We have had some cracking redefinitions of the infamous crime of Rape recently. These cases may be increasing the Police rate of detection of a  crime where it can be notoriously difficult to find the perpetrator, but they will do nothing to convince the general public that Rape is, or should be considered a very serious crime.

First we had the woman walking her dog in the park who was invited to perform a sex act on a man who merely ‘told her’ he had a knife, she did so and then pushed him away and duly reported a ‘Rape’.

Today we have what originally sounded a terrible experience:

She said he pushed her back onto the bed, tried to force open her legs, and that she feared she was going to be raped.

She said she managed to fight her way free but was pulled back and they “had a bit of a scuffle” before she fled down the stairs.

After twice being put in a headlock and escaping, the woman said she finally got out of a downstairs window virtually naked and ran barefoot all the way home.

She had my sympathy immediately; a terrifying experience – how did he manage to drag her into the house – was she walking her dog on what should have been a safe street?

Ah!

The jury at Teesside Crown Court has been told that the pair met in Middlesbrough town centre and arranged to go to Mr Massey’s home.

Why? Ah!

The alleged victim, a prostitute, said she refused to offer further services without more cash after his initial £40 for the agreed 20 minutes was up. After his arrest, Mr Massey said they had agreed full sex, but he had second thoughts during their meeting and asked for a refund.

There seem to be a number of offences there, but Rape? Even attempted Rape?

Then we have the girl in Oxfordshire who attended a party in Gaggingwell (Ed. try to avoid puns if possible) who entered a portable toilet accompanied by two men. She then proceeded to kiss them both. She alleges that they then raped her by asking her to perform a sex act on one of them.

Describing the alleged sex act, Mr Woods said: “He (Blacker) either invited it in terms or, at the very least, hinted at you that’s what he wanted you to do.”

The girl said: “No, but I don’t know. He didn’t ask me.”

Kevin Barry, prosecuting, said: “Did you want it to happen?”

“No, not at all,” replied the girl.

“Did you ask them to allow you to leave?”

She answered: “I don’t know, I just wasn’t thinking.”

Asked why she did not call out for help she said: “I just didn’t know what they would do if I did. I didn’t know them, I didn’t know what they’re capable of.”

In both cases the men have been named and shamed as ‘alleged rapists’ by their local paper – in neither case is the female named.

This is not only terribly unfair on the men concerned, it demeans the word rape, and demeaning the meaning of rape does no woman any good.

Does anybody know when and why the Police started to redefine Rape?

John P Reid August 27, 2010 at 11:56

lilith ,thats not true ,you have to put the keys in the ignition even if
you don’t turn the car on.

Lilith August 30, 2010 at 18:31

Sadly, it is true. I know a young man who did just as I described and he
got a years ban.

Lilith August 25, 2010 at 19:03

If you go to your car to pick up your fags, and you have had a drink, you
can be arrested and charged and banned…for drink driving. All you have to do
is touch the car.

mike power August 25, 2010 at 18:39

I suppose you could have Googled it but nevermind, it’s the Sexual Offences
Act 2003
It was parliament that made the changes, not the police (or
“crop-haired types”).
Details here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

Penetration, by the penis of the vagina, anus or mouth.

Incidentally, if you try and rob a bank by telling the cashier you have a
gun in your pocket you will be charged with armed robbery, whether you
actually have a gun or not.

Anna
Raccoon August 25, 2010 at 19:20

I take your point Mike about when the law changed, but the cases seem to
be suddenly prolific, which sugests a change in the willingess of the CPS to
prosecute or the police to ask them to.

Ancient and Tattered
Airman August 25, 2010 at 20:47

And then there are those who claim that we live in a police state!

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. – Tacitus
(55-117 A.D.)

mike power
August 27, 2010 at 12:50

If you are right and these cases are more profilic it’s because there
are more men out there going around attacking women by f****** them in the
mouth or, as you prefer to put it, being “invited” to perorm a little
non-serious fellatio.

JuliaM August
26, 2010 at 05:35

“It was parliament that made the changes, not the police (or

mike power
August 27, 2010 at 12:47

Well,, when you, your mother, sister or daughter gets dragged into an
alleway and f****** up the a**e you’ll insist they don’t press charges of
rape against the guy. I’m sure the victim will appreciate the
distinction.

Kingbingo
August 27, 2010 at 14:46

Well Mike, If my mother was with a client and she checked her watch
to discover time was up and insisted on more cash before running off I
would expect that to be treated as more of a civil contract matter than
diverting police resources away from investigating my sister getting
pulled into an alley.

Which as you describe would actually be a real rape. Rather than this
rebranded bullshit Anna describes.

Roger Zanker
August 25, 2010 at 18:21

Apprarantly all men are rapists it just some of us have not got round to it
yet.

Joe Public
August 25, 2010 at 19:53

Ms Harman, envious of the existing ability to prosecute in relation to
theft – “going equipped”, would probably have liked to extend it to other
sexual crimes.

Eleanor August 26, 2010 at 09:08

I heard that one a long time ago.

I worked for a Rape Crisis Line once. Briefly.

Calfy August 25, 2010 at 18:20

In that case you described that doesn’t include attempted rape… I don’t get
why not. Because she voluntarily entered his house? Because she’s a
prostitute? Because she had had consensual sex with him previously?
So any
woman who is a prostitute going into a man’s house when she has previously had
sex with him cannot be raped? She … owes him sex? Deserves to be forced? I
just don’t get it.
Or are you saying that it might be rape, but not
deserving of taking to the criminal court? That any woman increasing her
chances of being raped (going into a man’s house, going out drinking in a
short skirt, leaving her hair or face or ankles uncovered) loses her right to
prosecute?

Anna
Raccoon August 25, 2010 at 19:18

No Calfy I am absolutely not saying that if you are a prostitute you are
not entitled to protection from the law of rape. I am saying that if you are
in the middle of a consensual and paid sexual act and you glance at your
watch and say -’times up – that’sll be another

Specky August 25, 2010 at 17:03

“Does anybody know when and why the Police started to redefine Rape?”

Probably when some “crop haired” type who wears blokes shoes wrote an
article about it in the Gauardian.
Then some “crop haired” type who wears
blokes shoes told her Haridan mate in the last Labour cabinet .
Just a wild
guess really !

Jeremy Poynton
August 25, 2010 at 16:38

Um. At around the same time as the RSPCA started undertaking investigations
on behalf of the “authorities”? (Squirrel drowning farrago)

Wayne Barrowboy
August 25, 2010 at 16:33

Looks like something out of 1984 to me!

After all, if you pull over into a layby, put your handbreak on and take
phone call but the engine is still running, you are officially in a “moving”
vehicle.

If they can change that simple definition with “newspeak”, obviously they
can change any definition they like.

More men in the dock, named before they are even charged, whilst the woman
involved is protected – complete bullshit!

Dig for Victory
August 25, 2010 at 17:15

Listening to R4 has made me realise how outdated my understanding of the
word ‘Charity’ has become.

formertory
August 26, 2010 at 13:28

In a parked-but-moving vehicle which for the purposes of the Violent
Crime Reduction Act 2006 is a public place, even if it’s locked.

JuliaM August 25,
2010 at 16:16

Brian beat me to it…

I’m not sure why the police were so eager to acquiesce though – surely,
cases like this are only going to drive the conviction stats down even
further?

Brian August 25, 2010 at 16:13

The answer’s in here. Probably.