would you like to have sex", to which the reply is "Yes."
In those circumstances, to say to the Police "She didn't say no" would seem to be a reasonable reply under questioning. But, I'm not sure if the effect of the Guidance would be to treat such a reply as grounds for prosecution. That's why I'd be concerned that weak cases will end up being brought to trial, and then getting dismissed by the Judge, or the jury returning a Not Guilty verdict.
I'm also bothered by the comment about society having to change its attitudes about what constitutes rape. Actually, if the CPS wants to successfully prosecute people for rape, they are going to have go with the grain of societal attitudes, rather than seeking to challenge them, or else juries are just going acquit cases that they don't think amount to rape.
On the grooming gangs, let's remember what women's rights activist Ms Gohir has to say about it:
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
I don't know if you remember Socrates but a few months ago I said I was giving DC the benefit of the doubt about this.
My patience is fading.
Nothing is happening. Nothing is going to happen. Just today the MCB released an angry letter from 1000 imams complaining about a perfectly innocuous letter from Eric Pickles. The Cameroons wouldn't dare get tough on the Pakistani rape gangs because the accusations of racism would be deafening and they're desperate to reach out to the ever increasing Muslim vote. Meanwhile Conservative-supporters will continue telling us to wait-and-see until they lose the next election, at which point they'll blame the next Labour-led government, who will also do nothing.
Meanwhile the rapists will continue driving around young girls to rape at will, knowing the political establishment won't touch them. Remember that one case where a 13 year old white girl was hanging out with a bunch of Pakistani men in their 30s. When a police constable started asking questions, they told him they'd report him for racial harassment and he went on his way.
This what PC culture causes. There are "oppressed classes" and "privileged classes". If you're a member of an oppressed class, you're highly likely to get away with ongoing child rape, while if you're a member of a privileged class, you'll be treated like you're guilty until proven innocent.
A guy and girl meet up on a night out, go back to his place and have sex. In the morning she regrets it and tells her existing boyfriend that she was raped.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
"" came the reply.
What exactly is his defence at this point?
She walked back from the bar with me (capacity)? Asked me to join her in the bedroom while I was having a shower (fact of consent)?
She was drunk and didn't know she was walking back to your place.
She denies inviting you into the bedroom.
How can you show you got consent?
The police are asking the right questions then, aren't they? The police will have to consider what both people say and whatever other evidence they have to determine whether further investigation is warranted and whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
If the matter goes to trial they will have to show lack of consent, either the fact of consent or the freedom or capacity to do so.
The rape laws in this country are a dangerous joke.
Like the guy who was convicted on the sole basis that he ejaculated inside her "without her consent"...
Which guy would that be?
OK, I don't know the ultimate outcome, since he was not named. But the High Court overturned a decision not to prosecute on the grounds that, even if she agreed to let him bang her, provided he didn't ejaculate, if he did in fact ejaculate that could meet the definition of "rape".
OK, I see.
This is a particularly quick moving part of the law. The Assange case (considered under English law for extradition reasons) drew the conclusion that if I consent to intercourse on the basis that he will wear a condom and he doesn't, then that could be rape. The alleged victim is going to have to be pretty clear about this though.
I think then, once you're picturing a woman who cares enough to make that clear at the outset, we might just have a difference of opinion about whether she has been harmed.
The loony tune judges also said if it fell off or split that too could be "rape"...
Re this rape discussion.. if things go on like this we will end up having to go back to emphasising the virtues of self control.. heaven forbid!
Maybe an idea would be for anyone pressing a rape charge that says they were too drunk to remember what happened/give consent should be charged with some kind of drunk & disorderly offence too, or at least put on a problem drinkers program
In those circumstances, to say to the Police "She didn't say no" would seem to be a reasonable reply under questioning. But, I'm not sure if the effect of the Guidance would be to treat such a reply as grounds for prosecution. That's why I'd be concerned that weak cases will end up being brought to trial, and then getting dismissed by the Judge, or the jury returning a Not Guilty verdict.
