Seems reasonable

Potential jurors hold “alarming” views about sexual violence, a major report into attitudes towards rape has revealed.

A survey commissioned by the End Violence Against Women Coalition found that a third of people in the UK think it isn’t usually rape if a woman is pressured into having sex but there is no physical violence.

Almost a quarter of the 4,000 people questioned in the Attitudes to Sexual Consent survey carried out by Yougov believed sex without consent in long-term relationships was usually not rape. Laws against rape in marriage have been in place since 1991.

The results came as Jeremy Corbyn warned that the country was facing a “rape crisis”, and as MPs welcomed a survivor of Rotherham’s child exploitation scandal to the Commons.

The report revealed a stark generational gap in attitudes – with more than a third of over-65s believing that in most cases sex without consent with your wife or partner was not rape, compared with just 16% of 16- to 24-year-olds.

We’ve not actually had laws against marital rape since 1991. What the Lords found was that the exception to rape – the general consent to conjugal bits given by the fact of marriage – wasn’t actually an exception which existed in law. But pendantry.

But that peoples’ attitude, beliefs about, something reflect what reality was when they were young and learning? The surprise here is what?

16 comments on “Seems reasonable

  1. “The results came as Jeremy Corbyn warned that the country was facing a “rape crisis”, and as MPs welcomed a survivor of Rotherham’s child exploitation scandal to the Commons.

    The report revealed a stark generational gap in attitudes – ”

    An interesting conflation of issues.

    Was Corbyn expressly referring to Rotherham and similar cases when he spoke of a “rape crisis”? Given the Muslim block vote for Labour, I’ll bet he wasn’t.

    Is the Guardian trying to argue that Rotherham occurred because of a ‘generational’ gap in attitudes? Because it wasn’t. It was a ‘cultural’ gap in attitudes, as all on here except Pak Muslim rape gang apologist NiV recognise.

  2. a third of people in the UK think it isn’t usually rape if a woman is pressured into having sex but there is no physical violence.

    I really can’t stay (Baby it’s cold outside)
    I gotta go away (Baby it’s cold outside)
    This evening has been (police sirens)
    YOU’RE NICKED, GUV

    The results came as Jeremy Corbyn warned that the country was facing a “rape crisis”, and as MPs welcomed a survivor of Rotherham’s child exploitation scandal to the Commons.

    Amazing the lengths that the media and politicians will go to to pretend the widespread systematic gang rape of little white girls by organised gangs is some sort of general “Asian” or social problem rather than a specific result of Muslim immigration.

    with more than a third of over-65s believing that in most cases sex without consent with your wife or partner was not rape

    Depends on what we mean by “consent”, innit? The #woke believe consent means a notarised sex permission form, signed in triplicate by a panel of feminist lawyers.

  3. I don’t see how this is alarming

    It seems to me that jurors receive direction on points of law and what the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt from the judge

    Their judgement is then on the merits of the prosecution case in proving the allegation, not on the definition of rape itself

    What these lobbyists want to do is believe all women (and they are clearly only concerned with woman) and get conviction rates up ‘cos all men are rapists innit?

    It would seem the best way from their perspective is to get rid of juries because the conviction rates are too low (nothing to do with piss poor prosecution cases, withholding of evidence and disclosure, lack of evidence, lack of credibility in the person making the allegation or even malicious accusations)

  4. Remember, women never lie about rape, except when they repeatedly do:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/woman-jailed-10-years-false-rape-claims-jemma-beale

    But even as he was passing judgement on a woman who habitually lied about rape, and got an (Asian) man wrongly imprisoned as a result of her malicious bullshit, the judge felt the need to cite rote feminist talking points:

    He continued: “These false allegations of rape, false allegations which will inevitably be widely publicised, are likely to have the perverse impact of increasing the likelihood of guilty men going free.

    “Cases such as this bring a real risk that a woman who has been raped or sexually assaulted may not complain to the police for fear of not being believed.”

    What does it all mean, Basil? It means the criminal justice system is fucked.

    Jemma Beale only got caught because she wouldn’t stop making false rape allegations. How many women successfully get away with just the one?

  5. This report and those behind it merely want to, on sectarian grounds abolish jury trials for rape (a consequence is this undermines jury trials elsewhere) to incentivise judges to rack up conviction rates and have more miscarriages of justice.

    Do not engage with their subterfuge of guff, point them out as dangerous idiots who are undermining a defence against state tyranny or the alternative they are enemy scum who needs to be destroyed.

  6. I heard this being reported on the Today programme where they were interviewing the woman who had commissioned the study.

    I splurted my coffee when she expressed surprised and disappointment that, as the legal definition of what constitutes rape has been getting more skewed away from “rape rape”, conviction rates have been falling.

    What could _possibly_ be the link between those two things? It certainly appeared to be entirely beyond both interview-er and -ee.

    And, of course, the only possible solution is to abolish jury trial.

    “Do not engage with their subterfuge of guff, point them out as dangerous idiots who are undermining a defence against state tyranny or the alternative they are enemy scum who needs to be destroyed.”

    This. +1

  7. A survey commissioned by the End Violence Against Women Coalition found exactly what they were paid to find.

    Remember, EVAWC backwards is CWAVE.

  8. “I heard this being reported on the Today programme where they were interviewing the woman who had commissioned the study.

    I splurted my coffee when she expressed surprised and disappointment that, as the legal definition of what constitutes rape has been getting more skewed away from “rape rape”, conviction rates have been falling.”

    Before I stopped listening altogether to the BBC, I did make it a point not to be drinking anything, eating anything or indeed having anything to hand which was light enough to be thrown but heavy enough to cause damage.

  9. “. . . believed sex without consent in long-term relationships”

    That’s where they conflate unrelated things.

    Sex *without prior ‘affirmative’ consent before every stage’ is not necessarily ‘without consent’ (it isn’t necessarily with it either).

    Being woken up by the girlfriend after she’s already started is not something I’m not going to withhold consent to.

    But I’m a middle-aged White Cis-Gender male, so what do I know.

  10. @wonko it can depend as forced consent isn’t consent, so it depends on what you mean by ‘pressure’
    Outright threats of violence etc would mean claiming the person consented isn’t valid defence

  11. Seems a lot of the Spanish protests is to do with their specific legal definition of sexual assault vs rape from what I can see and that’s also part of the feminist basic approach of conflating and twisting meaning

  12. ‘The results came as Jeremy Corbyn warned that the country was facing a “rape crisis”,….’

    Odd for Corbyn to be coming out of the woodwork, given his failure to take action when the children in an Islington care home were being raped by paedophiles.

  13. Suppose that, rather than being asked to vote “guilty” or “not guilty”, jurors were asked to assign a percentage probability of guilt. Their responses could then be averaged by the Foreman and reported to the Judge who would, at the end of the year, determine conviction or acquittal by comparing that average with a threshold set annually by the Department of Justice in order to keep the conviction rate in line with the Government’s target.

    I’m just thinking out loud; maybe I should stop before someone takes me seriously.

  14. Does the End Violence Against Women Coalition support women carrying guns? It IS the answer. Armed women cut the success rate of attackers down from 48% to 0.09%.

    Betcha they really don’t care about violence against women.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.