Basically, to summarise: Woman discusses her sexual fantasies, which include group sex, with a potential partner. I repeat: fantasies. Not "I desperately want to do this before the end of the week" needs, but "the thought of this turns me on" fantasies. Got that bit? Right.
Woman goes to meet potential partner for sex. Man brings several friends, who then proceed to rape her.
As in have non-consensual sex with her.
Woman, rightly so, goes to the police, and the men are arrested and it all goes to court. When her fantasies, which she discussed with the man, are brought to court, the prosecution asks for the case to be thrown out, and the judge instructs the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
Therefore: if a woman has ever entertained the thought of group sex, gang rape is perfectly acceptable. We can construe then, perhaps, that if a woman has entertained thoughts of having sex with a man, and discussed with a man that she would one day like to have sex with a man, then rape is perfectly ok.
WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?!?
Really? Gang rape is ok if a woman has entertained group sex fantasies? Would slitting my throat because I once had a dream that I talked about with a friend that I was being murdered be ok? Really? Would it be ok to burgle my house if I said I wondered what it would be like to be burgled?
Really.
Fuck you, Judge Robert Brown. Fuck you, Prosecutor Michael Leeming. You are worthless sacks of donkey gobbling pond scum and right now I am entertaining fantasies about smacking you round the head with a large bit of wood marked "clue-by-four".
Therefore it's perfectly ok if I head up to Liverpool and do this, yes?
Edit to add a further thought/clarification following a discussion with some friends: The woman in the case may have said, at some point in the conversation "yes, I would like to have group sex". This does not translate to "invite your mates round and I'll be fucked by them too". Saying "I would like to go to France" doesn't mean you can kidnap me and take me to France against my will, does it now? We don't know all the facts (we can't - we weren't there) and there is a miniscule chance that the chat log may have said "I will willingly have sex with you, and several other men, at your flat, on a given date, and you can surprise me with the presence of your friends too". But seriously - would you then go through the courts, knowing the low rape conviction rates, how the courts tend to view victims? Really?
The Bolton News reports that the woman entertained ideas of group sex, and may have had group sex before. Doesn't mean she can't be gang raped.
Other posts:
Diary of A London Catgirl: Woman's fantasies end rape case (heads up to Gothi for the original link)
Posts
wow thanks for the link back.. yes this extreamly pissed me off too to the point i was almost shouting about it to an empty room as i clomped around making breakfast
ReplyDeleteSomething REALLY needs to be done to get this case back in court!
I've seen quite a few posters around recently saying "just because she looks like she wants it, doesn't mean she wants it from you". Obviously beyond this judge.
ReplyDeleteWhat pissed me off was that the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict. It's not supposed to be up to one, clearly warped person to decide the law, ffs.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this just a more graphic extension of the "she-was-wearing-a-mini-skirt-therefore she-obviously-wanted-it" argument? Or the "she-went-back-to-his-hotel-room-so-she-obviously-wanted-it" bit? Except this time she's not even being judged on her actions, but her thoughts. Seems the Daily Fail might actually have a point, it IS like 1984.
The enraging thing about all this being, the law was changed, a shamefully short time ago, so that prosecutors were no longer allowed to question a victim about her actual sex life - how is questioning her about her fantasies any different? How is this legal?
This makes me incredibly angry.
ReplyDeleteThis is disgusting :(
ReplyDeleteThere just are no words.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, FUCK THEM! Fantasy and reality are two different things! How can, i can't believe this. Heaven's i'm so angry! I can't even string a whole sentence in my head! Stupid idiots.
ReplyDeleteHave you even read the article beyond the opening paragraph?
ReplyDelete"who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words 'her morals go out of the window'"
Bing, implied consent. She didn't entertain the thought, she entertained the possibility.
Judge Brown told the jury: "This case depended on the complainant's credibility.
"Not to put too fine a point on it, her credibility was shot to pieces.