I'm also bothered by the comment about society having to change its attitudes about what constitutes rape. Actually, if the CPS wants to successfully prosecute people for rape, they are going to have go with the grain of societal attitudes, rather than seeking to challenge them, or else juries are just going acquit cases that they don't think amount to rape.
And of course, there's no anonymity for those accused of rape, and anyone hearing that you're being taken for court for rape will assume there's a good chance you're guilty. Your reputation, social relationships and career are risked as a result.
But nothing to worry about for the PC brigade of course. Men are a privileged class. Any male has nothing to complain about after riding that privilege for years.
The rape laws in this country are a dangerous joke.
Like the guy who was convicted on the sole basis that he ejaculated inside her "without her consent"...
Which guy would that be?
OK, I don't know the ultimate outcome, since he was not named. But the High Court overturned a decision not to prosecute on the grounds that, even if she agreed to let him bang her, provided he didn't ejaculate, if he did in fact ejaculate that could meet the definition of "rape".
OK, I see.
This is a particularly quick moving part of the law. The Assange case (considered under English law for extradition reasons) drew the conclusion that if I consent to intercourse on the basis that he will wear a condom and he doesn't, then that could be rape. The alleged victim is going to have to be pretty clear about this though.
I think then, once you're picturing a woman who cares enough to make that clear at the outset, we might just have a difference of opinion about whether she has been harmed.
It was my understanding of the Assange case that she eventually relented to let him not use a condom. But of course, he pressured her into that, so it was rape.
Just read the article about the change in rape laws. Completely disagree with the change, so much for "innocent until proven guilty".
I know there are a lot of scumbags who are "getting away with it", but this is not the answer.
It may well raise the conviction rate, but it will also raise the false conviction rate too. Except they won't be "false" in the eyes of the law, as if you cannot prove you got consent: you are guilty.
[...]
[b] is a change in priority, however. It has always been the case that the victim must have the freedom and capacity to consent. For example, there comes a point where someone is too drunk to consent. However the courts have been rather inconsistent about when this is reached (the headline case, Bree, the woman was practically paralytic on the floor yet could, apparently, have consented - but that hasn't gone for all cases). Thus in light of what hasn't been a great approach by the courts the CPS/DPP have stepped in, as far as the judging of evidence at the pre-trial stage, to ask the same question of consent [a] at point [b]. What grounds did the defendant have to believe the alleged victim was able to consent?
Consent to sex is often (perhaps mostly) implicit rather than explicit. Say, two people start kissing each other, and gradually progress towards having sex with each other, without either party saying at any point "Would you like to have sex", to which the reply is "Yes."
In those circumstances, to say to the Police "She didn't say no" would seem to be a reasonable reply under questioning. But, I'm not sure if the effect of the Guidance would be to treat such a reply as grounds for prosecution. That's why I'd be concerned that weak cases will end up being brought to trial, and then getting dismissed by the Judge, or the jury returning a Not Guilty verdict.
I'm also bothered by the comment about society having to change its attitudes about what constitutes rape. Actually, if the CPS wants to successfully prosecute people for rape, they are going to have go with the grain of societal attitudes, rather than seeking to challenge them, or else juries are just going acquit cases that they don't think amount to rape.
Someone has to challenge social attitudes if, as you say, we are to uphold a particular standard at law without juries acquitting. Perhaps that is the DPP's role and perhaps it isn't.
I think the chances of bringing more failed cases is a worry. Today's guidance appears to be more at the investigative rather than charging stage, which makes sense since the hard facts of consent will be more relevant when charging because of the view in light of trial and the prospect of conviction test.
In truth that was me [yesterday] clicking twice on a Conservative price and once on a Labour one. So the previous 100% pie chart was based on all of one click-through.
The rape laws in this country are a dangerous joke.
Like the guy who was convicted on the sole basis that he ejaculated inside her "without her consent"...
Which guy would that be?
OK, I don't know the ultimate outcome, since he was not named. But the High Court overturned a decision not to prosecute on the grounds that, even if she agreed to let him bang her, provided he didn't ejaculate, if he did in fact ejaculate that could meet the definition of "rape".
