It appears that there are different male and female standards

I suspect that many women who are the victims of unwanted drunken fumbles settle with slapping the prat, kicking him in the nuts or simply walking away rather than calling 999. Although, technically, it is a indeed an s3 SOA03 offence.

You seem, unusually, to be confusing the deliberately and maliciously hysterical reaction of the media and the hard-core feminuts with society as a whole. Many of the victims, by and large, do not seem to be after justice, but compo.

What SE said…

I’ve rejected my share of drunken advances, and never in a million years dreamed of calling the cops.

bloke in spain

Like your attitude, Sir!

A knee in the bollocks would have soon put a stopper on his capers.

He would never have brought a charge of assault as the whole embarrassing story would have been all over the papers, as now. Basically it was a free hit, an open goal, and he blew it.

dearieme

“For the purposes of recruiting policemen, firemen, and soldiers, kindly pretend that I said nothing about disparities in strength”

An American Tale: Would-be female recruits to the US Marines found the minimum throwing distance in the tests a wee bit of a stretch. So they reduced it to, let’s say, x ft. Y ft is the minimum throwing distance to stop you blowing yourself up with a hand grenade. Now; which of the following do you suppose holds true: x is less than y, x equals y, x is greater than y.

The correct answer wins you precisely nothing.

Could we, for the sake of proportion, just stop to note the very great qualitative difference between the horrendous, lifelong, psychopathic behaviour of Jimmy Savile and the allegations made against Dave Lee Travis. Whatever one thinks of Travis’ behaviour and attitude towards women, did it really merit criminal action, the loss of his life savings, the loss of his public reputation?

“So yes, I think the implication is that it has to do with ability to resist.”

And, also, frequency.

I’ve had my arse pinched a few times, and even once received a lewd comment from a ‘woman of a certain age’ in the street. None of which was welcome, but none of which especially bothered me.

If these this occurred daily, then I’d be less inclined to laugh them off. And, for whatever social, biological or evolutionary reasons, men lech on women far more frequently than women lech on men. I think that explains why women might reasonably be more inclined to think ‘something must be done’.. notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority manage not to get the police involved.

Ironman: Julia is correct.
The Saville caper is an orchestrated panic brought about by radical feminism–a crew with a long history of orchestrating panics(eg–the US day nursery caper–although caper is far too light a word for something that got several entirely innocent people 25 odd years in the hell of US jails–the satanic panic and the ongoing background storm of paedo-hysteria to name some). The “crimes” of Saville (see blogs “Anna Racoon” and “The Death of the Life of Jimmy Saville” for some very interesting material on the alleged crimes and their alleged “victims”) are just a sub set of femmi-strategy.

As long ago as the 1950s Ayn Rand pointed out that the aim of the femmi branch of the New Left –as then then were called–was to poison relationships ( already fraught at the best of times ) between men and women. Because such relationships and the families they produce are the backbone of bourgeois society. They have been at this goal ever since with very considerable success as you can see by looking around you.
This can be seen on such shows as the former “Richard and Judy” dross where they asked “Is your partner a paedophile?”. You know they weren’t talking to the husband (and were ignoring female paedophiles). That is what radical feminism has “achieved” so far.
Any person, and esp any man , who simply accepts the media bullshit in the case of Saville or any other, without thought or looking for other evidence is effectively punching himself in the face on behalf of feminism. Without the Saville hysteria there would have been none of the bogus prosecutions going on. If the femmis succeed in peddling their lies there will be very large numbers of ordinary men soon being put thro’ what DLT and the others are now going thro’. That is what the hate mongers want. Please think about it and look around before you accept media shite. Whatever conclusion you reach, at least then it will be your own and not one being put out into the ether in the hope it will help destroy you.

On the other hand, if you want to mount a sex-jihad against someone, it’s better that the victim is dead. The fact that he anyway made my flesh crawl is irrelevant, I suppose, except that if enough people feel like that it may bias them in the direction of believing the accusations.

“Ironman, I wasn’t aware Savile’s guilt had been settled. Pray tell me, when was he convicted?”

