Still nothing much to say.

[zotz]

Help me Mrs Medlitcott, I don't know what to do
I've only got three bullets, and there's four of Mötley Crüe

Incidentally, if you go here and click on the album titles, it'll tell you what all the references are to. This is very handy if you aren't Scouse and don't like football.

Talking of Scousers, I was meaning to point out to eviltwinemma that there's a Teen Anthems compilation out. It's quite odd.

I picked up the new Rammstein album. Nobody told me Sharleen Spiteri sang on it. Most odd. And the intro of Feuer Und Wasser is exactly that of Stella Maris.

Apparently Green on Red and the Violent Femmes are (separately) playing London soon.

That Welsh rape trial was odd. What we possibly need is the application of the doctrine of informed consent to such cases.

From rdi, this request from Greenpeace (it can be seen also here, dated 5 days ago):

The law of 6 degrees of separation means that you, Ocean Defender, know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows precisely where the whaling fleet will be in the next few months. We have our own methods of locating them, but this is always a very difficult task.

If you know someone who works in maritime tracking, satellite imagery, the Japanese fishing industry, cetacean research, who's doing an ocean crossing in the Pacific or working in some other field that might have first hand knowledge of where the fleet will be, pass this message along.

The ship we are seeking is named the Nisshin Maru, gross tonnage 8,030, length 130 metres, radio call sign JJCJ. She is the factory ship and will be accompanied by three catchers, Kyo Maru No. 1 with radio call sign JKNG, the Yushin Maru call sign JLZS and Yushin Maru No. 2, call sign JPPV.

You can send information to hunt-the-hunters@greenpeace.org All information in strictest confidence.

I did some actual microscopy today.

Note To Self - get enough cash to actually buy some Joy Division Oven Gloves in the unlikely event that they have them on the stall.

Gouranga, Gouranga, yes I'll be happy
when you've been arrested for defacing the bridge.

Comments

[zoo-music-girl.livejournal.com]

Joy Division Oven Gloves? What are you on about?

Motley Crue - shoot one of the others through Vince's head. He's only got half a brain so the bullet should still have plenty of velocity afterwards.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

You think shooting Vince in the head would affect him in any way?

[zoo-music-girl.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[zotz]

Track seven on the new Half Man Half Biscuit album. Examples of the gloves themselves can be seen here if you click on two of the four pictures at the top of the page.

[zoo-music-girl.livejournal.com]

Cool!

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

I thought the welsh case fairly reasonable actualy (once you strip out all the 'binge drinkers can't claim rape' hysterics from the media).

Under cross examination she couldn't remember if she gave consent or not. As he claims she did and she is trying to claim she didn't, her word is the only actual evidence so if she admits she can't remember what else can the court do?

[zotz]

As the law used to stand it's straightforward. The 2003 act was supposed to stop people shagging unconscious drunks and claiming lack of objection. Clearly it's not possible to distinguish (legally) between that and someone just claiming that the partner/victim was conscious enough to say yes and just doesn't remember.

Informed Consent is a concept from medical ethics (and very possibly elsewhere) - consent demands not just agreement, but an understanding of what you're getting into, and the real and practical ability to refuse. Under that analysis, the consent of someone too drunk to stand or remember can't be taken as proper consent.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Shagging someone who is unconscious is fair enough, but the issue was whether she was unconscious or just so pissed she can't remember saying yes. It's entirely possible she was conscious but can't remember it. If her own testimony is in doubt, anything else is just speculation.

It's all very well talking about informed consent, but how is someone supposed to know when the other person is too pissed, breathalyse them?. Bearing in mind that he was probably half cut as well, does his legally liabililty for his actions go down when he's pissed too? What if he was too drunk to realise how drunk she was? How about if he was too drunk to understand what he was doing, is he then exonerated from the rape? That's the old 'hes a nice guy until he has a drink' argument, which is bollocks. If you do bad things when you get drunk, dont get drunk.