OK, I see.
This is a particularly quick moving part of the law. The Assange case (considered under English law for extradition reasons) drew the conclusion that if I consent to intercourse on the basis that he will wear a condom and he doesn't, then that could be rape. The alleged victim is going to have to be pretty clear about this though.
I think then, once you're picturing a woman who cares enough to make that clear at the outset, we might just have a difference of opinion about whether she has been harmed.
It was my understanding of the Assange case that she eventually relented to let him not use a condom. But of course, he pressured her into that, so it was rape.
Perhaps, I may have misrecalled since the discussion was fairly academedic since the English law courts weren't trying Assange, more like a hypothetical person who'd done a specific list of things.
Last night's tied YG pegs back the Tory lead in this week's "part-ELBOW" so far to 0.2% (0.5% yesterday, 0.4% Tuesday). Libdems and Greens within 0.5% of each other.
Con 32.8 Lab 32.6 UKIP 15.6 LD 7.0 Grn 6.5
The detail of the weighted data actually put Labour 0.75% ahead yesterday!
I think you mean 0.45% behind the Tories!
No - I am talking about the figures released last night at 10.30. Nine more respondents on a weighted basis opted for Labour than for the Tories. Excluding Don't Knows /Non Voters the sample size was just over 1200.
A guy and girl meet up on a night out, go back to his place and have sex. In the morning she regrets it and tells her existing boyfriend that she was raped.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
"" came the reply.
What exactly is his defence at this point?
She walked back from the bar with me (capacity)? Asked me to join her in the bedroom while I was having a shower (fact of consent)?
She was drunk and didn't know she was walking back to your place.
She denies inviting you into the bedroom.
How can you show you got consent?
The police are asking the right questions then, aren't they? The police will have to consider what both people say and whatever other evidence they have to determine whether further investigation is warranted and whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
If the matter goes to trial they will have to show lack of consent, either the fact of consent or the freedom or capacity to do so.
And that is the problem. They simply have to say that she was a bit drunk, or she didn't know what to say and froze, and you are no longer innocent until proven guilty. You now have to prove your innocence, have your case go to trial (which can be damaging in itself), etc.
A guy and girl meet up on a night out, go back to his place and have sex. In the morning she regrets it and tells her existing boyfriend that she was raped.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
"" came the reply.
What exactly is his defence at this point?
The police don't have the power to find somebody guilty of a crime, so I don't know what bearing this has on your earlier claim.
Obviously the answer would be what anyone would say: She wasn't very drunk, she seemed in control of her actions and her decision-making didn't seem impaired. She was relaxed, gave every indication she wanted this, showed no signs of being afraid, etc., etc.
Of course you can't prove any of this, but proof is irrelevant at the stage of talking to the police because they're not a trial. Nor will your inability to prove it mean you'll be taken to court, because the police and prosecutors are aware of the presumption of innocence and know that your inability to prove this wouldn't get you found guilty. They don't want to waste court time.
If what you are saying is true, then there would have been no need for the DPP to make a big song & dance about the changes.
What do you think the changes actually, specifically, mean?
As far as I can see they didn't "make a big song & dance", though I could be wrong on that count. Other newspapers seem to have gone for a more low-key reporting of this though, so to me it looks like headline-chasing from the Telegraph.
The point is that it's generally useful to ask suspects of crimes relevant questions. At best people can incriminate themselves, at worst it gives a clearer picture of what everybody's story is. If the suspect gets very vague or evasive about how in control the complainant was, or whether she showed any signs of not being into what was happening, that could be helpful to the police.
The only way this would be completely useless is if:
1. Nobody in the police force ever fails to consider cases where the issue of consent is more complex than "no means no". 2. Suspects never incriminate themselves through ignorance or carelessness. 3. Suspects are always good enough liars that their false stories are completely believed by the police and don't raise suspicions.