I wasn’t aware that Al Capone’s guilt for anything other than tax evasion had been settled either. Nor has Hitler’s, Stalin’s or D.B. Cooper’s either. I don’t remember Bin Laden getting convicted either.

Do you see what I am getting at? Reasonable people can decide for themselves whether it is more likely that not that Jimmy Savile is guilty. There are, however, no legal consequences to this because popular opinion is not actually a court of law. I guess if he was alive he could sue us.

several hundred people have come forward independently saying that Jimmy Savile abused them. I find it more likely that Jimmy Savile was a serial sexual criminal than several hundred people decided to lie.

The fact that he anyway made my flesh crawl is irrelevant, I suppose, except that if enough people feel like that it may bias them in the direction of believing the accusations.”

It might be very relevant, let’s face it, weird tracksuit wearer gets it in the neck. Glamorous, long haired, leather wearing guitarists of the same era don’t get a mention.
The flesh crawling aspect seems to determine who is having accusation’s made against them it probably wouldn’t affect most people’s opinion of who was shagging 15 year olds (all of them).

we’ll skip merrily past the notion that he was a “hebephile”

Bugger, there goes my etymologically-based rant of the afternoon 🙂

Also, who cares if the press is wrongly reporting that he is a paedophile? It doesn’t mean that Jim couldn’t possibly have raped and assaulted hundreds of people over thirty or forty years.

Eck,

‘Axis war crimes’ is to distinguish myself from another Andy. I lack the imagination to develop a new nom de guerre, but my initial posts here concerned axis war crimes so I’ve gone with that.

The rest of your post read like you were advocating a weird tin foil hat conspiracy theory. You’re entitled to believe that hundreds of people are lying or delusional. I still maintain that the safe money is on the ‘Jimmy is a rapist’ view.

I am pretty relaxed about the prospects of a mob coming after me as I don’t commit rape or sexual assault and I make sure my partners are not ten years old, but thanks for the concern.

The Thought Gang – “If these this occurred daily, then I’d be less inclined to laugh them off. And, for whatever social, biological or evolutionary reasons, men lech on women far more frequently than women lech on men. I think that explains why women might reasonably be more inclined to think ‘something must be done’.. notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority manage not to get the police involved.”

The other thing is reputation. Men want women who will have their children and no other. Although we all pretend we have come a long way, that has not changed much. Women are still very shy of the “slut” label. Slut pride marches to the contrary. They are also very judgemental about other women who are slutty. Not protesting loudly against men propositioning them suggests they are easy. Which many men might be fine with in a girlfriend but less so in a long term relationship. By protesting they are demonstrating value to men – they are chaste, they are not easy lays, men have to work hard to get them in bed, any children they have together are likely to be the man’s.

Axis War Crimes Andy – “It would be a double standard if every female victim reported a sexual assault. Many don’t because they think that they will be disbelieved. Reading the comments on this board I cannot imagine why…”

Your evidence that many don’t is what precisely? Oh wait, it is one of those great conspiracy theories – it takes a planet of billions to keep all those women down right?

Ironman – “An American Tale: Would-be female recruits to the US Marines found the minimum throwing distance in the tests a wee bit of a stretch. So they reduced it to, let’s say, x ft. Y ft is the minimum throwing distance to stop you blowing yourself up with a hand grenade. Now; which of the following do you suppose holds true: x is less than y, x equals y, x is greater than y. The correct answer wins you precisely nothing.”

Why do you think that is an American tale given British women are not able to throw grenades any further? In fact there are stories from the Gulf of women recognising this and handing their grenades over to their male counterparts and letting them throw them.

The place where this is likely to be a problem is the Navy. The US Army found that fire fighting jobs that needed four men now need five women. Less strength. Of course when something like the Sheffield happens, everyone has to fight the fire. Even though now some percentage of female sailors are unlikely to be up to the physical demands.

SMFS: I doubt the femmis had any personal hatred for Saville–he was just a useful idiot who was weird and egotistical and died at the right time for them. He was also a celeb with a national “profile” high enough to do the job, to get a head of steam going so to speak.

