When Yes Means No
A Victorian man denied his conjugal rights by his Victorian wife finally snaps and takes possession of his property in a manner the law tells him he is perfectly entitled to. From her perspective, it is not a marriage of love, but one of convenience; he, on the other hand, loves her without owning the necessary emotional language to express it. When she frustrates him beyond his tolerance threshold by taking a lover, fevered jealousy and passion overcome him and he rapes her.
A pivotal scene in the 1967 BBC dramatisation of John Galsworthy’s ‘The Forsyte Saga’ as the character of Soames forcibly took what his wife Irene refused to give him as part of her wifely duties helped make the epic 26-part series true water-cooler television before water-coolers were even commonplace workplace items. The actual scene itself is brutal without being explicit; Soames rips away Irene’s blouse and the camera cuts to a toothless old hag turning a barrel-organ in the street below during the act; when we return to the Forsyte bedchamber, the camera pans from a weeping Irene to a stunned Soames, horrified at what he has been reduced to. More interestingly from a distance of almost fifty years, the nation was divided between those who sympathised with the predicament of Soames and those who sympathised with the predicament of Irene. A vox-pops survey of the Great British public screened as a ‘Late Night Line-Up’ debate on the contentious scene saw a remarkable degree of support for Soames from both sexes, with their argument being that Irene should have done her duty all along and she would have been spared the rape. It’s hard to imagine any support for this opinion in 2015.
Marital rape was not recognised as an offence in English law until 1991 – more than a full century after the fictional sexual assault by Soames on Irene was supposed to have taken place. Rape was only given its first statutory definition in England and Wales as recent as 1976, having previously been classified as an offence of felony under common law; but rape within marriage remained exempt from criminal charges for another fifteen years. Perhaps the final lingering element of an age when a husband possessed his spouse absolutely, the belated removal of this exemption was part of a series of changes to the sexual offence laws that followed.
A notorious BBC ‘fly on the wall’ documentary on the police in the early 1980s included a sequence in which a woman alleging she had been raped was grilled by a couple of ‘Sweeney’-like detectives whose responses to her account were seen from her viewpoint. They came across as intimidating, unsympathetic bullies and the impact on the perception of the public as to how the police treated victims of sexual crimes was seismic. At the time, men convicted of rape could still escape a prison sentence and instead receive a fine. Until 1994, rape was legally defined as non-consensual vaginal intercourse; sodomy was covered by another law. Changes in the law to include anal as well as vaginal penetration also saw the term ‘male-rape’ included in the new definition, to replace the antiquated offence of buggery. Fast forward another decade and oral penetration was added to the list of rape definitions.
Rape itself had long been regarded as sexual assault, though other classifications of sexual assault were not regarded as rape. There was a clear legal distinction between an offence such as groping and forcible vaginal or anal intercourse. By the dawn of the twenty-first century, however, the law appeared to be heading towards a full-scale redefinition so that all crimes of sexual assault could fall under the umbrella of rape. Germaine Greer once argued that rape should not be regarded as sexual assault as she saw it as more an act of physical violence designed to dehumanise one’s opponent, something that had little to do with the sexual act. The fact that one of the first weapons of war employed by an invading army since time immemorial has been the systematic rape of the conquered would appear to validate her argument. It puts the subjugated firmly in their place, something that seems a more plausible explanation for this perennial military movement than the ridiculous image of a thousand randy soldiers seeking to get their end away before actually ensuring the enemy has been crushed.
For a woman – or man in male-rape cases – to stand up in court and confront the accused has never been something that could be approached lightly. To guarantee their client walks away a free man, a defence barrister will naturally stop at nothing to paint the complainant in the worst possible light to the jury; the onus is on the defence not to merely portray the defendant as the injured party, but to completely trash the credibility of the accuser. This has always been an accepted aspect of the process and can understandably be a traumatic experience for the accuser almost on a par with the original alleged offence itself. In recent years, however, the legal equilibrium between complainant and defendant has been gradually tilted in favour of the former, with the introduction of witnesses giving evidence via video links and from behind screens, innovations designed with vulnerable children in mind, not grown men or women. Does this feel like a fair trial from the point of view of the defendant? What if he were allowed to adopt such measures in order to be spared the sight of the prosecution barrister ripping him to shreds as the eyes of the gathered court observed this assault? Hardly likely, but surely if one side can be granted this privilege, then the other should be as well.
This week, the pygmy Deirdre Barlow of the legal profession, Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, announced that proposals were underway so that ‘No means No’ in a rape case was no longer a feasible concept. In future, men will have to prove a woman gave her consent before they engaged in any form of sexual contact with her.
When a defendant argues a complainant did give her consent, what else can he possibly do to prove she did other than state this as fact? Unless he had a small tape-recorder or spycam on his person when she agreed to spread her legs, I don’t see how he can do more than give his word as proof. It is up to the prosecution to cast doubt upon his word, not the absence of physical evidence that he is telling the truth. Must a man now produce a form that his potential ‘victim’ has to sign before they jump into bed? Must she state she is not under the influence of alcohol, thus guaranteeing her judgement was not impaired at the moment she dropped her knickers? How many of us, I wonder, are here now because our mothers were up for it after having downed a few too many Babychams and our fathers thought all their Christmases had come at once? Quite a few, I should imagine, especially those of us conceived before the marital knot was tied.
Of course rape is bloody horrible, a repugnant act of physical violation that has psychological repercussions for years, and those genuinely guilty of it deserve everything the law is equipped to throw at them. Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined rape as ‘Violent defloration of chastity’, but is goosing a backside the violent defloration of chastity? Is groping a breast the violent defloration of chastity? Both can be regarded as unpleasant acts of sexual assault if the recipient of the goose and the grope (sorry, sounds like a Georgian inn) didn’t desire either. But neither is on the same level as forcibly penetrating a vagina or an anus. And the only way anyone accused of any of these offences can persuade everyone not present at the time of the alleged offence that they committed no offence is to stand in a court of law and face their accuser without an advantage being given to either side. That is what justice is supposed to be, isn’t it?
Petunia Winegum
-
January 30, 2015 at 9:47 am -
It is an established anthropological fact that as a man I am partially driven by a biological urge to reproduce and pass my genes on to another generation. That’s why I’ll seek sexual intercourse with as many potentially fertile partners as possible.
Studies have also shown that the urge of a woman to flaunt her sexual availability with skimpy clothing and flirtatious behaviour increases the further along her menstrual cycle she is – she’s fertile and her own biological urge is to maximise that opportunity.
Society has quite rightly established that any man who physically forces a woman into an act against her will is a criminal and requires punishment. But if I have sex with a woman who has advertised her availability to me and freely allowed the act to happen I am simply behaving as any species on the planet would. I am not in any sense of the word a rapist just because the woman has decided the next day that her biological urges were not compatible with her dignity.
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:30 am -
Beer goggles have a lot to answer for and seem to be costing more as time goes by.
-
January 30, 2015 at 1:21 pm -
A reductionist argument – from “is” to “ought” – resulting in subhuman immorality.
-
January 30, 2015 at 7:52 pm -
This link is one that was on the LA Alliance.
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-rape-law-turned-head-suspects-will-prove-innocence/
It contains the following:
“As a lawyer, however, I do have a problem with it. This change means there will be a different test at investigation stage to that administered by the jury at trial. At investigation stage, the defendant is asked how he knew the woman consented, implying the burden is on him to prove his innocence. But at trial, the jury will be directed that it is the Crown that must make them sure that the defendant did not reasonably believe there was consent. The defendant does not have to prove anything.
This gulf can only end in tears. It could result in allegations of rape being charged and brought to trial where there is no realistic prospect of conviction (the test that the DPP must apply). As such, victims of rape are being set up to give evidence in weak cases and will face challenging cross-examination from the defendant, as is his right. Should this happen Ms Saunders only has herself to blame.”
Saunders needs to be sacked without compensation and her pension confiscated.