That's mostly speculation on my part, but there certainly seems like enough room that this guidance could be useful, even if not drastically. But what I am sure on is that this doesn't weaken the presumption of innocence, because there's absolutely no way that is consistent with the actual facts of what happened.
On the grooming gangs, let's remember what women's rights activist Ms Gohir has to say about it:
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
I'm struck by the juxtaposition of your compaign to free Chad Evans from his unjust rape conviction while compaigning for more rape convictions in Rotherham. Espcially as your familiarity with the evidence in both cases is an order of magnitude lower than those making the actual decisions.
[For the record, I think the response on Rotherham has been scandolously feeble, and is a continuing source of national shame.]
You don't see how I can support an appeal in a case where an adult women had sex with an adult man, no force or intimidation was used and the only evidence of lack of consent is her claim that she couldn't remember the night before; while also supporting a nationwide investigation of thousands of children as young as 11 being raped, blackmailed and physically tortured on an industrial scale by hundreds of individuals in town after town after town?
Re this rape discussion.. if things go on like this we will end up having to go back to emphasising the virtues of self control.. heaven forbid!
Maybe an idea would be for anyone pressing a rape charge that says they were too drunk to remember what happened/give consent should be charged with some kind of drunk & disorderly offence too, or at least put on a problem drinkers program
As I said we need a justice system where adults are forced to accept the consequences of their own irresponsibility.
Re this rape discussion.. if things go on like this we will end up having to go back to emphasising the virtues of self control.. heaven forbid!
Maybe an idea would be for anyone pressing a rape charge that says they were too drunk to remember what happened/give consent should be charged with some kind of drunk & disorderly offence too, or at least put on a problem drinkers program
But what's absurd is that huge amounts of effort is going on to change the prosecution guidelines to assume the male is guilty until he proves his innocent, to catch those borderline cases where a women has drunk too much and didn't communicate her reluctance, yet sweet FA is being done about thousands of children being raped by gangs that force them into unpaid prostitution?
Seriously, what the FUCK has gone wrong with our establishment?
And that is the problem. They simply have to say that she was a bit drunk, or she didn't know what to say and froze, and you are no longer innocent until proven guilty. You now have to prove your innocence, have your case go to trial (which can be damaging in itself), etc.
What? Who has to say that? The police? How do they know? They can't just state something like that in court as if it's gospel without saying how they came to that conclusion.
If the police want to say in court "We asked him if she froze, he said no for the following reasons but was unable to prove it."... well, they can do that but they're not going to get any convictions that way. Unless prosecutors get an appetite for failed convictions I don't know why they'd do that.
Good afternoon everyone and I see for the 2nd day in a row Shadsy has indicated things are moving from red to blue. This time its the Tory price in Southampton Itchen which is closing in on the Labour one. I look forward to seeing the rather pompous and trivial Rowenna Davis lose.
Will you vote Conservative or try and keep Thurso in place ?
I have only ever voted Tory at a GE. We don't yet have a Tory candidate and frankly I would rather keep my distant cousin as my MP than let in the separatists or the socialists. However I wont be telling anyone on here how I vote.
On the grooming gangs, let's remember what women's rights activist Ms Gohir has to say about it:
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
I'm struck by the juxtaposition of your compaign to free Chad Evans from his unjust rape conviction while compaigning for more rape convictions in Rotherham. Espcially as your familiarity with the evidence in both cases is an order of magnitude lower than those making the actual decisions.
[For the record, I think the response on Rotherham has been scandolously feeble, and is a continuing source of national shame.]
You don't see how I can support an appeal in a case where an adult women had sex with an adult man, no force or intimidation was used and the only evidence of lack of consent is her claim that she couldn't remember the night before; while also supporting a nationwide investigation of thousands of children as young as 11 being raped, blackmailed and physically tortured on an industrial scale by hundreds of individuals in town after town after town?
You really don't understand that?
Yes I can see that. That's not what I was getting at. I was tickled by your vigorous posts today mostly being a combination of defending a convicted rapist while insisting more must be done to convict rapists.
Note I've never claimed your opinion on either position is manifestly wrong. Simply amused by the juxtaposition...