Much of his weirdness prob stems from his need for a “youthful” image. As Moor Larkin said on his blog, the first 4 Top of the Pops presenters in 1962 were :Fluff Freeman, Pete Murray, David Jacobs and Jimmy Saville. By 1969 the first 3 were gone. Saville remained until the mid 80s working alongside new, much younger presenters, such as Noel Edmonds who was 23 years younger than Saville. Saville’s dyed hair, ululating, cigars and weird speech patterns were an attempt , if not to be classed with “youth” to at least avoid being dismissed as “old”. Of course in time it was a trick that not only no longer worked but in the end just left him seeming very odd. How easy then to take the paedo-hysteria that 20 +years of media manipulation had set up in this country (which is why our schools resemble Stalag-Luft 13) and attach it to one man. Sort of like taking a flow of water and making it run down a narrow channel to pick up more speed and power. To mangle a metaphor, at the end of the channel would be a waterwheel and the Saville stream would turn that and British “Justice” would be empowered to grind down lots more men, which is what the femmis want. So far the Saville stream is running but the water-wheel is in trouble. With luck it will break down altogether.

Axis war crimes Andy – “Wait, smfs, aren’t you the guy who argued a few months back that it was an intolerable intrusion into the private life of a man by the state when marital rape was recognized as a crime? Or was that someone else?”

Sounds like me. Well almost. Not quite my point but close.

Mr Ecks – “I doubt the femmis had any personal hatred for Saville–he was just a useful idiot who was weird and egotistical and died at the right time for them. He was also a celeb with a national “profile” high enough to do the job, to get a head of steam going so to speak.”

They have an ideological commitment to believing the worst of any man. I don’t think that anyone had a personal hatred for Savile. He was just an obvious target.

“Much of his weirdness prob stems from his need for a “youthful” image.”

I think it is probably the other way around – he was weird and so he kept on working. I mean, he was weird. No denying it. So was Barry George. But that doesn’t mean he killed Jill Dando.

“How easy then to take the paedo-hysteria that 20 +years of media manipulation had set up in this country (which is why our schools resemble Stalag-Luft 13) and attach it to one man.”

Indeed. And that probably explains the media’s shameful role in all this.

“So far the Saville stream is running but the water-wheel is in trouble. With luck it will break down altogether.”

I think it has a little longer to run yet. So many careers depend on. And there is no sign of push back from most men yet. It is not the feminists that cause these things. It is their White Knighting male enablers. Once they have had enough, the process will stop. But there is no sign of it yet.

smfs

“police actually did take several looks at during his lifetime. And they found no evidence of a crime.”

As I understand, individual police forces found insufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that particular crimes occurred, which isn’t quite the same thing. And these same bodies now accept that they dropped the ball. I guess the police judgement can only be trusted when they agree with you.

“I don’t think he was a sexual offender because no one made these allegation as long as he was alive to sue for libel.”

Except you just said police investigate complaints made against Jimmy, so clearly some were making these allegations while he was alive.

“believe that he was not a sexual offender precisely because he was the sort of person other people would think was a sexual offender and so exactly the sort of man that people with voices in their head would fixate on.”

Which is circular reasoning. That it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck isn’t a reason for concluding that the animal is a cow. Recent history shows that weirdos can be acquitted in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by the fact that one is involved in campaigning for press regulations.

“That we are a little skeptical about witch hunts in the media.”

skepticism is fine, but pseudo-skepticism is another matter. That is clearly what you are up to:

“I see no evidence any of these accounts corroborate each other. Which ones do you think do?”

Many of the accounts seem to, according to Commander Peter Spindler. Is he looking for money too?

“The sad, mad and bad are not limited to those claiming abuse. We are talking about memories from the 70s – and a chance to get in the media limelight. Are they lying? Did the children who alleged the Satanic Abuse lie?”

I’ll take that as a yes.

“I have spoken to some people who were probed by aliens.”

Rape and alien abduction being equally likely.

“Apart from the fact that their livelihood relies on it.”

Except they don’t. Lawyers and police personnel make their livelihood dealing with a variety of crimes, and many of the Rape Crisis Center workers are volunteers.