And Judge Brown is right. The woman has no credibility. But I suppose you would prefer a world where people were convicted and imprisoned on hearsay and accusation alone, rather than actaul evidence. Seeing as there is nothing else to support a conviction other than her accusation, her credibility is vitally important. And she doesn't have any because she seriously entertained the possibility. Bing!
If she was raped then I am sorry, it is one of the most henious of acts, but if the only evidence is her testamony, and there are such obvious doubts as to her honesty about the whole situation, this should never have gotten as far as it did.
ReplyDeleteSurely the accuser in this instance should be named also. One rule for the goose and all that...
Hello rape apologists, I was wondering when you were going to turn up.
ReplyDeleteGood Cod,how on earth is "entertaining the idea of group sex" implied consent? Are you out of your fucking mind?! I've "entertained the idea" the idea of many things (Joining a gym, voting Tory, going to an Arctic Monkeys concert) but thank Cod I don't have a legal obligation to do any of them! You absolute pyschopath!
And Gordon, you are right, you ARE a moron.
Gordon is not the only moron here, is he - or are you just a bitter and confused Jilted John? Oh wait, you're clearly an idiot, so I don't care.
ReplyDeleteI think my favourite bit is "if the only evidence is her testamony" though - what the fuck else, pray, would satisfy your omniscience? I mean, hey, testimony (yes, that is how you spell it, for future reference) never crops up in court cases normally, does it? Testimony as evidence - you've got to be having a laugh, of course! Hah, what an idea!
Oh wait... it's just a WOMAN's testimony. Well, let's introduce that fraction of Sharia law about one man's evidence equalling that of two women's - that's a handy way to get out of conviction for gang rape.
how can we find out if someone has been raped or not without asking them about their sex life?
ReplyDeletethis lying woman not only thought about orgies but she advertised globally that she wanted to have orgies on more than one occasion, I would say that’s asking for something and not hot chocolate before bed
i want to know her name, address and what she looks like so i can help people avoid this parasite like the plague
when she has been proven guilty of bringing about a malicious prosecution as a direct consequence of her evidence i hope they lock her up somewhere safe for a long time
btw when your light comes on it makes this sound.......
bing
OK halfwits, now I'm only going to say this ONCE.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone entertains thoughts of an action does not establish consent. It must have been given at the time of the act, not long before it, and the judge should have left this issue to the jury. Chat logs indicating fantasies of group sex do not allow reasonable belief in consent, since consent can be withdrawn at any time.
no consent cannot be withdrawn after an event, that would be rewriting history or as we mostly call it, lying
ReplyDeleteshe didn't just think about it she asked for it in the most public way known to man and woman
what the chatlogs do is show a reasonable belief that she should and has been doubted.
ReplyDeletenot to put too fine a point on it if she told you something would you ask two or three times?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMike, case not closed, for the following reasons: you cannot say the chat logs show anything... we have no idea what the full transcript said. Obviously, the reporter could not include everything in the space allocated for the article. As for fantasising about "morals going out the window", it could well be the case that while an attractive idea in principle, for the woman at the centre of this case it was not an attractive prospect in practice. If she was then forced into sex despite this, it's rape.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to consent, consent can be withdrawn right up until the moment a sex act begins AND if someone decides part way through that they would like to stop, says so, but sex continues, I would say that was still rape.
As for asking someone during sex if they were enjoying it/wanted to do something different/wanted to stop, I've found that checking how your partner is during sex is the best way of having better sex. So yes.
Also, to those complaining about the judge, I can say from my limited experience covering court cases that "directing the jury" is legal jargon. It means advising the jury on the basis of the evidence presented what verdicts are open to them. In a murder trial I covered, there were two defendants, one had taken a leading role in the crime but both were responsible, but in his "directing" the judge pointed out that they could not acquit the first man and then convict the other, because logically, it would not make sense. And as the prosecutor apparently decided to submit no evidence in this case, the judge didn't have much option.