-
January 30, 2015 at 8:14 pm -
Don’t know what Alison Saunders problem is, after all she’ll never be raped
-
January 30, 2015 at 9:10 pm -
Why not? The point being stressed here (more than once) is that rape is about the assertion of power. Just because Saunders doesn’t look like Sheryl Cole doesn’t mean she’s immune from it.
-
January 31, 2015 at 8:37 am -
Re: your reference to Germaine Greer who I think must shudder at the actions of today’s alleged ‘feminists’- she also says it is ridiculous that a rape victim should remain anonymous as that is society in an act of schizophrenia telling the victim they have something to be ashamed of, and the rapist at the same time having power over his/her victim by silencing them on an important aspect of their life.
Greer says a victim should be able to shout it form the rooftops that they have been raped.# also your reference to the documentary and the police grilling the victim : one reason I have always hated false accusations with a vengeance is because of a family incident. A young male relative was accused of assaulting a 18 year old boy/man 30 years ago in London. As I was the only relative with any experience of a police station I was summonsed to his aid.
By the time I got to the West End police station the accuser had already confessed- after police stiff questioning- that his false claim was part of a blackmail plot. My relative was released after 5 hours in a cell during which time he looked about for ways to commit suicide.
Now in his 50s it took the best part of 20 years to recover but he has never allowed himself to be relaxed in social situations since and although married never ever allows himself to be alone with one other person he does not know, male or female.
The falsely accused suffer horrendously and the false accuser?..in this case my relative declined the detectives offer to pursue a blackmail charge stating he would not give evidence as the whole incident had terrified him and he wanted to forget.I hate to think of what other falsely accused people go through.
-
January 31, 2015 at 11:08 am -
That’s the thing violent rape ie the sort of loon who puts on a ski mask and holds a knife to a women’s throat is about power, but two people getting drunk and ending up in bed isn’t . Drunken woman sometimes initiate sex, the inhibitions have been removed by alcohol and the animal instinct to breed takes over. Some women really enjoy sex and the power it has over men. Trouble is the next morning tired with a hangover if the parties can’t remember what went on and the man gets arrested and steamrollered over by the police he can easily end up on a rape charge with the terrible consequences of that, when in fact it was entirely consensual. That’s would be a travesty of justice.
-
January 31, 2015 at 11:40 am -
@AdrianS …. and the power it has over men.
I think you have a potentially valuable point …..and it may go something along these lines.
Some may see the sexual act in terms of power …..and those that do may see it in terms of surrender/conquest of one party to another …..the male masked rapist for instance …..but what of the female equivalent if there is one …..might that be the scalphunter for want of a better word ? What of the scalphunter who thinks they will take the scalp once the bedsheets close over but next morning sees that there was no scalp taken but rather the other way around and it was the male who took the scalphunters scalp ?
Celebrity might heighten this sense of loosing and give rise to frustration, self loathing and confusion that needs to be assuage whatever the cost to others .
I am honestly not suggesting a common thread in all cases ….there can be no excuse for irresponsibility or lack of respect ….I would go further to suggest that power (and less still its uglier sister violence) has any healthy part to play in any personal relationships whether sexual or otherwise …..from either party. -
January 31, 2015 at 2:49 pm
-
-
January 31, 2015 at 12:12 pm -
One of the few times I felt genuine sadness for someone from Duncroft was a woman who was quoted in the newspapers as having been at the Clunk-Click shows but not being aware of any of the goings-on (God knows how she could not have been aware if the stories had been true!). She then went on to add that for the first time in her life she felt lucky that she had not been a pretty girl and so had escaped untouched. If anything demonstrates the fifty shades of sickness in the psyche of the female, that must have been it.
Many times in the years since Womens Lib turned into Womens Libertinism I have wondered if it is not Men who need to be re-programmed but rather the female of the species.
-
January 31, 2015 at 1:09 pm -
@ Moor Larkin
Re Programmed ??? Gosh what a funny word to use and one that I have always considered has rather sinister utopian/dystopian connotations …..do you want to stand by it?-
January 31, 2015 at 1:21 pm -
Buddy, I can’t spare the time
-
January 31, 2015 at 1:36 pm -
Busy with other things eh John
-
January 31, 2015 at 1:37 pm -
Sorry mea culpa Moor isn’t it?
-
January 31, 2015 at 1:38 pm -
Think you need to get out moor buddy.
The exercise might make you SlimJim…
-
January 31, 2015 at 1:57 pm -
Moor/John I have noticed your extensive (pervasive?) presence on the web posting under the Nom de Guerre of Moor Larkin……others have also ….it appears to be something of a full time occupation for you ….perhaps like John who accused me of being a wanker …..perhaps when one points a finger at someone else one points one points four at oneself …
-
January 31, 2015 at 2:28 pm -
Eh Moor/John
Time to advise me to exercise but not adequate time to reconsider your so revealing use of the word re programming? -
January 31, 2015 at 7:32 pm -
I believe my extensive presence is simply due to only ever posting as Moor Larkin and being very fond of typing… But now I can see what’s bugging you. “John Galt”, looking down the Roll, appears to me, to have been responding to this comment by Windsock, not to you. Always best to look around if you have a mote in both eyes.
windsock January 30, 2015 at 11:36 am
Ask him why his arms are conveniently long enough to reach his genitals?Je Suis Moor Larkin…
-
February 1, 2015 at 8:14 am -
Uncle Petunia made reference to the film ‘The Offence’ recently …..the Policeman not quite able to keep to the rules, worn down confused and consumed with loathing …..his life subsumed and ultimately given up to the filth with which he had to deal …..and of course the ultimate effect on him.You might usefully watch that film its way more educative than Mr Polly.
Well Moor gotta say there what with name shifting individuals and accusations of a personal and sexual nature this forum starts to seem a little bit like I imagine Friends United to have been and we all know the outcome that has produced. Age and experience tells me when the game is not worth the candle and the circumstances that have tied me to my computer for the past few years and from which this forum has provided such welcome distraction are drawing to a satisfactory conclusion so time I have concluded to sink the dregs of my last pint …..thank the landlady …..Anna you are an exceptional person and a brilliant wordsmith …..the only time I found your prose was inadequate was when you described your parents recently as ‘lousy’ but words must sometime fail even those most skilful with them when circumstances have too great a personal enormity…..and wish you all that I believe you to deserve.
Thanks also Gildas ….good fortune and cuddle the kitties… and thanks also Uncle Petunia…. dare I say the mill of tertiary education might have taken more than it might have given you …..Cheers also windsock and blocked dwarf …in both cases your raw but not self seeking and self soothing emotion has that authenticity that elicits nothing but respect from me. -
February 1, 2015 at 9:47 am -
Well I’m not flouncing off buddy.
Be seeing you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 9:57 am -
The first time I was made aware of ‘rape’ was as a 12 year old virgin watching the fallout of the violent rape of Sheila Grant played out on Brookside. I remember thinking about the mechanics of the crime, being disgusted and wondering ‘why would any man want to do that’? Since then I have never been able to grasp why any man would want to use sex as a weapon. I then watched the story pan out as one of her close family friends was wrongly accused of the offence, and the fallout and reactions from that.
It struck me that there can be few things worse for any man than to be wrongly accused of such an offence – the stigma, the inability to prove innocence in the face of the charge other than “I wasn’t there, I didn’t do it”. It reminded me of the sense of injustice I felt when, as a 3 year old, a brother & sister on holiday had told my parents I had hit them when I had not. Horrible.It has also struck me recently that in the 21st Century Brookside would be admonished for depicting ‘rape’ as a violent attack on a woman as the drive is to depict any male-female sex as ‘rape’ – and treat the ‘rapist’ as they would a Jack The Ripper/Peter Sutcliffe type. Rape is all around us, and all men would do it given half the chance – that is the message sent out by the forces of oppression (Orwellian doublespeak at work, this “empowers” people). The announcement from the CPS is the end of product of lots of twisting & contorting of statistics, years of sexualised (yet unerotic) imagery being pumped at the masses through the popular media and – finally – one of the main reasons “The Savile Scandal” was manufactured.