“Surveys have shown one in four women are sexually assaulted. By counting things like whistles as sexual assault. You can get any result you want from a survey if you massage the questions and answers properly.”

Which isn’t what those studies did, although one famous study did have some genuine limitations admitted by the researchers later on (which was nice of them, given their ideological commitments to believing the worst in any man).

“Well obviously. Women still want to avoid the reputation as a slut. It is unfair but there it is. However your problem is still your utter credulousness to the witch hunt”

There is no ‘witch hunt’, at least not by the legal system. Jimmy himself is dead. The others are being given fair trials, and some have been acquitted.

“I should not have to explain why this is sh!t on a shingle.”

= ad hom.

On the whole I am unimpressed with your view and remain convinced that Jimmy was probably a sexual offender, although evidence for this might not have stood up in court. As we are not in a court, that is not a problem. Although in light of your past comments I am beginning to understand why the current situation makes you feel uncomfortable.

I’d be really careful about using terms like ‘fucking idiot’, given that you:

1) Think that a court couldn’t find him guilty – it never got the chance
2) Think that I said a court couldn’t find him guilty – I simply admitted it was possible that it *might* not be able to, because I haven’t investigated all the evidence (although you and smfs don’t seem all that keen on people who have investigated the evidence)
3) Are apparently unable to grasp that the presumption of innocence is only meant to protect people from the state. Just because someone cannot be convicted of child abuse doesn’t mean people should or would feel comfortable letting Jimmy babysit their kids (for example). Particularly so given that the evidence is quite compelling (300 odd separate victim testimonies, an unknown number of witnesses and a confession in his 1974 autobiography that he broke the law in one specific instance).

Eck,

“Logic isn’t your strong point isn’t it?”

Nor is it your’s by the look of things.

On the one hand, the whole thing is a stitch up, the evidence can’t be trusted. But on the other there hasn’t been much success when it comes to locking people up. Hmmmm, that might just suggest that system is working fine at present, and that there is not witch hunt.

“–but you “know” SMFS and I aren’t keen on those who have looked at the evidence–which would include SMFS and I. Who have certainly looked a lot further than you have.”

Okay so you say you’ve looked at the evidence:

“if it is unknown could be 0 for all you know”

Wait, what? Are you drunk? If you’ve seen all the evidence then surely you noticed the people in the original ITV documentary who claimed to walk in on him in bed with twelve year old girls. There are at least two featured on that programme if memory serves. I don’t recall any other ones specially but I’d imagine their out there as Jimmy appears to have been pretty brazen.

“The “witnesses” are as suspect as the accusers.”

Uh yeah, okay.

Axis war crimes Andy – “As I understand, individual police forces found insufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that particular crimes occurred, which isn’t quite the same thing. And these same bodies now accept that they dropped the ball. I guess the police judgement can only be trusted when they agree with you.”

Well police judgement when under media pressure can’t be trusted. Police judgement when they are quietly going about their job can’t always be trusted but it is a lot more trustworthy than when they are trying to lie their way out of a media frenzy.

The police repeatedly looked into this issue. They repeatedly found no basis for a prosecution. But naturally the presumption of innocence is an old fashioned concept that has had its day, right?

“Which is circular reasoning. That it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck isn’t a reason for concluding that the animal is a cow. Recent history shows that weirdos can be acquitted in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by the fact that one is involved in campaigning for press regulations.”

It looks like circular reasoning but it isn’t. Because JS must be the most investigated creepy old man in British history – and they have found nothing that could be called credible. So he looks a lot like Barry George.

“skepticism is fine, but pseudo-skepticism is another matter. That is clearly what you are up to:”

It is interesting you see fit to stand in judgement on my level of scepticism.

“Many of the accounts seem to, according to Commander Peter Spindler. Is he looking for money too?”

“Seem to” is coming down from “do”. Where and when did he say this?

“I’ll take that as a yes.”

Take it any way you like. You’d be wrong but don’t let that stop you.

“Rape and alien abduction being equally likely.”

We are not talking about rape. Stop lying about what I said.