I think the chances of bringing more failed cases is a worry. Today's guidance appears to be more at the investigative rather than charging stage, which makes sense since the hard facts of consent will be more relevant when charging because of the view in light of trial and the prospect of conviction test.
Just read the article about the change in rape laws. Completely disagree with the change, so much for "innocent until proven guilty".
I know there are a lot of scumbags who are "getting away with it", but this is not the answer.
It may well raise the conviction rate, but it will also raise the false conviction rate too. Except they won't be "false" in the eyes of the law, as if you cannot prove you got consent: you are guilty.
I'm also bothered by the comment about society having to change its attitudes about what constitutes rape. Actually, if the CPS wants to successfully prosecute people for rape, they are going to have go with the grain of societal attitudes, rather than seeking to challenge them, or else juries are just going acquit cases that they don't think amount to rape.
Someone has to challenge social attitudes if, as you say, we are to uphold a particular standard at law without juries acquitting. Perhaps that is the DPP's role and perhaps it isn't.
I think the chances of bringing more failed cases is a worry. Today's guidance appears to be more at the investigative rather than charging stage, which makes sense since the hard facts of consent will be more relevant when charging because of the view in light of trial and the prospect of conviction test.
I'm not really sure what societal attitudes are meant to be challenged. So far as a I can tell, most people have a fairly reasonable attitude over what constitutes rape.
I don't think there are many juries who would acquit because "she was wearing a short skirt" or "she's a slut."
Good afternoon everyone and I see for the 2nd day in a row Shadsy has indicated things are moving from red to blue. This time its the Tory price in Southampton Itchen which is closing in on the Labour one. I look forward to seeing the rather pompous and trivial Rowenna Davis lose.
Will you vote Conservative or try and keep Thurso in place ?
I have only ever voted Tory at a GE. We don't yet have a Tory candidate and frankly I would rather keep my distant cousin as my MP than let in the separatists or the socialists. However I wont be telling anyone on here how I vote.
On the grooming gangs, let's remember what women's rights activist Ms Gohir has to say about it:
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
I don't know if you remember Socrates but a few months ago I said I was giving DC the benefit of the doubt about this.
My patience is fading.
I don't know how you can believe anything dave Cameron says. From Pasties, (small lies, but not harmless) to the EU, (large lies and definitely harmful), the man cannot simply tell the truth.
Socrates: I agree with you that the silence and apparent lack of action post the Rotherham report seem baffling and shameful. I say "apparent" because there may be stuff going on behind the scenes that is not being reported.
Personally, rather than have endless inquiries I would want to see actual prosecutions.
I would agree cyclefree - We have had too few prosecutions of abusers. I think we need proper sentencing as well. If you think we should have prosecutions of officials then anyone who hides clear evidence of wrongdoing should be open to prosecution if that can be proved. Can it? The police themselves were hardly brilliant.
Pickles' investigation is indeed into whether Rotherham covered anything up. I don't think it is unusual to take some time to digest these things - not least since its results might well result in prosecutions. Lets be fair, in the past when a minister (Balls) acted in haste it resulted in massive compensation.
Agreed that where there is evidence of conspiracy / cover up there should be prosecutions. Such matters are not easy to investigate and you would need independent investigators. There may be disciplinary action you could take but, again, you need to have a robust process to avoid a Shoosmith-style debacle.
What is missing is a Minister clearly and publicly making this a priority, and giving the relevant bodies and officials regular kicks up the arses so that they get on with it. In the absence of that it's all too easy for whatever action is started to be buried under inertia etc.
Comments
And those are the ones in Rotherham, which is actually at the best end of the scale in terms of things being done. The ones in Blackpool and Bradford and Oxford must be grinning from ear to ear.
'People tell me they have heard about Rochdale and Oxford and see it as something which happens elsewhere to other people, but it is happening in Birmingham, it's happening everywhere,' she said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564678/Teenage-girl-victim-grooming-gang-raped-30-men-just-six-hours-including-father-schoolboy-son.html
As I mentioned, proof is at trial, and we are not there yet. At trial the prosecution will ave to show lack of consent. They may choose to do so by showing that the victim did not have the freedom or capacity to do so.