Furthermore, how can you determine in court months later, that at the time she really was too drunk to understand what was going on. Surely it would be indistinguishable from someone who feels bad about a drunken shag and is just claiming to have no memory? Ultimately this boils down to the same her word against his argument that makes many of these kinds of rape cases extremely difficult to prosecute. I don't think you can equate medical professionals dealing with a patient with two drunks on a night out.

We don't know what happened in this case, and that's the point. Under the principle of innocent until proven guilty and with no other evidence, you can't convict him because she now says she doesn't remember what happened.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

This Independent argument advances some of the arguments on why the jury should not have been so directed.

[djm4]

Yes, but they seem to hinge on the idea that she was unconscious during most of the sex, which seems to me to be in doubt (as in, 'I don't know whether she was or not', rather than 'I suspect she wasn't'). Certainly it's not something I'd expect her to reliably remember. I've also encountered people who got drunk enough to forget large portions of the evening before without having appeared to be off-their-face/close-to-passing-out drunk during those periods. And I've known people be very drunk at parties and then sober up remarkably on the walk home.

What I haven't seen, yet, is concrete evidence that she was visibly unable to give informed consent at the time she's supposed to have given it. A third party observing her state when she got to her halls of residence flat would do, but as far as I know there is none.

And 'women will now think they cannot have a single glass of wine' is a total over-reaction to a case involving the levels of drunkenness this one seems to have. It may, of course, be true, but that doesn't mean that the legal system is under any obligation to convict someone who might be innocent just to make the hypothetical wiomen in question feel safe drinking a single glass of wine. I don't actually think much of: 'if I had wanted to sleep with him I would have taken the few steps to my bedroom,' as an argument, actually; people do odd things when drunk and horny.

None of this excuses the rather large ethical no-no of having sex with someone you're meant to be looking after. But I think it's unfortunate that this has come so soon after the Amnesty report, because to me they adderess different issues. The Amnesty report addresses (in part) 'if someone gets drunk and is then raped, do they bear responsibility for being raped', to which I answer 'Hell no!' This case addresses (in part) 'if someone gets so drunk that they may have consented to something that they wouldn't have done when sober, do they bear responsibility for being in that state', to which I answer 'usually, yes, unless their drink was spiked or they had an unusual reaction a little drink.' I'm not saying that they're fair game for anything anyone wants to do to them in that state, mind you; it's still not in any way OK to take a 'yes' answer from them in that state if you know or suspect they'd say 'no' otherwise.

[lovingboth]

If the claim was that she was unconscious at the time, it'd be much easier - he'd have to prove he did have a reasonable belief in consent.

If he'd arranged to get her drunk, ditto.

But she doesn't seem to have been and he didn't, so... looks like he's got away with something that's at best very dubious.

[zotz]

how is someone supposed to know when the other person is too pissed

If there's a law on this, then there will be a standard of behaviour for people to be aware of. It'll probably be whether what happened seemed reasonable. This may sound wooly, but it's how a lot of the law works around here.

In this case, he seems to have admitted screwing a woman who was too drunk to stand at a point when he himself was stone-cold sober. Doesn't sound very reasonable to me. If she was walking, talking reasonably fluently and not knocking stuff over then it would have been (in my eyes) different.

Under the principle of innocent until proven guilty and with no other evidence, you can't convict him because she now says she doesn't remember what happened.

Under the law as it stands, yes. However, he's openly admitted they had sex (and often you can tell, of course, even without an admission), and there are witnesses to how drunk she was , so if informed consent were to be required the situation would probably be fairly clear.

[zotz]

As applies to the law at the moment, yes. However, if the consent demanded had to be meaningful consent instead, then cases like this would be covered. The suggestion is that the law on consent be altered, not that the judge was wrong about the law as it stands.

Of course, it's also said that hard cases make bad law . . .

[cream-tea.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[cream-tea.livejournal.com]

How on earth is a person who is subsequently unable to recall their words or actions able to give consent anyway?

A three year old might give consent, a Rohypnolled sleep-talker might give consent, but neither are grounds to go ahead and screw them. You can't consent to something of which you are not properly aware.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

How do you know she really can't remember? Bearing in mind we're in court months later, what empiric test can you apply to see if she's telling the truth or not?