“Except they don’t. Lawyers and police personnel make their livelihood dealing with a variety of crimes, and many of the Rape Crisis Center workers are volunteers.”

Their Rape Crisis Centre’s livelihood depends on it then. Remember the best documented crime in Western legal history is witchcraft.

“Which isn’t what those studies did, although one famous study did have some genuine limitations admitted by the researchers later on (which was nice of them, given their ideological commitments to believing the worst in any man).”

Actually that is precisely what the 1-in-4 study did – they interviewed women, asked them leading question and then, even though the women themselves did not describe what happened to them as rape, they unilaterally classified their experience as rape. Naturally when called out for their utter bullsh!t some of them will be forced to admit it. Doesn’t stop the 1-in-4 figure being used.

“There is no ‘witch hunt’, at least not by the legal system. Jimmy himself is dead. The others are being given fair trials, and some have been acquitted.”

There is, obviously, a witch hunt. As can be seen by the removal of JS’s name from everything – last seen in the Soviet era. Some have been acquitted. Because juries are smarter than idiots who believe the activists and papers.

“= ad hom.”

No it isn’t. Actually. Unlike your claim about JS – which is simply that he looks creepy so he must be guilty.

“On the whole I am unimpressed with your view and remain convinced that Jimmy was probably a sexual offender,”

My heart bleeds. I may never recover.

“although evidence for this might not have stood up in court. As we are not in a court, that is not a problem.”

If you think that mob violence is the right solution, you are right. It isn’t a problem. But there is no reason why any sane person should lose their head in a lynch mob. I do not intend to. And will continue to mock those like you who do.

Look at the evidence against him:

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-19820017

Former teen singer Coleen Nolan claimed in an interview on ITV1’s Alan Titchmarsh Show on Wednesday that Savile had suggested she join him at a hotel when she was 14, following a recording of Top of the Pops.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9600881/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-new-allegations-presenter-abused-sick-children.html

“I was quite shy and lonely,” she said. “I don’t remember him saying anything to me but he leant down and I was excited because I thought he was going to give me a wee peck on the cheek.
“But he took my face in his hands and rammed his tongue down my throat. I was shocked.
“I had never been kissed and I didn’t really know what had happened – only that it made me absolutely shudder.
“Afterwards he just walked off as if nothing had happened.”

Kissing a girl is a sexual assault now is it? God knows Britain has aunts and grandmothers who ought to be afraid. He kissed her and walked off. He deserves jail time for that?

He was once found backstage at the BBC with a 14-year-old girl who was recovering from cancer, it has been reported, while another woman claimed he tried to “groom” her for abuse following a choir performance at Stoke Mandeville.

Quality evidence of criminal activity there.

She recalled her experience in a radio interview: “I was in my wheelchair, but I just remember [Savile’s] hands being everywhere and just lingering those two, three, four seconds slightly too long in places they shouldn’t […] It was in a busy room full of people in a studio so it was quite discreetly done and you don’t kind of realise what’s happening at the time, especially when you’re 14 and it’s the first time you’ve ever been in a studio and you’re very excited. But I do remember feeling uncomfortable and he had these huge rings on his fingers.”

His hand lingered three seconds some unknown place too long? Sure, this is the most prolific sexual offender in Britain.

The quality of the accusations against him are utterly lame. There really just is no evidence he was a sex offender.

On the shagging of underage girls.
There’s a woman i know will telly you she’s forty…er…something. She’s actually fifty…er…something. But she understates to attract men. She’s on dating sites as forty…er…something. She shags a lot of men. No doubt the shagging is not the single attraction because there’s also the dinners, events & odds & sods she collects along the way.
But she is misleading blokes who might not be shagging her if they knew how old most of her was. Who’s the victim?

Axis War Crimes Andy, don’t beat yourself up about a lack of imagination. You’re clearly quite an imaginative bloke. This thread is ample evidence.