One needs to remember the size of the Labour majorities in Scotland.
My patience is fading.
[For the record, I think the response on Rotherham has been scandolously feeble, and is a continuing source of national shame.]
Like the guy who was convicted on the sole basis that he ejaculated inside her "without her consent"...
Fundamentally, there are not enough people with influence willing to fight the corner of the victims loudly and persistently enough that the authorities realise that they need to take action.
Politicians aren't doing anything for them either. Look at the contrast with how a lot of politicians were willing to be photographed with hacking victims, even inviting them into the room to draft legislation, and their near silence when it comes to the infinitely more serious crime of rape.
I don't know what one can do really.
Now, the guy is hauled in by the Police: "So matey - how did you know she consented? After all she was inebriated, and you were just taking advantage of her? Perhaps she just froze and couldn't say no?"
"" came the reply.
What exactly is his defence at this point?
The last implemented boundary review was based on electorates in 2000
The cancelled review was based on electorates from 2010. This review would have seen a reduction of 50 seats overall and Wales losing its over-representation. By party this was predicted to lead to 7 Con losses, 28 Lab losses, 11 LD losses and 4 losses for other parties leaving the Cons 1 short of a notional majority on the new boundaries.
Now while the last review was cancelled, to my knowledge the legislation has not been repealed. This means a new review will kick off shortly after the election based on 2015 or 2016 electorates.
Now bearing in mind there is a long term trend of electorates falling in the north and growing in the south, then it seems likely there may be a further benefit to the Tories just from demographic changes.
However, we also have the impact of individual electoral registration. This has already led to many people falling off the register (e.g. 20,000 in Cardiff) particularly affecting students who have moved. Another tranche of people who don't match up with the DSS database will be removed in December 2015.
Now bearing in mind most of the removed voters will be mainly in urban areas this promises to make the boundary review even more favourable to the Tories.
If the Tories lead a coalition (and they have any sense) then they ought to make their red lines an EU referendum and the full implementation of the boundary review and IER
If Labour lead a coalition then they could revise the legislation to go back to the old system of boundary reviews and try to undo IER. However, even that will still lead to losses for them due to demographic change. If they only have a narrow seat lead it might be tempting to try and scotch the whole review process altogether.
If you think we should have prosecutions of officials then anyone who hides clear evidence of wrongdoing should be open to prosecution if that can be proved. Can it? The police themselves were hardly brilliant.
Pickles' investigation is indeed into whether Rotherham covered anything up. I don't think it is unusual to take some time to digest these things - not least since its results might well result in prosecutions. Lets be fair, in the past when a minister (Balls) acted in haste it resulted in massive compensation.
They voted in a labour police commissioner on a desultory turnout. These people clearly do not care about mass rape in their midst.
Why don;t we just nuke South Yorkshire and start again?
The first is one that many investigating officers would have asked and are now being asked to make sure they go through this thought process, rather than just quizzing the alleged victim on how much she'd had to drink, how much she can remember, etc.
She was drunk and didn't know she was walking back to your place.
She denies inviting you into the bedroom.
How can you show you got consent?
Obviously the answer would be what anyone would say: She wasn't very drunk, she seemed in control of her actions and her decision-making didn't seem impaired. She was relaxed, gave every indication she wanted this, showed no signs of being afraid, etc., etc.
Of course you can't prove any of this, but proof is irrelevant at the stage of talking to the police because they're not a trial. Nor will your inability to prove it mean you'll be taken to court, because the police and prosecutors are aware of the presumption of innocence and know that your inability to prove this wouldn't get you found guilty. They don't want to waste court time.
Perspective Pictures @Perspective_pic · 17h17 hours ago
Paradox pic.twitter.com/LtmsHEZOgB
Ed Balls, Monday, on SNP-Lab Coalition:"No"
Not a gaffe. No really...