And, strangely enough, what it has done for me is to make women and sex in general seem such an unappealing prospect, I can’t be bothered with it anymore. http://retardedkingdom.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/2012.html
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:30 am -
And, strangely enough, what it has done for me is to make women and sex in general seem such an unappealing prospect, I can’t be bothered with it anymore.
Although this is still a very minority position, should the legally enforced misandry of Alison Saunders and the like gain significant sway then expect to see the Japanese-style Sōshoku-kei danshi (Herbivore men) growing in the UK. It might seem ridiculous, but when a man can be thrown in jail on the mere accusation of a woman, an accusation against which there is no reasonable defence, then it should surprise no-one that some proportion of men (and a growing number it would seem), simply cut women out of their lives altogether.
The only beneficiaries of this would seem to be the Gramsican cultural Marxists who wish to destroy all institutions that exist outside of the state. From such tiny acorns are demographic time-bombs made.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:44 pm -
“The only beneficiaries of this would seem to be the Gramsican cultural Marxists who wish to destroy all institutions that exist outside of the state. ”
From their point of view, would that be a feature or a bug?
-
January 30, 2015 at 8:17 pm -
Just use Escorts, fixed price, agreed time,no phoning you up late at night in tears, no moods, and no hissy fits about you watching the football
-
January 30, 2015 at 8:31 pm -
Given that the ‘tin-foil hat merchants’ have in the past been brushed off when pointing out the dangers inherent in actual and proposed legislation, and the like, by the ‘That will never happen’ brigade, when then you then look back and see how much has been extrapolated from so little by so few with such great influence to get us where we are today, maybe it might be wise to have a little think about what might happen over a 5 to ten year period, by those with vested interests and other agenda, in their interpreting of
‘New guidance also covers domestic violence situations and those where “the complainant may be financially or otherwise dependent on their alleged rapist”.’…
especially when the one ‘wronged’ does not need to be the complainant.
Don’t count on those chicks always being there when needed
-
January 30, 2015 at 9:52 pm -
Adrian, why do you think the same group of harridans want to criminalise men who buy sex, whilst ignoring women who sell it…
-
January 31, 2015 at 11:18 am -
I know it’s terrible and it fails to recognise that some men naturally want sex, it’s one of our most basic urges. It’s bizarre homosexuals are given all sorts of protections , but ordinary Joe who wants sex with a woman , all hands thrown in the air in horror by the feminazis. If I like music, theatre , food I can go out and buy something without a problem, if you like sex the feminazis don’t want you to have it, it’s their power trip.
Prostituion should be legalised, regulated and it could then be taxed and provide much better protection for sex workers . Those that have addictions and other problems could be given proper help.
-
-
January 31, 2015 at 2:13 am -
No that will not do.
We have the current claims about prince Andrew from a woman who was happy to be described as a “prostitute” in her paid-for interview in the Daily Mail in 2011 in which she also boasted of the money she made including $15,000 for one night.
By 2013 she had been “seduced” by various men including Andrew but by 2014 she was a “sex slave”.Plus rent boys are now re-writing their history as ‘victims’. This could be the new pension scheme for ex-hookers. I was in reality a ‘sex slave’.
Show me the (compo) money!
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:35 am -
> the inability to prove innocence in the face of the charge
This is why the whole thing is wrong and flies in the face of a thousand years of common law.
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:45 am -
@ Chris And, strangely enough, what it has done for me is to make women and sex in general seem such an unappealing prospect, I can’t be bothered with it anymore.
To which I suggest you urgently apply the maxim Illegitimi non carborundum a mock-Latin aphorism meaning “Don’t let the bastards grind you down’.
The age old solution for a man is to find a good wife (no man or woman is perfect but some are not entirely self centred and self serving) and seek happiness together …….and exclude as many of the distractions the world might seek to take from that happiness as you can.
The pygmies of the world have little of value to offer save to those who see their stature as larger than it really is.
May sound trite, isolationist, self satisfied even dull and old fashioned though those who have experienced it (rather than just critiquing it) might opine otherwise.
Its a solution though possibly not for everyone but for those for whom its not a solution it might be wiser (and less harmful) if they didn’t denigrate it for all others …..not everyone in life sees, wishes to see, or must be compelled to see the world only from the perspective of a pygmie-
January 30, 2015 at 10:53 am -
* The age old solution for a man is to find a good wife (no man or woman is perfect but some are not entirely self centred and self serving) and seek happiness together *
Like Mr. Polly perhaps…
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:59 am -
I lack sufficient depth of cultural knowledge to catch your reference to Mr Polly, Moor, so please educate me
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:05 am -
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:20 am -
Ahhh Moor I thought you wouldn’t resist the invitation to educate me ….THAT Mr Polly…. Well’s Mr Polly … H.G. Well’s Mr Polly ….H.G. Wells that ‘great’ Social engineer who many commentators consider an architect for the dystopian elements in Society that some think predicate the existence of a New World Order…..no that wasn’t what I had in mind when I suggested Chris not to give up and give in …..my suggestion was to look to History and Traditionalism and not to those who trash it and urge embracing a Brave New World and rubbish those who draw on history and tradition.
But I see your perspective on traditionalism-
January 30, 2015 at 11:23 am -
War of the Worlds buddy…
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:29 am -
And much else besides of a less obvious nature …..and War of the Worlds can be read on many levels not just as exciting science fiction.
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:34 am -
Oh and Fat Steve please rather than buddy ….I am traumatised by insufficient respect
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:30 am -
Illegitimi non carborundum
Yes, but what advice do you offer to the young unattached male in desperate need of grinding who doesn’t care about the parentage of said grinder?
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:32 am -
You need to sharpen up, son?
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:35 am -
Too cutting.
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:37 am -
That’s MGM for you….
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:36 am -
Ask him why his arms are conveniently long enough to reach his genitals?
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:46 am -
@ Anna Raccoon Yes, but what advice do you offer to the young unattached male in desperate need of grinding who doesn’t care about the parentage of said grinder?
I confess traumatic shock at the indelicacy inherent in your suggestion ….to which I retort Mother palm and her five daughters if there are insufficient funds to seek legal advice and the cost of adequate water tight documentation (in addition to the cost of the tools of seduction) to seek less solitary means of consolation-
January 30, 2015 at 12:15 pm -
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:23 pm -
Thanks John if your remark was directed to me though the thrust of my argument has been other than into my own hand
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:36 pm -
Oh and if I recollect John Galt (your chosen Nom de Guerre) was a pretty solitary kind of guy ….and if you research the basis upon which his character may be based you might find the model is not quite all it may seem…..so loads of happy hours solitary enjoyment ahead of you John …..enjoy!!!!
-
January 30, 2015 at 1:18 pm -
Little disappointed you haven’t risen to the bait John and just as others cannot the resist to educate me neither can I (I confess my humanity even if it is not implicit in my nom de Guerre …unlike some?)
It is thought John Galt was……
Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of a 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation.
Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman.
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman?….His sociopathic qualities.
“Other people do not exist for him; and he does not see why they should,” she wrote,
gushing that Hickman had “no regret whatsoever for all that society holds sacred,
and with a consciousness all his own.. He has the true innate psychology of a Superman.
He can never realize and feel other people.”-
January 30, 2015 at 1:29 pm -
So to complete both your and Moors literary education for the moment (Wells in Moors Case, Rand in yours) that there is rather more to prose than simply the bare written word and it might be wise to look a little further than the obvious …..like many things perhaps…… for the gullible are easily led as well I know
-
January 30, 2015 at 1:45 pm -
Sorry to spoil your potential hours of solitary intellectual fun in spilling the beans to you on your nom de guerre but no doubt you will fill the hours with the sort of solitary pleasure that you seem to think others such as myself indulge in.