While I’m quoting–here is another piece–this time from a real feminist (not a man-hating leftist) libertarian Wendy McIlroy. This shows one of the uses to which the femmi-commissars intend to put the panic they have created:

” Making Men Rapists
by Wendy McElroy

It is called “affirmative consent.” It is a new front in the growing regulatory oversight of the most intimate aspect of personal life: making love or having sex. If the White House Council on Women and Girls gets its way, then the doctrine of affirmative consent will regulate sex on a campus near you. It may already be happening.

Affirmative consent is sometimes called “enthusiastic consent” or “yes means yes.” It is intended to replace the current standard of “no means no.” By that standard, the noninitiating sexual partner — almost always assumed to be the woman — needs to decline sex in some manner for the act to be legally viewed as rape. She can verbally decline, try to leave, or push the man away; her “no” can be expressed in many ways.

“No means no” is deemed inadequate for several reasons. It is said to place an unfair onus on the woman, who must protest in some manner. It has not eliminated rape, the rate of which is allegedly rising. It also does not comfortably fit an expanding definition of rape — for example, if the woman is drunk and so is legally unable to consent.

The legal standard of affirmative consent is said to solve these perceived problems. The person initiating sex must receive explicit consent before and throughout the sex act in order to escape the specter of rape. In practical terms, this means the man must receive explicit consent from the woman prior to and during a sex act, or he becomes vulnerable to being criminally charged.

The consent can be verbal, but this could be dangerous. What happens if a willing partner later becomes vengeful or regretful, or seeks an advantage such as a favorable divorce settlement? The man could face a “he said/she said” scenario in hearings or courts that are often biased in favor of “victims” and of women. To be safe, therefore, the man must get not only explicit consent but also provable consent. An example would be to get consent in writing.
No one excuses genuine rape or sexual assault. As a woman who has experienced both, I would never dismiss the pain of a victim or the need to bring a perpetrator to justice. Affirmative consent will not help with either of these concerns.

And yet, its advocates are vociferous about the need for it. They justify the demand with false statistics and hysterical arguments that create the illusion of an epidemic of rape on campuses and city streets.

False stats create a “rape” epidemic

There is a proximate cause for the growing campaign to assert affirmative consent on campuses and in legislatures. On January 22, 2014, the White House Council on Women and Girls issued a paper entitled “Rape and Sexual Assault: A Renewed Call to Action” (PDF). It stated, “1 in 5 women has been sexually assaulted while in college.” That’s a stunning statistic. Or, it would be, if it were true. It is not. And the New York Times headline, “Obama Seeks to Raise Awareness of Rape on Campus,” printed on the same day as the council’s report was released, can’t turn falsehood into truth. Nevertheless, the task force established in the wake of the report will almost certainly validate its findings and act on them.

The truth: the rate of rape has fallen sharply since 1979.

In March 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice reported,

From 1995 to 2005, the total rate of sexual violence committed against U.S. female residents age 12 or older declined 64% from a peak of 5.0 per 1,000 females in 1995 to 1.8 per 1,000 females in 2005 (figure 1, appendix table 1). It then remained unchanged from 2005 to 2010. Sexual violence against females includes completed, attempted, or threatened rape or sexual assault. In 2010, females nationwide experienced about 270,000 rape or sexual assault victimizations compared to about 556,000 in 1995. [PDF.]

The White House Council’s report is also biased in its presumption that the majority of sexual assaults are committed by men against women. The council states that “1 in 71” men is raped in his lifetime, as opposed to “1 in 5” women during her college years. But this figure appears to conflict with the landmark 2007 “Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates” conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) within the Department of Justice (DOJ). The BJS report indicated that around 60,500 prisoners were sexually abused in one year alone. Since the prison population is overwhelmingly male, it is reasonable to assume most of the victims were male as well. (Indeed, of the ten prison facilities found to have the highest incidence of “nonconsensual sexual acts,” eight had only male prisoners [PDF].)

More recently, in January 2011, the DOJ responded to a series of articles in the New York Times that excoriated it and the BJS for misrepresenting the rate of prison rapes. The DOJ finally raised its report of the number of people who were sexually abused in 2008 from its earlier figure of 90,000 to more than 216,600. As the New York Review of Books states, “Overall, that’s almost six hundred people a day—twenty-five an hour.” Again, it is a safe assumption that the majority of victims are male.