Having said all that, the quotes attributed to him show that he does have a very blinkered and sexist attitude anyway.
Can you not grasp the concept that there is a massive gulf between discussing a fantasy and it actually happening? Just because a woman suggests she would like to do something absolutely does not mean that the fantasy cannot then be carried out without her consent. "Would like consensual group sex with strangers" is not the same as "gang rape". So, Mike, in response: Yes, I would make sure she actually wanted sex with me AND my friends before I imposed it on her. Common courtesy, innit...?
ReplyDeleteThere's already a huge culture of victim blame
she should have put what she wanted down in writing then, bing
ReplyDeleteyeah but no but yeah but... case closed init
Halfspan, Robert & Sayem - thank you, exactly what I wanted to say.
ReplyDeleteMike, Pavlov's Cat & Gordon - A fantasy is not consenting to anything. Her previous sex life is not evidence that she consented to group sex, it's entirely irrelevant (there is, in fact, a law that prevents defense cases using the victim's sexual history against them). If she has had group sex in the past doesn't magically mean she has consented to any and all group sex in the future. Even if she had agreed online to have group sex - she still has a right to say no before or during sex.
Consent can be withdrawn at any time - even in the middle of sex. If she said "stop" (or the safe-word equivalent) then continuing to have sex is rape.
Or perhaps the person(s) who had sex with her should have been decent human beings and realised that sex is not a right, and should absolutely be consensual up until and even during the act itself. That you can't seem to grasp this nor construct a cohesive argument to the contrary, Mike, leads me to assume that you are a terribly unimaginative type of troll.
ReplyDeletePlenty of sensible souls have already ripped the trolls to shreds (and let's hope that becomes literal if Mike ever succeeds in his disgusting quest to hunt down and harass a rape victim) but just some further obvious analogy that might enlighten them:
ReplyDelete1) If you had always fantasised about taking drugs (and lots of teenagers do, egging each other on) does that make it OK for someone to then hold you down and inject a bad batch of heroin even as you're saying, "No, I've changed my mind, I never want to try this"?
2) If you'd always quite wanted to go bungee-jumping, but had a panic attack having been all harnessed in and standing on the edge of the bridge, would it be OK for someone to shove you off anyway?
And to use the misogynist's favourite chattle paradigm, if you paid for a meal worth ten pounds on credit card in a restaurant, would it be OK for someone to charge your card £80 instead?
Hint: The answer to all these questions is NO.
(Not to mention that even if she'd wanted group sex, that doesn't mean she'd have wanted it with those men - any agreement to a threesome with Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt would be null and void if you turned up to find the parents out of American Pie there instead. I'd have thought that was pretty fucking obvious, unless you view the woman and all the men in this case as mere objects).
I've just realised one of the nastiest bits about that verdict. How does her morals going out the window actually affect anything? My moral principles could sink, well, lower than Mike's, but I still wouldn't ever want to eat a deep-fried mushroom or listen to Slayer with a hangover, and would still be quite annoyed if someone tried to force me to.
ReplyDeleteSince when is mood and taste irrelevant and morality the only reason someone might want to turn down sex? I've got a feeling it's because women were purpose-designed as sexual playthings who need to be conditioned into not fucking, but otherwise need no internal thought-processes. What do the rest of you reckon?
you lot r effing incredible. no-one except the people who had the sex know what was or wasn't said during the act we only know for sure what she wrote before and what was said in court
ReplyDeletethe bad batch of heroin analogy is particularly useless in that if I asked for smack and got bleach I would either die or get my money back
calling me a troll is odd as I have just looked in the mirror and see myself and I don't fish with a line much either
enough about me lets focus on the facts of a closed case that leads me to believe you lot seem determined to ignore what is right in front of your twisted faces and are a group of people that pose a high risk of belatedly removing consent or as most people call it lying after an event to bring about a malicious prosecution.