-
January 31, 2015 at 11:09 am -
Oh John one last observation apart from sharing a rather less than compendious knowledge of literature with Moor you share a similar passion for the use of the smiley face on occasion ……a quick flip back through the archives appears to evidence this (I noted it first in Moors comments on the article of 31st December)
Do you remember those spoofs in Private Eye where there were pictures of unconnected individuals with the caption to the effect that ‘we should be told’ …..my observation possibly no more relevant than that.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 9:59 am -
So, my lovely snuggle-bunny, before we begin could you just tick the relevant boxes 1 through 17, sign here, here, here and um, here and just initial in these three places…..
Doubtless the femiwonks will accuse me of trivialising the issue, but methinks that that is what they are doing.
Next will be the whines about men ‘not wanting to commit’, ‘where are all the good men’ etc.-
January 30, 2015 at 10:18 am -
But the absence of any independent witness still leaves you open to suggestions that the ‘tick-box official consent form’ was forged.
Should you choose to forego the wise employment of observer(s) for the full duration of the act from request to relief, then I fear your only recourse will be to technology, thus every act of congress should now be digitally recorded in sound and vision, the resultant content being stored on the ‘cloud’ in order that it will be permanently available as evidence, should your coitus-partner later reflect on the process and maintain that her consent was not fully obtained to all the constituent parts of the act.
I look forward to the tricky challenge of negotiating this cinema-verite at every new opportunity. -
January 30, 2015 at 10:30 am -
Next will be…
No. Next up will be the banning of the wrong sort of erotic literature. Having taken great strides in putting the men in their place, their next step will be the more interesting, and even more revolutionary, one, the point at which they start to save the sisters from themselves.
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:10 am -
A vox-pops survey of the Great British public screened as a ‘Late Night Line-Up’ debate on the contentious scene saw a remarkable degree of support for Soames from both sexes, with their argument being that Irene should have done her duty all along and she would have been spared the rape. It’s hard to imagine any support for this opinion in 2015.
Just because very few (admittedly male) would publicly support this position in 2015 doesn’t mean they don’t privately agree.
The withholding of sex has always been a feminine, rather than a masculine aspect of character to bring a man into line or to get him to do what he wouldn’t do of his own volition. Although we live in a more enlightened age than that presented by ‘The Forsyte Saga’, doesn’t mean that the same old bullshit doesn’t go on.
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:29 am -
“Personal Services”, Julie Walters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-NnHO10IHE
Watch from the beginning until about 1.42. Priceless.
-
January 31, 2015 at 8:35 am -
Not only priceless, but educational.
I’ve just turned 72 and have to admit to learning a few new ‘down to earth’ expressions there.
English is such a colourful language is it not?
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:12 am -
Those cunts at Women Against Rape won’t be satisfied with this change, that’s for sure, but a few points, it has never been legal in England for a man to violate his wife; it’s just that it was never called rape.
The fly on the wall documentary you mentioned tells only half the truth; men accused of rape received no less a rough ride, and doubtless a few had confessions beaten out of them or were verballed up before PACE.
The use of screens is clearly prejudicial, and should not be permitted.
And tearing an accusing woman to shreds has never been advisable. Recently I rewatched the 1976 film “Lipstick”; here is my review:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074802/reviews-36
the soap “Eastenders” is currently peddling the same poison; I have discussed the feminist rape narrative in my recent Bill Cosby video, and plan to make a more detailed analysis of “rape myths” later in the year. Should I live long enough.
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:13 am -
“This week, the pygmy Deirdre Barlow of the legal profession, Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, announced that proposals were underway so that ‘No means No’ in a rape case was no longer a feasible concept. In future, men will have to prove a woman gave her consent before they engaged in any form of sexual contact with her”.
Reversing the burden of proof? That’s an interesting concept, wholly contrary to God knows how many hundreds of years of legal practice, and and I should add, against your (often abominably interpreted and ubiquitous) “Yuman Rights”. An astonishing, politically driven, misconceived. monster of a policy.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:45 pm -
“Reversing the burden of proof? That’s an interesting concept, wholly contrary to God knows how many hundreds of years of legal practice…”
Remember the right to silence or double jeopardy?
In getting rid of a centuries-old legal safeguard it helps to have a mourning figurehead of an appropriate suit in victimhood poker, but give it time.
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:37 am -
Yes indeed, welcome to the new, improved justice! Ain’t it great?
Unless you’re a man. Or have a son, or a brother. But then, these chip-on-shoulder activist types never do, do they?
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:38 am -
Dear Petunia,
“The fact that one of the first weapons of war employed by an invading army since time immemorial has been the systematic rape of the conquered would appear to validate her argument.”
It’s easy enough to write something like this, and even easier to nod wisely as one reads it. But might it be worth a second look?
…one of the first weapons..?
…time immemorial…?
…systematic…?
Was history written by the victims?
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:45 am -
Well, funny you should mention it, but often, yes, it is! The Bible to go no further, gives many examples both of the Israelites kicking arse and the contrary when the Medes and Phillistines gave them a drubbing. We also have plenty of witness accounts from the Germans regarding Russian atrocities after WW2 and apparently also plenty of Tommies and Yanks being caught bending.
It is also true that the conquerors were until recently given to boasting of their exploits , try the Illiad for a sample, or the stories of Tacitus or Scipio. -
January 30, 2015 at 12:41 pm
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:48 am -
Don’t have casual sex and everything should be fine so far as I can see. Men need to learn to say no otherwise it is quite likely that sooner or later they will be taken advantage of. I was always appalled by the flippant manner in which some of my friends would sleep with a girl on a first date, or even a first dance. Where is your pride Men?
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:48 am -
Come on Moor, how many complaints against Jim were there, where he was not even in the woman’s presence? This guidance is exactly what the Savile fiasco was about: complaints, no matter how far-fetched, are to be believed. It is up to the man to provide proof that he gained consent, but if the act never even happened, how do you do that?
Other examples Rolf, Johnathan King.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:00 pm -
They’d have had Joseph Jacobson bang to rights, that’s for sure.
“Never touched her? She’s pregnant for God’s sake!”
Crucify him!-
January 30, 2015 at 1:42 pm -
Surely he was Joseph Ben David, and therefore his proper response would have been
“look, the kids Jesus Ben God OK”
-
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:50 am -
The outcome of a rape allegation along with many other types of offence, arising from acts carried out by one person upon another with no witnesses, will often depend on one persons word against another. Where fear rather than level of violence assisted, Physical evidence will not assist in deciding the issue of consent, only that the act took place.
Years ago evidence of early complaint was considered helpful in assessing the veracity of the allegation. Not essential but helpful.
But ultimately the jury decision will often rest entirely on whose account they believe. On a more or less subjective test basis after both Counsel have done there bit to muddy the waters.
That is one reason why some allegations didn’t result in prosecution even where an assailant was identified.
Making the issue of consent one for the alleged rapist to prove is tantamount to saying he is guilty until he/she proves her innocence and is merely the latest in a long line of changes to law and process attempting to secure more allegations and more successful prosecution.
It was inevitable that we ended up here. The law unsupported by physical evidence or eyewitness account and even early complaint, is an inadequate answer to resolve conflicts arising out of acts carried out without witnesses and it has always been. How can it not be? Who amongst us can tell by listening and watching someone previously unknown to us whether they are speaking the truth, or even an account they believe to be truthful but is muddled by alcohol or drugs, to meet the test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’?
In my view we approach the problem from the wrong angle. Males and females have to wind the clock back to times when both were more cautious about what they could safely do. Take more responsibility for themselves and behave as if the law isn’t going to protect them (it often wont) and behave accordingly. Yes, that means sometimes not doing anything and everything they want to because they *should* be able to but hey, tough. Perhaps a little more growing up and a little less *I should be able to*.
That wont stop all the offences of course but should enable some to be avoided without turning the concept of *innocent until proven guilty* on it’s head.
Thank goodness I’m of an age when it surely isn’t an issue for me.