Moreover, if you expand the subject from rape in prisons and look at sexual assaults more broadly in the general population, then the rate clearly changes. For instance, men perpetrate domestic sexual violence against women at roughly the same rate as women commit it against men. A 2010 report from the Centers for Disease Control, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, found that nearly identical percentages of men and women experience sexual violence other than rape (men: 5.3%; women: 5.6%).

Professor Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at Cal State Long Beach has done meticulous research. His study, “References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners” compares 343 scholarly investigations, 270 empirical studies, and 73 reviews and/or analyses. The aggregate sample is over 370,000 people. Fiebert’s work demonstrates that women are as physically aggressive in relationships as men. Neither sex can claim victimhood or villainy. Such abuse is a human condition in which both sexes share.

The inflated numbers often cited by affirmative-consent advocates also arise because they ignore or downplay the problem of false or mistaken accusations. The council’s report states that “only 2–10% of reported rapes are false.” On the basis of that extremely low estimate, the council’s report credits every rape accusation as true.

But in her article “Memo to VP Biden: Male Rapists Are Not Lurking on Every Campus Corner,” author Suzanne Venker points out that “three peer-reviewed studies have found the rate of false accusations of rape to range from 41% to 60%.”

Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck are cofounders of the Innocence Project, which seeks to exonerate the falsely imprisoned. They explain, “FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 [DNA] tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have ‘matched’ or included the primary suspect.”

The National Institute of Justice’s informal survey of private laboratories reveals a striking 26 percent exclusion rate.

Clearly, false or mistaken accusations are common. Affirmative consent may also increase confusion and honest mistakes. How? Even if a man dates a woman or is married to her, unless explicit consent is present each time, a rape could still legally occur. It could also occur if explicit consent is present at first but withdrawn during the act itself. In fact, a measure proposed in California would establish this precedent.

Such measures also embed a de facto double standard in law and policies. Consider just one scenario. Two drunken people have sex; legally speaking, this means neither is able to consent. As it stands, a drunken woman is likely to be considered a rape victim and not responsible for her actions; a drunken man is likely to be considered a rapist who is responsible for the actions of both. This vicious double standard has no place in justice or in an honest dialogue.

What about due process for men?

Affirmative consent is trying to find a foothold on campuses through means other than legislation as well.

In April 2011, the U.S. Department of Education’s (DED) Office for Civil Rights sent a letter to campuses across America, demanding they comply with new standards on sexual assault if they wish to receive federal funds. (Almost every institute of higher learning in America receives federal funds.) The letter expanded the definition of sexual assault. It also greatly reduced the due process of an accused, depriving him of legal protections such as the presence of council and the right to cross-examine an accuser. Current DED sexual-assault policy includes no requirement that a “victim” get an examination, which means guilt can also be adjudicated with no medical or DNA evidence.

Instead of using the legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the DED letter requires college hearings to use the standard known as “a preponderance of evidence”; that is, a 50.01% likelihood of guilt or innocence. This is the standard used by civil rather than criminal courts. Male students can be found guilty of rape by using the same standard of evidence employed by traffic courts when they adjudicate parking tickets.

The White House Council’s report is, as its subtitle indicates, “A Renewed Call to Action.” It has emboldened politically correct voices on campuses. For example, at a recent conference on how to handle campus assault, Amanda Childress, coordinator of the Sexual Assault Awareness Program at Dartmouth College, suggested, “Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?” Instead of raising a voice of sanity, the college publicly defended this remark, saying that Childress “was asking a question — a provocative one — meant to generate dialogue around complex issues for which answers are necessary to continue to strengthen and promote fair and equitable processes at all colleges and universities.”

What? There is nothing fair, nothing equitable, about ruining a young man’s career and smearing him as a rapist on the basis of an allegation. And yet, this $63,282-a-year college is willing to discuss the “provocative” option of doing just that to male students — without issuing a refund, of course.

Even on the brink of graduating, the accused can be expelled and refused the degree that he may need to obtain a license for the career for which he has trained. With a permanent stain on his record, other universities are not likely to admit him. Few employers are likely to hire him.