I will sleep well tonight but I will be surprised if any of the men or the woman involved in this will so let them get on with it
do you think the men would open the door to her again? I think not
"My moral principles could sink, well, lower than Mike's" - I'd love to see them try!
ReplyDeleteAs analogy that maybe some of these dip shit men can understand:
ReplyDeleteIf you posted to a chat room that you wanted to be a pro-footballer, so one day I ran up to you on the street and tackled you hard as I could...I would be guilty of assault. The fact that you fantasized about foesn't give me permission to do it until AFTER we have discussed it and decided to do it, even then we can only engage in the rules of the game as we've BOTH consented to and the moment I violate those rules I am assaulting you.
If you played World of Warcraft on line and one day I ran up to you and hit you with a sword I would be guilty of attempted murder.
If you posted to a chat room that you had always fantasized about being in battle and I ran up and started shooting at you, I would be guilt of attempted murder.
Clear?
censorship is the main point of this site not open debate
ReplyDeleteJust a heads-up to our lovely readers: we have a comment moderation policy. It's right above the box. Comments are moderated *before* they're posted, so sometimes things take a while as we've all other shit to be getting on with (just as you do, I'm sure).
ReplyDeleteWe also don't tolerate, as we've said - trolling, spamming, racism, sexism, fascism and bigotry. However, it's our blog, so we get to decide what constitutes any of the above. And stamping your feet about censorship is one of those things that is going to get one of us pressing "reject comment". As is repeating the same argument with varying levels of insulting remarks on our writers' appearance, mental capabilities or criminal intent (or lack thereof).
Mike - take the above as a bit of a warning. And stop writing "bing", it only makes you look like even more of a twat than being a rape apologist does.
"enough about me lets focus on the facts of a closed case that leads me to believe you lot seem determined to ignore what is right in front of your twisted faces and are a group of people that pose a high risk of belatedly removing consent or as most people call it lying after an event to bring about a malicious prosecution."
ReplyDeleteThat's true, unless you count the fanciful possibility of her changing her mind in the several hours that would have passed between the msn conversation and the actual sex.
There's also during the sex. You can also withdraw consent before it's finished, and then everything thereafter counts as rape. Or, in your world, if someone asks you to take your penis out of them, is stopping fucking them against their will just a favour?
All right thinking people will be appalled by such backwardness on the part of the prosecutor and judge. That is, if the facts as reported are true and there's not something else going on (some other esoteric matter of law which arose, for instance, necessitating a verdict of not guilty, which was not understood and/or overlooked by the journalist).
ReplyDeleteAssuming the facts as given on the BBC site are the only ones pertinent to these men's acquittal, then this is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the legal profession. That your online comments on MSN could be used against you in this situation - is there anyone reading this who doesn't feel a little bit queasy at this prospect? And I don't mean the rape apologists, who should hang their heads in shame. Go and get an education and come back when you have acquired some basic human decency.
One glaringly obvious point (which is worth pointing out for the benefit of those who seem to have trouble grasping basic principles) is this. There's a borderline case to be made for this woman having consented to group sex by implication. Where does it say that she consented to rape?
good morning lovers. ready to tell me stuff that you think i don't know about sex? i was lucky i had an education and am still willing to learn but some of the observations about me from you lot have been way off track. i don't care that much what you think about me it just gets in the way of debating the point that i have repeatedly put, CASE CLOSED bing
ReplyDeletecan anyone claim they have solid evidence this woman was raped, most keep pointing out that concwent can be removed before and during sex, none will agree it cant be removed after and all i have to go on is what the woman wrote to the world, then did in going to meet the men and then they all said
how someone conducts themselves if it is in direct relation to a case is important, i accept if she had spent her life as a nun this would not be relevent but she not only had questionable sexual history but wrote about what she wanted to do before it happened, not some other unrelated event.
you can post this or not i know you will have read it
"I accept if she had spent her life as a nun this would not be relevant"
ReplyDeleteWoah there, "lover" (vomits). Would you be implying that only a virgin can be raped? Because she's had sex before (which you actually don't know to be the case, fact fan), because she admits to having sexual desires that does not imply automatic consent, to anyone, anywhere, any time, moron.