-
January 30, 2015 at 10:58 am -
* Thank goodness I’m of an age when it surely isn’t an issue for me. *
I wonder if this freshly-tweaked CPS-Law (whatever happened to Parliament making laws rather than the cops?) has any time restraints. I’m guessing not since surreptitious shags from 50 years ago are being litigated… so don’t count your chickens just yet you silver surfer you. They may yet have ways of making you a criminal…
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:03 am -
I was just going to congratulate you on compressing everything I wanted to say down to 3 lines in your comment above, instead of the too many I took.
Your point is well taken re time restraints but happily for reasons I wont go into here I can still be very relaxed about it.
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:12 am -
As every day passes I feel safer.
It becomes more and more likely that all my victims have died before I have and thus have I escaped Justice…-
January 30, 2015 at 11:17 am -
You’ve forgotten the one you never met.
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:18 am -
So many nights I can scarcely remember them anyway…
-
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:16 am -
Yes. I didn’t get to vote for them. It ‘s at times like this that the American system of voting for some public officials’ appointments presents some superficial merit.
But on reflection, neither version has much to offer, both being as bad as the other. There’s not too much attractive in either the ‘voted for’ ‘Hang’em, Flog’em, and Castrate’em’ far right authoritarian nutjobs, or the ‘No hanging, no flogging, but let’s agree about the castrating’ fifth columnist totalitarian liberals.
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:26 am
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:00 am -
Like a lot of Xians, I believe homosexuality is a sin. Unlike a lot of Xians I couldn’t give a flying whatis about Gays marrying because what the law and society mean by ‘marriage’ is no longer marriage as the Bible understands it and hasn’t been since 1991.
Biblical marriage is all about exactly that- marrying two into one. A man doth leave his Father and his Mother und doth cleave unto his wife. The two become one flesh. One flesh isn’t just a Koine euphemism for sex., for the beast with two backs. One flesh means that a married couple are in law ONE PERSON. Put simply, I am bound by anything my wife signed and vice versa.
All that changed with the ‘Martial Rape’ law, out of two becoming one ie marrying, there came a life partnership of independant equals ….which is why my wife now needs to sign any disclosure I make to Income Support for example. Until very recently I could liberate my wife from the confines of the Closed Unit by my signature and she me.
As to Rape itself, several thousand years ago the, arguably, finest legal minds who ever shuffled in sandals through a desert, realized that the only way to ‘prove’ lack of consent is for the rape VICTIM to show she RESISTED. Not fighting back makes it almost impossible to prove it was rape because not-fighting-back is physical ‘consent’.
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:20 am -
+1
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:21 am -
* Not fighting back makes it almost impossible to prove it was rape because not-fighting-back is physical ‘consent’. *
Nowadays he’d just say she consented to S&M. Boys are slugs & snails and girls are sugar & spice. Get with the program Xian Soldier and while you’re warm and handy… Get in the line-up.
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:26 am -
“Nowadays he’d just say she consented to S&M”
Actually I believe that under English Law no one can consent to being harmed. And its “Xian Soulja”. What would Jesus do like innit!
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:33 am -
So presumably, domestic violence in your eyes would mean beating yourself up?
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:38 am -
“So presumably, domestic violence in your eyes would mean beating yourself up?”
Exactly right. “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it”
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:46 am -
* “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it” *
Like I keep telling you Keyser. You need to get with the program!
http://m.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-123348.html
That link is “nasty” so if of a timorous disposition I would advise a deep breath.-
January 30, 2015 at 11:52 am -
Sweet Jesus wept, and there was me fretting about Eldest Useless Object (26) having self tattooed a Swastika over his heart and ‘anal fuck’ on his arm….along with having enough metal in his face to raise his intrinsic scrap value above that of his internal swappable organs. Oh well I suppose I should be thankful Eldest spelt it right….small mercies and all that….
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:54 am -
I see your Spiegel and raise you a NY Daily News (but still German)
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/holey-moley-german-man-takes-body-art-level-article-1.1796231-
January 30, 2015 at 11:55 am -
January 30, 2015 at 12:01 pm -
‘However, they are harsher on the Internet.
“On social networks they mostly discriminate and offend me,” he said.’Wow! The CPS will be drooling into their coffee. Two ‘Offensive Communications’ offences for the price of one. The adverse comments AND the picture.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:33 pm -
A dentist’s dream at any rate.
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:55 am -
Funny how it’s only one half of that self that carries the bruises.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:03 pm -
“Funny how it’s only one half of that self that carries the bruises.”
From a wealth of personal experience (I, former violent alcoholic, live with a violent paranoid psychotic) I can tell you that that ‘this will hurt me more than you’ thing is actually true.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:23 pm -
With respect, I think your personal circumstances may veer towards “unique” (although maybe with a few parallels), but in most circumstances, that is not necessarily so.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:51 pm -
Unfortunately a conjunction of Domestic Abuse, alcoholism and mental illness are all too commonplace, a trinity of misery and please don’t take my comments as in anyway condoning it. I don’t. My points are about the ‘theoretical’ (or maybe ‘heretical’) nature of marriage.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:01 pm -
Notice of Regulations in regard to Nookie.
Henceforth, all nookie is banned unless prior approval has been granted in writing by the Regisrar of Births, Marriages, Deaths and Nookie. Consent forms may be obtained from the said Registrar during normal working hours (except during lunch hour). Forms must be completed in the presence of a Registrar, in black ink by both parties wishing to engage in nookie, and signed by all three. The consent shall apply to one encounter only, and shall specify time, place and duration. Any subsequent encounters must be authorised seperately.
Emergency consent forms may be obtained at a Police Station, and must be completed in the presence of at least two Police Officers holding the rank of Sergeant or above, one of whom must be female. All applicants and witnesses must sign the form, and a copy must be lodged with the Registry Office within seven days of the application.
For definitions of ‘nookie’, please refer to the Nookie Act 2015.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:04 pm -
And as something for the weekend emergency, consult your barber or hairdresser
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:21 pm -
-
January 30, 2015 at 2:05 pm -
Not THAT Nookie act…..
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:26 pm -
So the world of THX 1138 gradually roles into view – bugger 1984.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:27 pm -
I foresee a business (& pleasure) opportunity for a voyeur to offer ‘willingness verification’ service at very competitive rates.
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:29 pm -
I have followed ‘Last Tango in Halifax’ and marvelled at how utterly messy modern life can be. I know ‘things’ always went on between the naughty ones in big country houses. Some masters tangoed with their servants, probably both male and female. I admit all the fictional hurly burly of modern life is slung into Last TANGLE in Halifax. I see the DM used an unflattering picture of the good lady of the CPS, and JS as well, looking about 105 and peering through coloured specs, to report this nugget of fair justice. So watch out gents when you tangle with the next drunken laydee. Make sure she has a tattoo that says ‘all comers welcome, I will not sue’ right across her bikini line. That might be a solution…….. probably not.
-
January 30, 2015 at 1:00 pm -
Twas not only the masters tangoing with the servants…….
A long-dead friend started his career as a plumber in the 1930s, often working in the houses of the local servanted wealthy. It was apparently the accepted form that visiting tradesmen could make free with willing lower-order maids during their labours. The benefit of this mutual and consensual working-class humping was that, should the maid become pregnant, any blame would naturally default upon the master or any of his fertile sons, which improved the chances of the maid being ‘sponsored’ for her sins.
(My old pal related this as background to a tale about one such occasion, in a cellar, when he was interrupted at a critical point by a rat scampering across his bare and thrusting buttocks – he assured me that this event proved a 100% successful form of contraception).
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:31 pm -
In all seriousness – expect this statistic to rise quickly
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/18/male-suicides-three-times-women-samaritans-bristol -
January 30, 2015 at 12:37 pm -
Very interesting, Petunia. Perhaps you could patent a variation on the miner’s helmet!