You can't which means it boils down to her word against his again. Note, I'm not casting any aspertions on this particular girl, or any other for that matter. But her word against his leaves a big gap for 'reasonable doubt'.

[cream-tea.livejournal.com]

Surely it would be indistinguishable from someone who feels bad about a drunken shag and is just claiming to have no memory?

Wow, someone would have to be feeling really fucking bad about a drunken shag to go through the utter humiliation, shame and agony of a rape case, especially with the fabulous prosecution rate.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

It doesn't stop some people doing it. There are recorded cases of this happening, in fact I beleive the figures are something like 10 percent of rape accusations are thought to be malicious. (I'm quoting that from another LJ conversation on the topic, so I can't give sources)

Which is beside the point. The court has to prove that a crime was commited beyond reasonable doubt. Any time you have a situation where the only actual evidence is one persons word against the others, this is almost impossible to do.

That's not being sexist, anti-woman, pro-rape or anything else. It's just how the legal system works.

[cream-tea.livejournal.com]

Yes, I understand that, I didn't call priviledge.

The concept of reasonable doubt is a total farce anyway, as you will know if you have ever served on juries.

It is quite obvious to me that the entire legal system requires a complete overhaul whereby sole responsibility for all convictions - rape or otherwise - is left entirely with me.

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

Jesus, if you've going to claim 10% of women lie about rape, you need something better than 'I read it on lj'

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

Actually he said 'accusations', which I took to mean in this context the ones that get as far as telling the poilice but regardless, my actual point was spreading made up stats about how many women lie about rape is a terrible thing to do.

[zotz]

I've read a figure on that order in an article written by a magistrate. He was taking the line that about 90% seemed to be genuine, so people should stop carping. I've been told by a different source that bogus claims are generally easy to spot anyway.

This is, however, also anecdotal - one person's experience isn't necessarily representative.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Yes, that was the crucial element of my argument, well spotted. Put it this way. There have convictions in the past for women who have made claims of rape that later turned out to be false. Forget percentages, it does happen (a very brief google search found references to government figures of 2 percent) and if it happens the court has to take it into account. The fundamental point is that in law one persons word against anothers is not enough on its own to secure a prosecution, and it shouldn't be either. Anything else is a breach of the basic right of innocent until proven guilty.

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

2% is very different from 10%. Shame you couldn't have done that googling first.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

It makes fuck all difference to the point I was making and as Zotz pointed out elsewhere there are people who quote that figure. How about putting asside the pendantry and actualy looking at what I was saying rather than nitpicking that one point.

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

Because that's what I'm chosing to concentrate on. I'm not especially interesting in the rest of your point, especially since you are now swearing at me.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Well thanks for that enlightened and usefull contribution to the debate.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Incidentaly, doing a slightly less brief google search

http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/kanin.html

An American study that showed 40 perent of claims were later admited to be false.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/941370.stm

BBC news article that talks of American research that 25 percent of convicted rapists are innocent.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf

1996 FBI report saying 8 percent of claims are false.

http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp

General article on the subject that says quoted rates vary from 2 percent to as high as 50 percent, but that there is no firm statistical basis for any of the figures, including the 2 percent figure.

Bottom line, no-one really knows, but it does happen.

[micheinnz.livejournal.com]

Research in New Zealand shows the false accusation rate for rape is more or less the same as the false accusation rate for other crimes, and a lot lower than the public perception.

(Please don't ask for a cite, I don't have one.)

[rathgild.livejournal.com]

There is, of course, the point that the alleged rape occured in a corridor not far from the victim's room. Now if she was coherent enough to give consent, surely she would have been coherent enough to suggest the privacy of her room. If the alleged rape had happened in her room I feel it would have been more clear cut, as it also means that there was an invitation to the room, etc, which would make it appear that she was capable of giving the consent required. The victims friends were concerned enough about her condition to place her in the care of a person in a position of trust (security officer) to escort her to her room. Even if she was able to give consent, (which I doubt) the man has committed an act of gross misconduct, in that he has abused that position. Coming so soon after a report that most people think that rape victims are responsible for being attacked the only thing that makes me happy about this case is that the CPS have said that it is not making a precident, even so, what is there to stop the unscrupulous from pushing drinks onto someone to take advantage later and creating a similar situation?