This is a particularly quick moving part of the law. The Assange case (considered under English law for extradition reasons) drew the conclusion that if I consent to intercourse on the basis that he will wear a condom and he doesn't, then that could be rape. The alleged victim is going to have to be pretty clear about this though.
I think then, once you're picturing a woman who cares enough to make that clear at the outset, we might just have a difference of opinion about whether she has been harmed.
If what you are saying is true, then there would have been no need for the DPP to make a big song & dance about the changes.
What do you think the changes actually, specifically, mean?
In those circumstances, to say to the Police "She didn't say no" would seem to be a reasonable reply under questioning. But, I'm not sure if the effect of the Guidance would be to treat such a reply as grounds for prosecution. That's why I'd be concerned that weak cases will end up being brought to trial, and then getting dismissed by the Judge, or the jury returning a Not Guilty verdict.
I'm also bothered by the comment about society having to change its attitudes about what constitutes rape. Actually, if the CPS wants to successfully prosecute people for rape, they are going to have go with the grain of societal attitudes, rather than seeking to challenge them, or else juries are just going acquit cases that they don't think amount to rape.
Meanwhile the rapists will continue driving around young girls to rape at will, knowing the political establishment won't touch them. Remember that one case where a 13 year old white girl was hanging out with a bunch of Pakistani men in their 30s. When a police constable started asking questions, they told him they'd report him for racial harassment and he went on his way.
This what PC culture causes. There are "oppressed classes" and "privileged classes". If you're a member of an oppressed class, you're highly likely to get away with ongoing child rape, while if you're a member of a privileged class, you'll be treated like you're guilty until proven innocent.
If the matter goes to trial they will have to show lack of consent, either the fact of consent or the freedom or capacity to do so.
Maybe an idea would be for anyone pressing a rape charge that says they were too drunk to remember what happened/give consent should be charged with some kind of drunk & disorderly offence too, or at least put on a problem drinkers program
But nothing to worry about for the PC brigade of course. Men are a privileged class. Any male has nothing to complain about after riding that privilege for years.
I think the chances of bringing more failed cases is a worry. Today's guidance appears to be more at the investigative rather than charging stage, which makes sense since the hard facts of consent will be more relevant when charging because of the view in light of trial and the prospect of conviction test.
In truth that was me [yesterday] clicking twice on a Conservative price and once on a Labour one. So the previous 100% pie chart was based on all of one click-through.
And that is the problem. They simply have to say that she was a bit drunk, or she didn't know what to say and froze, and you are no longer innocent until proven guilty. You now have to prove your innocence, have your case go to trial (which can be damaging in itself), etc.
The point is that it's generally useful to ask suspects of crimes relevant questions. At best people can incriminate themselves, at worst it gives a clearer picture of what everybody's story is. If the suspect gets very vague or evasive about how in control the complainant was, or whether she showed any signs of not being into what was happening, that could be helpful to the police.
The only way this would be completely useless is if:
1. Nobody in the police force ever fails to consider cases where the issue of consent is more complex than "no means no".
2. Suspects never incriminate themselves through ignorance or carelessness.
3. Suspects are always good enough liars that their false stories are completely believed by the police and don't raise suspicions.
That's mostly speculation on my part, but there certainly seems like enough room that this guidance could be useful, even if not drastically. But what I am sure on is that this doesn't weaken the presumption of innocence, because there's absolutely no way that is consistent with the actual facts of what happened.
You really don't understand that?
Seriously, what the FUCK has gone wrong with our establishment?
If the police want to say in court "We asked him if she froze, he said no for the following reasons but was unable to prove it."... well, they can do that but they're not going to get any convictions that way. Unless prosecutors get an appetite for failed convictions I don't know why they'd do that.
Note I've never claimed your opinion on either position is manifestly wrong. Simply amused by the juxtaposition...
You really don't understand that?
What is missing is a Minister clearly and publicly making this a priority, and giving the relevant bodies and officials regular kicks up the arses so that they get on with it. In the absence of that it's all too easy for whatever action is started to be buried under inertia etc.