With some of these groping allegations, I wonder if they might also be the easiest thing for a person who has never been sexually assaulted to visualise, describe and also plausibly claim if they had been in a public place with the accused (or not, as the case may be). If they were in a private place (or not), they might claim something more serious, possibly with the help of internet research, crocodile tears and sympathy.
It seems odd that those who design the system wouldn’t see that things could be open to abuse and take steps to prevent it. If women are as capable as men of committing fraud, they could find ways to do it, as any sensible fraudster would do, with as little risk to themselves as possible (anonymity, inability to disprove their claims) and maximum potential gain (thousands of pounds). It would surely be easier than for a false insurance or benefits claim (which some of these historic abuse claimants might even have done).
If I had the chance to go back to school and into the maths class of Crabbit M., I would have asked her these questions:
If the first person who comes forward to make a historic abuse allegation is not telling the truth, what are the chances that any others who say “me too” are telling the truth? If the first person is telling the truth, does this automatically mean that all those who say “me too” are telling the truth? If a dead person is accused of crimes and there is the prospect of compensation in return for a claim, and then a live person who seems superficially like him (esp. old and famous; old = dodgy memory + maxed bank account; famous = wealthy) is accused of the same kind of crimes that also bring compensation, what are the chances of the first lot of accusers telling the truth and the second lot?-
January 30, 2015 at 12:42 pm -
The take on the equality angle, though, is that women are different. Those who are naughty are ‘a special case’
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 12:38 pm -
If things keep moving in this direction and pace, we can’t be too far off, a decade, or maybe two, from having some sort of homegrown, spun off, ‘Morality Police’ or equivalent
Anyone got suggestions as to an appropriate title, its staffing qualifications and a suitable uniform for its personnel?
-
January 30, 2015 at 1:22 pm -
“appropriate title, its staffing qualifications and a suitable uniform.”
Religious Police, lifetime observance of Sharia law, Hijab.
-
January 30, 2015 at 1:46 pm -
Dear God! Gwyneth Paltrow recommends that women steam clean their vagina with a ‘combination of infrared and mugwort’.
Well, you can’t be too careful when there are men around.
Anybody remember what first attracted the millionaire Chris Martin to Ms Paltrow?
The bloody world’s gone crazy.
-
January 30, 2015 at 2:07 pm -
My Grannie’s advice would probably be more pertinent. She’d have told her to ‘Awa’ ‘n bile yer heid, quine’
-
January 30, 2015 at 2:09 pm -
Isn’t ‘Mugwort’ scent of Harry Potter or summit?
-
January 30, 2015 at 6:46 pm -
You been shanghai’ing Pet’s Oompas again?
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 2:32 pm -
January 30, 2015 at 3:39 pm -
You leave Gwynnie alone, she’s the leaderene of the gang and probably financed his Defense…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3aMRxHS0sY-
January 30, 2015 at 4:05 pm -
Thank you for that as I had not seen it. I love the payoff line – “Everybody’s got a random…” What Gwynnie does with her vagina is her business. But if she wants to encourage…er…certain activities, she might want to try beer as her cleanser.
-
January 30, 2015 at 4:20 pm -
A while back she was recommending women stop shaving and g’eau natural as Mother nature intended, so she maybe after a long familiarity with Brazilian conditions, she neglected her hirsute hygiene and then, when she finally realised action was required – it was only radical action that could resolve the problem. Without Chris around, maybe nobody else has wanted to be the one to tell her. On the other hand maybe she’s just a rock chick who likes to talk pussy.
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 8:26 pm -
I’d use my Karcher pressure washer if she wants a really good job done
-
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 2:12 pm -
Loving that her website is called GOOP.
=”a bad-mannered or inconsiderate person; clod; boor. “
-
January 30, 2015 at 2:31 pm -
Exactly how does “not sleeping around” help the celebrity or anyone else who is accused of raping a woman he has never met last year? Or of groping one he has never laid hands on, like the minx who is annoyed at the lawyer who refused to take her anti-discrimination case against her former employer no win/no fee?
-
January 30, 2015 at 3:59 pm -
The japanese say never trust a woman or the weather!
-
January 30, 2015 at 4:09 pm -
That’s bad news for weather-girls, then!
-
January 30, 2015 at 4:21 pm -
It’s raining men… Get a mop.
-
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 4:11 pm -
“In future, men will have to prove a woman gave her consent before they engaged in any form of sexual contact with her.”
Sounds like a bureaucrats definition of ‘marriage’: with this certificate I thee fuck. I wonder what would constitute bureaucratic romance?
Impulse body spray: When a man you’ve never met before suddenly gives you an affidavit.
-
January 30, 2015 at 4:19 pm -
Rather more worryingly for some of us (apart from the fear of being accused of a rapist) is the fear of being “included” in the group of men who stand accused of domestic violence.
I have rather bizarrely been accused of such and it can be no further from the truth. The fact is we used to have blazing verbal rows as most couples may do. Being the drama queen she was she accused me (either by design or by luck) of emotionally abusing her. Everyone abuses someone’s emotions either intentionally or not some time in their life.
The problem however is thus. Emotional abuse has been “reclassified” as domestic abuse which is a short journey to domestic violence, which I have now been accused of.
Not to the police mind you, only in hairdresser gossip circles but nonetheless still a very scary thing to think of.
Domestic Abuse is heading the same way as the above article.
-
January 30, 2015 at 7:28 pm -
Blokes need to start insisting that they bring their sister on dates as a chaperone. Or their mothers
-
January 30, 2015 at 8:37 pm -
A lovely twist on an old theme, congratulations! The female chaperone…perhaps the male chastity belt too, with password protected lock!
-
January 30, 2015 at 8:47 pm -
That’s an idea. Maybe we could all have specifically ground implanted RFID chips to register the said events, with centralised state permission granted, and matched to chip performance, after mutual smartphone requests and confirmation, that everything is F.A.B., or maybe at least Fan Dabi Dozi
-
January 30, 2015 at 8:59 pm -
No! They’ll tax it if you do that! PAYF…..
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 9:17 pm -
If you dare…just try looking on ebay for “male chastity device”
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 7:40 pm -
How utterly terrible. I have a 27 year old son who is constantly out ‘clubbing’ in the bright lights of one of our cities. I keep telling him to be wary (of all kinds of things) but I think he knows better than me…!
Even worse, I have a beautiful grandson, not yet six months old and a cherubic two year old step-grandson (actually twins with a similarly cherubic sister). I’m now actually frightened, very much so. What is it going to be like in twenty years? Or much less in fact?
In a reverse scenario, what’s it going to be like for women and girls, if, as and when there is a blow-back to all of this insanity?
In addition, I am increasingly becoming aware (though not by direct experience, but by reading) of the vile perversions being increasingly taught to all our children in the education system – mainly by feminists and their whipped, compliant male enablers.
-
January 30, 2015 at 9:11 pm -
It’s a strange one, isn’t it. We’re often told that The Pill helped to liberate women, and that it was a great step forward for feminism. That led to The Permissive Society, which is apparently a Bad Thing, according to feminism. I’m not quite sure how you can have the one without the other, but then I’m only a bloke, so what would I know?
-
January 31, 2015 at 11:31 am -
Oh dear yes. The law of Unintended Consequences.
We now have ex-pornographers running national print media, no less, whilst great swathes of our culture has been sexualised to a degree that would horrify our society before the 1960s (or even within that decade still to a large degree). It’s all come about because of the permissive society, driven largely by feminism and wimmins’ ‘rights’.
Have a listen to this excellent speech by Bowden on radical feminism and how it has dovetailed into much of politics and culture, both intended and not so.
-
January 31, 2015 at 2:33 pm -
Sigh. Feminism is fiercely opposed to the “permissive society” and the 2nd Wave (“radicals”) arose as a social movement precisely as a reaction against it, which is why they have been consistently, since the 1970s, campaigning against everything even vaguely sexual, from hardcore porn down to girls in bikinis. I am consistently baffled by the insistence by conservatives that feminists have been responsible for sexual libertinism, no matter how many thousands of them chant No More Page 3, etc.