And FYI, I approved this comment as soon as I read it. I'm guessing there's not much else to do from a prison cell but post offensive, repetitive, pointless comments, all day long, two minutes apart, but I actually have a job, so this was my earliest opportunity. I haven't approved any of your other inumerate (and illiterate) comments because you consistently fail to abide by the group rules on posting. Pretending yopu swalloed an oven timer is not intelligent or funny, it just makes me wonder if you were dropped on your head daily until the age of 15.
"can anyone claim they have solid evidence this woman was raped"
ReplyDeleteNo, nor do we need any. Mornington was never angry because the judge had acquitted obvious rapists and we men are all rapists waiting to happen.
Mornington was quite rightly fucking furious because a woman's sexual fantasies had been construed as either consent, detrimental to her credibility, or both, and threw the case out based on that. Whether the defendants were guilty is largely irrelevant, we're angry because of the judge's attitude to the victim/witness and the validity of her evidence.
"most keep pointing out that concwent can be removed before and during sex"
Can't it?
"none will agree it cant be removed after"
I think we all agree it can't be removed after. Nobody thinks consent can be withdrawn retroactively except the hairy straw-dyke you've made for yourself to fight with.
Besides, what would be the point? Put yourself in the shoes of one of these ghastly women who "cry rape". If you'd just had an ill-advised sexual encounter and regretted it, would you want to:
- go to the police and have a long set of intrusive, demeaning examinations,
- spend a whole bunch of time in court and
- re-live the whole sordid experience in front of a room full of strangers and the bloke in question, while they ask you very intimate questions about people you'd slept with in the past?
Or would you rather just have some Irn-Bru and wait for the hangover to go?
"and all i have to go on is what the woman wrote to the world, then did in going to meet the men and then they all said"
Us too. But we've got enough brains to understand the difference between expressing general, theoretical interest and giving consent to a real, specific sex act on a real, specific occasion with real, specific people.
"how someone conducts themselves if it is in direct relation to a case is important, i accept if she had spent her life as a nun this would not be relevent"
Don't nuns like cock then? Not ever?
"but she not only had questionable sexual history but wrote about what she wanted to do before it happened, not some other unrelated event."
Just out of interest, who did you think it was on trial? Criminal cases are about the defendants' behaviour, not the victims', and rape trials are about whether the rapist had sex with someone without their consent, not psychological voodoo reconstructions of whether the victim "wanted" it or not.
And by "questionable sexual history", do you mean she might once have had a sexual fantasy? I have to warn you Mike, if the stuff you wank over can be used against you in court then come your parole hearing you're seriously fucked.
Double Case Closed Super-Bing NO BACKSIES
"Double Case Closed Super-Bing NO BACKSIES"
ReplyDeleteMarry me?
Alex - thank you. That's exactly why I'm angry - that her fantasies and sexual history are considered reasons for her to be discredited and considered "unrapeable". Woman has sexual fantasies does not equal woman cannot be raped. She may have been raped, she may not have been - but that her fantasies were used against her- that is fucking disgusting.
ReplyDeletethank the maker some one who doubts her credibility and suggests that she may or may not have been raped.
ReplyDeletethe only fantasies that were identified in the closed case were the one pertaining to the meeting that she took herself to and attended by her own free will.
if she had had a fantasy about becoming a nun i'm certain it would be irrelevant as nuns are generally celibate by design
Perhaps we can now agree that there is some doubt in her intentions in going to this mans house and what it is she wanted.
I hope I never meet this, by all accounts, delightful lady
Mike - I am not doubting her credibility. If a woman says she was raped, then knowing the massive stigma that comes with opening up to that, and how twits like you tend to view women who go through the court system only to have their cases dismissed or a not guilty verdict returned, I tend to believe them. I, honestly, think it's highly likely that she was raped - but my disgust at her rape and my disgust at the use of her fantasies are separate.