[decomposingsoul.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. However I also agree that the legal system needs to change somewhat. At this rate, the CPS is going to need a written statement from victim and attacker before the incident takes place! I don't really see how else it can be sorted out if one party was too drunk to remember.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Um, it's not most people that think rape victims are responsible for being attacked. It's 1/3 of people. I feel slightly reassured that 67% of the general public don't think I deserve to be raped.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's even that. As I've said elsewhere, you can have done some things which with the benefit of hindsight were less than wise, or put you at a higher risk. But none of that in any way detracts from the criminals culpabillity. The way these surveys are conducted (and in particular the way they are reported in the media), the issue of whether someone has put themselves at risk through thier actions is mixed up with blame and responsibillity. The two are different things.

Each person is responsible for thier own actions. The rapist is completely responsible for what he did, nothing the woman did (dress, drink, etc, etc) can detract from that, unless she actualy gave him consent.

That doesn't mean it's sensible for women to put themelves in risky situations. But when these surveys are carried out the two issues are merged. I can (and do) think that a woman who gets herself so drunk when out amongst strangers that she has no control over what is happening to her, is being stupid and putting herself at risk. But that doesn't mean I in any way think it ok for someone else to rape her. They are are different issues.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

I don't think the location is all that significant to be honest. When drunk and horny people do stupid things that they would normaly be horrified by. The cliche of a drunk proclmaing 'I love you' to every passing stranger on the tube is a cliche for a reason.

However, in the reports I read there was no mention of the guy having been both sober and a security guard. I'm still not convinced there is enough here for a rape charge (from the patchy bits the media has reported to be fair), but I agree with you that the guy has clearly abused his position and should be fired from his job on gross misconduct. Even if she did consent, it's a fundamental break of trust.

As for unscrupulous people pushing drinks, well that stunt is as old as the hills. At the end of the day, legal rights and wrongs asside, it's important for people to control thier alcohol intake as too much can leave you in a state where bad shit will happen to you. That doesn't lessen the crime of the rapist, but it's just common sense.

The example I gave on another LJ was if were to walk down the street with a £50 note hanging out of my back pocket. The money is mine, no-one can possibly claim otherwise and there is no way it could be suggested I have invited anyone to take it. If someone does they have commited theft, pure and simple with no mitigation. But the fact that the criminal would be 100 percent guilty doesn't stop it being a bad idea for me to walk around with my money showing. My having made a stupid choice is not the same as exonerating the criminal.

[frazerpenman.livejournal.com]

One day whilst bored I ended up on some US site over their it is automatically considered rape if the woman complains no matter how blind drunk either party is. This certaimly has alot of gray area which it would be very complicated to draw lines in.

On Motley Crue surely you could use the gun to batter the last one to death.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

One day whilst bored I ended up on some US site over their it is automatically considered rape if the woman complains no matter how blind drunk either party is. This certaimly has alot of gray area which it would be very complicated to draw lines in.

Hmm, are you sure they wern't talking about how thepolice treat it, as opposed to how it is determined in court? If the woman is automaticaly beleived, then as soon as an accusation is made the man is guilty until he can prove himself innocent. That is an anthema to most decent legal systems, especialy a constitutionaly driven one like the US.

[frazerpenman.livejournal.com]

I think it is just how the police treat it, but then again who wants to be investigated especially for rape.

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

I think the Femmes are doing more than London, but I'm not sure where else. Tis close to my Birthday so may have to treat myself.

The Green On Red show is annoying as it is a Tuesday and in what is likely to be my second week in a new job. I cant take two days off that soon to see a band can I? Even though I've seen Chuck Prophet a dozen times, been on the guest list a few times... been namechecked from the stage at least 3 shows... DAMN!