The feminists of the Angry Brigade bombed the dress shop Biba in the 1970s for selling mini-skirts for crying out loud. Their only goal is to put “the permissive society” back to the 1950s. Or 1890s, more like.
-
January 31, 2015 at 3:46 pm -
They don’t want the Pill withdrawn though, do they?
-
-
-
-
-
January 30, 2015 at 11:24 pm -
‘…I’m only a bloke, so what would I know?’
Exactly, and some of us blokes are more stooopid than others…
Take Andrew Mitchell, for example. This arrogant twerp just learned the hard way that sometimes it is best to keep one’s mouth firmly shut!!
No one, surely can feel anything other than extreme schadenfreude for a man who is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the political elite…
REVEALED: ANDREW MITCHELL – HIS HISTORY OF HIGH-HANDED INSULTS TO POLICE
Andrew Mitchell has been accused of high-handed behaviour at least 16 times dating back to 2005. Those outlined to the High Court included:
NOVEMBER 2005:Mr Mitchell tried to cycle through a heavy gate into Black Rod’s garden as it was being closed by a security guard. Lee Bryer shouted ‘stop’ several times but the MP ignored his requests and cycled through.
Mr Bryer caught up with Mr Mitchell and asked him why he did not stop. Mr Mitchell allegedly said: I’m an MP and I’m too important to stop for you. Stop being so aggressive, you little s***.’
MAY 2011: The MP arrived at the main gate of Downing Street on his bicycle and told officers: ‘Let me in. I’m a Cabinet MP and I’m late for a meeting.’ PC Bruce Smart had no idea who he was so phoned the control room at No 10.
He said: ‘The custodian told me that although allowing him access this way was against security policy, denying him entry would be more trouble than it was worth, and so I should just let him in.’
JUNE 2011: For a second time Mr Mitchell had a confrontation with PC Smart at the Downing Street gates – but this time the officer refused to let him through due to ‘security reasons’.
When Iain Duncan Smith arrived by car the officers had to open the main gate. They finally allowed Mr Mitchell through after a polite request from Mr Duncan Smith. As Mr Mitchell cycled through, he allegedly said: ‘Bruce Smart, is it? You shall be hearing about this. Don’t think you’ve heard the last of this – I’m going to make a complaint to the Commissioner.’
The MP demanded full disciplinary proceedings be brought against PC Smart. The officer said: ‘During both my encounters with Mr Mitchell his behaviour was arrogant and rude.’
JUNE 2011: PC Joseph Withington was on duty at Downing Street when Mr Mitchell allegedly shouted ‘chop, chop’ as officers opened the main gate for him.
The MP is then alleged to have said: ‘Always helps if you do this as rapidly as possible – we’re all in a hurry.’ PC Withington told the court Mr Mitchell used a ‘condescendingly rude tone’, adding: ‘It’s completely unnecessary, patronising and sarcastic to be spoken to like that.’
AUGUST 3, 2011: When Mr Mitchell arrived in Djerba, an island off the coast of Tunisia, during his stint as International Development Secretary, he told his protection team he wanted to travel to Libya.
Inspector Duncan Johnston, who ran the team, told him such a trip was not possible as it would breach international law. Mr Mitchell allegedly replied: ‘That’s a bit above your pay grade, Mr Plod.’
Inspector Johnston said he found this ‘rather insulting, discourteous and demeaning’.
AUGUST 17, 2011: Two weeks later Mr Mitchell ‘launched into a foul-mouthed tirade’ at members of his protection team when a trip from Kenya to Somalia was changed for security reasons.
Inspector Johnston said: ‘He used a tirade of language that … was just swearing for the sake of swearing.’
Mr Mitchell demanded to know how many officers had been sent to Kenya in advance of him and allegedly accused them of treating it as a holiday.
He allegedly said: ‘British taxpayers are funding this for police officers to sit by the pool.’
EARLY SEPTEMBER, 2012: On one visit to Downing Street Mr Mitchell had to cycle through the pedestrian gate, rather than the main gate.
He shouted to officers: ‘I’m coming through that gate next time.’ PC Michael Penton said: ‘I found Mr Mitchell’s behaviour to be rude and condescending.’
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012: On the night before ‘Plebgate’, Mr Mitchell allegedly shouted: ‘I’m the Government Chief Whip. I want to leave through these gates.’
PC Gareth Bonds said: ‘During this exchange I stood and watched in disbelief at how childish a grown man in his position was being and found it embarrassing.
‘I therefore spoke to my colleagues and told them to just open the gates as it was ridiculous to argue over a gate. I found Mr Mitchell’s tone overbearing.’-
January 31, 2015 at 9:46 am -
Hard to think of anybody that’s come out of this sorry saga with any credit. Mitchell shown to be an arrogant sh!t, members of the Police Federation shown to be downright liars, at least two police officers sacked for gross misconduct, and that after Hogan Howe had made a public statement supporting his officers. A great deal of Court time wasted, and a lot of public money wasted investigating the whole thing.
A plague on all their houses. Neither police nor politicians come out of it with any credit at all, in my view.
-
January 31, 2015 at 2:33 pm -
You are absolutely right…
No one in this story comes out with their dignity intact, but in Mitchell’s case he’s going to be doing the mother of all paper rounds on that bike!!
-
-
-
January 31, 2015 at 2:34 am -
always worth reading : Ashe Schow on the Washington Examiner
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/ashe-schow-
January 31, 2015 at 10:22 am -
@eric hardcastle an interesting article worth reading if only for the immortal quote’ that administrations are corrupt; that today’s students are reckless and irresponsible; that fraternities are hot-beds of deviant behavior,” Sullivan said during a presidential address’.
Such opinion based of course on the strength of a matter that was a tissue of lies.
Although a little shallow of me Sullivan and Alison Saunders might appear to be sisters and it could be interesting to see them in competition as to who has the greater charm…..though notions of personal humility might be lost on them …..Anna Raccoon’s probably now long forgotten favourite ‘Our Vera’ (Baird) might make a suitable third contestant but any cheap jibes about MacBeth are too politically incorrect even for me
So thanks for your trouble eric .
-
-
January 31, 2015 at 12:25 pm -
Re: “A Victorian man denied his conjugal rights by his Victorian wife finally snaps and takes possession of his property in a manner the law tells him he is perfectly entitled to. From her perspective, it is not a marriage of love, but one of convenience; he, on the other hand, loves her without owning the necessary emotional language to express it. When she frustrates him beyond his tolerance threshold by taking a lover, fevered jealousy and passion overcome him and he rapes her”
I don’t find either of these characters likeable – he should have divorced her, you shouldn’t force anyone to do something they don’t want to do, but it sounds like there was a lot of psychological stuff coming from both sides too, meaning the whole scenario is more complicated than just black and white.
Another character I really disliked was Anna Karina – she was in a marriage of convenience too, but as far as I can see she took things way too far showing absolutely no respect or consideration for her husbands feelings, he never hit or raped her and let her have an affair, just asked her not to bring him round the house but she didn’t feel she could even not do that for him, it seemed like he was still painted the bad guy for the simple reason *she* wasn’t in love with him, as if all that matters in the book is *her* feelings… :/
-
January 31, 2015 at 2:24 pm -
Divorce was very difficult then in terms of both law and conventional morality.