ReplyDeleteWe do not know if the fantasies pertained to the meeting - only that she discussed those fantasies with the man she went to meet. Discussing fantasies with a (potential) sexual partner is not, and never will be, the same thing a consent - or are you telling me that if a person you were in a sexual relationship with said "I am turned on by the thought of group sex" you'd invite your mates round without asking her or his permission first?
I don't doubt she went to his house for sex. I do not see that her fantasies make it impossible for her to have been raped, or a certainty that she "cried rape".
Mike, I doubt you've met *any* woman. They probably cross the street when they see you coming - we have a sixth sense about these things.
ReplyDeleteMike, even if going to the man's house did constitute consent, since she didn't know the others were there, it couldn't possibly mean she consented to sex with them.
ReplyDeleteApart from that, how exactly does it undermine her credibility? Unless she'd previously said "I've never been interested in group sex and my morals are unshakeable".
Please accept that the judge instructed the jury as a consequence of the prosecution offering no evidence of rape. The judge's opinions, I accept, are unrelated in his duty to instruct a jury in this way if no evidence is provided in respect of any allegation.
ReplyDeleteThe prosecution decided to not produce evidence after receiving facts that had been withheld until after the charges had been brought for unknown reasons. That is, her public declarations also communicated directly to the accused detailing a desire and implied consent to group sex with strangers.
No-one can consent to rape as you quite rightly identify. However a person can consent to having sex with strangers. Knowing the identity of the person someone has sex with is not a requirement in law. The consent is to sex not knowledge of identity. In fact DNA provides all the evidence of identity we need in most sexual acts.
Finally, you failed to cover my points about anonymity for the accused and the accuser until and if a conviction is handed down. Or recovering the costs to those who are falsely accused, thosewho have determined that those accused (ie the tax payer) are not guilty and last but not least rape victims that have and will be as a consequence of the effect of false allegations of rape who do not receive justice, why?
For the last time, expressing a fantasy online does not constitue consent, implied or otherwise. Consent must be obtained at the time of the act.
ReplyDeleteI didn't address your other points because they're worthless. The defendents in rape cases aren't given anonymity because no defendents are given anonymity, bar those being tried in youth court. Do the people who bleat about anonymity for rape defendents also demand anonymity for the the accused in murder, burglary, arson and paedophilia charges too? No? Shut up then. "Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done" - look it up.
The costs are not receovered when a defendent is found not guilty because the victim is not guilty of any crime (ie, false reporting) until she has been convicted of it by a jury. If she is, costs are not recovered because it's the criminal court, not civil. Again, do you want costs recovered from anyone who falsely reports any crime or are you just gunning for women?
Third point is most laughable of all. Only misogynists and rape apologists cry that "false accusations" have a detrimental impact on actual victims. They would do probably - if there were ever more than a tiny, tiny handful of such a cases a year. And again, this bears no relevance to this case because the victim hasn't been tried or convicted of any crime. As for the idea that false reports *cause* rape - yeah whatever, I can't be bothered to deal with the lunacy right now.
i reckon at some point in that judge's life he had a litte fantasy about having some sex
ReplyDeletesomeone should go rape him. That's ok right?
This is absolutely horrifying.
ReplyDeleteIt seems people are arguing as to whether she was raped or not. No one, apart from those directly involved, know whether she was or not! The case we are arguing is whether the acused should have faced a trial or not, and if the information in the bbc article is all that closing the case was based on, then obviously it's disgusting that they didn't. None of us know the full story, but from the information i've been given, i think the accused should have faced a trial. That doesn't mean i think they are guilty, i have no idea whether they are or not, i just think that if the case was dismissed purely on the strength of an msn conversation, then it's awful.
ReplyDelete