-
February 1, 2015 at 5:44 am -
Ian B,
Re: “Divorce was very difficult then in terms of both law and conventional”
I think your wife (perhaps even your husband?) having it away and getting pregnant to another man was still grounds though? Anna Karina’s husband accepted her affair, just asked her to be discreet about it and not bring him round the house to spare him the humiliation, but she did bring him round the house and sneered at him behind his back for having no ‘passion’ or ‘feelings’ – bit rich coming from someone behaving like her if you ask me – really didn’t like the character. She’s the heroine of the book and he’s presented as some kind of bastard it seemed to me, and for what I don’t know. Not wanting his wifes affair with another man rubbed in his face or being spread around everyone he knows? Wanting to keep his children when it wasn’t him who cheated or left the marriage? His requests seemed very reasonable to me, even if that happened today they’d be reasonable (provided it’s what the children want) if you ask me…
-
February 1, 2015 at 9:45 am -
The pyschology in the book is surely very simple. It lies at the heart of the “No means Yes” conundrum. The man is contemptible because he does not make Anna be HIS. He lacks the passion and desire and yes, physical force if necessary, that her female psyche demands. In short the man behaves like a wimp and thus is not a man. This female pyschological cross-wire was recognised in movies of the cowboy era for decades – how many times did the heroine beat his chest saying “I hate you” as he gradually pressed his face closer until their lips met and she succumbed because finally she was DESIRED. That nothing has change is proven by the recent phenomenal success of Fifty Shades wherein a complete bastard is the hero. Women appear to love it – at least until their therapist gest to them…
-
February 2, 2015 at 8:41 am -
Moor Larkin,
Re: “This female pyschological cross-wire was recognised in movies of the cowboy era for decades – how many times did the heroine beat his chest saying “I hate you” as he gradually pressed his face closer until their lips met and she succumbed because finally she was DESIRED. That nothing has change is proven by the recent phenomenal success of Fifty Shades wherein a complete bastard is the hero. Women appear to love it – at least until their therapist gest to them…”
In Anna Karina I think her husband was just portrayed as the ‘bad one’ because he was the *boring*, sensible, practical one that cared more about ‘appearences’ than anything else – and I really felt like, well welcome to the real world love, sometimes you have to be like that to get on even in this day and age. The guy she had the affair with was meant to be the ‘cool’ one, a bit of a rebel, unconventional for the day etc. The others were all supposed to be hypocrites for ostracing her when the whole thing became public knowledge and her and her husband split up, because a lot of them had had extra marital affairs as well but were a lot more discrete about it (and I dare say any children would be raised as the husbands etc), well I thought she should have been discrete too not just for her sake, but the rest of the family, so I struggled to have sympathy with the character or the point of the book.
But yes, I remember in programmes like Doctor Quinn the medicine woman, on tv in the 90’s, you had scenes with her slapping a mans face and saying ‘I hate you, I hate you’, then all of a sudden kissing and (probably ripping each others clothes off) and her saying ‘I love you, I love you’ – I could never understand that working in real life? But you see that in the cowboy films and James Bond too, how many times did James Bond end up fighting with a female baddie after sleeping with her? And I think you’d see him slapping women in the face too etc. I think with the cowboy films, it’s because they are set in an era where women weren’t supposed to make the first move and *really* didn’t want to come across as ‘easy’, so sometimes they would make a big pretence of not wanting it when (in some cases) they actually did. Which is stupid if you ask me….
I think the popularity of the book 50 shades of Grey shows just how sheepy the public is and how anything can be made fashionable or adopted by the public if enough people visibly express or voice interest in it, reading that book and saying you really fancy ‘Mr Grey’ was just a fashionable gimmick, as is women saying they want their ‘hair pulled in bed’ etc – they want that cos they’ve heard other people say they like it and they copy them, a lot of people that read that book and said they were really into it probably wouldn’t have considered that or looked at the book twice if it hadn’t been popular and they past the book in a shop or library.
I think it’s the same with a lot of the sexual abuse hysteria now – it’s become a popular issue to focus on. It’s always been a crime, people have always, in recent centuries, been protected, as much as is *realistically* possible, by the law if reported, but the level of hype and hysteria I think is just because a lot of people are sheep and it’s what the media have decided to focus on and drum up hysteria about. There’s nothing wrong with charities like the NSPCC, Childline etc making people aware that if something is happening to them they have a right to report it and where they can go, some children, for example, might not be aware they can do that, but drumming up hype and hysteria to this extent, to the point that people think it’s happening absolutely everywhere, and it becomes almost de riguer to say you were ‘sexually abused’, to me, seems like a morbid fixation, and we can *see* it’s a breeding groung for false claims, accusations and claiming sexual abuse/assault etc against anyone (more or less) who opposes you….
-
February 2, 2015 at 10:58 am -
Pedants can be very annoying, I agree; but I feel compelled to intervene on this one occasion. Anna Karina was a Danish-born actress who rose to prominence as Jean-Luc Godard’s muse during the Nouvelle Vague era of French cinema. Tolstoy’s character was Anna Karenina. We’ve all done it…
-
February 2, 2015 at 11:28 am -
And this Anna is not a Muse.
-
February 2, 2015 at 2:21 pm -
He says Karina, I say Karenina – let’s call the whole thing off.
-
February 2, 2015 at 3:16 pm -
She says karina. I knew who she meant really.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
January 31, 2015 at 2:58 pm
-
-
January 31, 2015 at 5:53 pm -
I’m curious as to what would happen when a woman states, in Court, that she didn’t consent to sex and the man says “I didn’t consent either”. Is that double jeopardy?
As for the youngsters born in these times, as schools have now been told to report toddlers who may be radicalised as terrorists, maybe very young males will be identified as the rapists of the future before they even get to the stage of knowing which bit goes where without going yuck!
So when will women wake up? When no man will dare be in the vicinity, let alone procreate? But then wasn’t that one of the feminist goals to be able to have babies without men involved anywhere in the process of creation, let alone bringing up said infant. How sterile will life become when the male of the species either dies out or maybe we get to keep a few corralled for sperm donation duties.
Forget Utopia, welcome to Distopyia.
-
January 31, 2015 at 6:57 pm -
” the pygmy Deirdre Barlow of the legal profession, Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders”
-
February 1, 2015 at 3:27 pm -
‘Since he posted I have been trying to think of an adequate reply and can’t.’
Me too. A pub without its raconteurs, contrarians, the local goodies and baddies, and even the occasional notional punch-up, is one that is devoid of character. Just as long as the bickering is confined to words, and the clientele doesn’t start to smash up the furniture on each others’ heads, so be it.
Let’s hope he pops back in tomorrow
-
February 1, 2015 at 3:47 pm -
“Let’s hope he pops back in tomorrow”-HoHum
The Raccoon Arms is like the Hotel California -without all the silly Devil Worshiping orgies. No one ever really leaves, not even the Mistress -although she has announced her retirement more than once.
-
-
February 1, 2015 at 3:29 pm -
The reply system’s mechanics seem to have done a bunk again. Neither wonder some of these conversations can be confusing…
-
February 2, 2015 at 1:42 pm -
A very well and thought provoking written piece.
What would be the situation whereby both parties were so drunk that neither could barely stand, nor be said to be in possession of their wits and self control? Some men in that condition can still manage to perform, sufficiently to penetrate anyway, if not to give a rousing performance, and to not remember very much or anything at all about it in the morning either.
Obtaining written consent in advance wouldn’t work because that would not cover instances whereby consent initially was given however on the verge of the act taking place or mid way through the act consent was withdrawn by one party and ignored by the other who continued regardless. It’s a minefield.
-
February 1, 2015 at 2:35 pm -
February 1, 2015 at 2:50 pm -
February 1, 2015 at 3:06 pm -
“Maybe he’ll sleep on it”-pet
We can only hope so. Since he posted I have been trying to think of an adequate reply and can’t. I’d like it to go on record that I think the Landlady or her staff should place a tastefully small brass plague on ‘his’ bit of the bar. I’ve always ‘seen’ him as a Rumplesque character-with better diction and far better taste. Can’t imagine Fat Steve dropping fag ash on his robes.
-
February 1, 2015 at 3:08 pm -
*Rumpolesque*
-
February 1, 2015 at 7:04 pm -
Yellow Plague, heh! A bit extreme, one would have thought. Mind you, ‘Rumplesque’ connotes a degree of world-weariness that many Raccoonistas would identify with.
{ 158 comments… read them below or add one }