Males should not be stripped of due-process rights, on campus or in courts. They must be presumed innocent until proven guilty; they must be allowed to face their accusers in the company of counsel. And the accusation of rape needs to be judged by a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

No one should have to relinquish their constitutional rights in order to get an education.”

Smfs,

“Well police judgement when under media pressure can’t be trusted. Police judgement when they are quietly going about their job can’t always be trusted but it is a lot more trustworthy than when they are trying to lie their way out of a media frenzy.”

Why not? The police have demonstrated that they are quite willing to lie through a media frenzy in recent years, even when it obvious to all obvservors that they are lying (cf. Plebgate). On the other hand, it seems that the investigations into Savile during his lifetime were marked by incompetence. The police officers involved made errors of law which dissuaded the victims from continuing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-24853372

And it isn’t just the police who have admitted failings. Associates of the DPP and lawyers in the CPS have admitted to shortcomings, and have said that the evidence would have been strong enough for Jim to face prosecution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/11/jimmy-savile-victims-should-have-been-taken-more-seriously_n_2454099.html

“The police repeatedly looked into this issue. They repeatedly found no basis for a prosecution. But naturally the presumption of innocence is an old fashioned concept that has had its day, right?”

See my comments to Mr Ecks. The presumption of innocence applies to protect us from the state; it doesn’t mean individuals can’t form their own views. I wouldn’t have gotten involved with Al Capone and I wouldn’t want to be friends with Kim Jong-un, notwithstanding the lack trials in those instances.

“It looks like circular reasoning but it isn’t. Because JS must be the most investigated creepy old man in British history – and they have found nothing that could be called credible. So he looks a lot like Barry George.”
It is circular, because no one is saying that Jimmy should be investigated because he was weird and creepy. Everyone knew he was weird and creepy. It was only after the first victims went public with their allegations (and these allegations were more serious than kissing or grooming) that it was decided to investigate this Jim’s crimes.

“It is interesting you see fit to stand in judgement on my level of scepticism.”

Your scepticism is unwarranted, and your arguments paper thin. And as your standing judgement over others enthusiasm of the evidence (including those who have seen more of it than you (not myself)) I don’t see why you’re so perplexed here.

“Seem to” is coming down from “do”. Where and when did he say this?

It was reported in the Guardian:

“Spindler praised the victims who had come forward and said their accounts all corroborated each other. “That is why we can be so confident of their accounts. We believe them because they are all saying the same thing,” he said.”

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/25/jimmy-savile-sexual-assault-complaints-alive

“Seem to” was actually my own wording. Looking at this again, he had actually expressly said they corroborated each others’ accounts.

“We are not talking about rape. Stop lying about what I said.”
Jimmy was probably a rapist (among other things) and we’re talking about him.

“Their Rape Crisis Centre’s livelihood depends on it then. Remember the best documented crime in Western legal history is witchcraft.”

There you go comparing a real crime to something supernatural and mythical again. You are maintaining your cuntish views despite denying that you were a cunt your last post.

“Stop lying about what I said.”

At least you’re a consistent cunt.

I’m, not sure that witchcraft would be better documented than murder but I’ll defer to you on that. I haven’t looked into at all and trust that your opinion is correct on this. As for the volunteers, their livelihood does not depend on it, despite what you initially wrote. Unlike Julie Bindel (as an example) they would be quite happy if rape never occurred.

“Actually that is precisely what the 1-in-4 study did – they interviewed women, asked them leading question and then, even though the women themselves did not describe what happened to them as rape, they unilaterally classified their experience as rape. Naturally when called out for their utter bullsh!t some of them will be forced to admit it. Doesn’t stop the 1-in-4 figure being used.”

Indeed, the (first) Koss study has some limitations. The fact that the women involved didn’t describe themselves as victims of rape isn’t one of them. Rape is an objective crime, and people can be victims of crimes without perceiving it as such. Heck a person could be raped or sexually assaulted without even being aware of it.

The true limitations of the (first) Koss study relate to ambiguous questions, particularly around alcohol and drugs. If memory serves, many women in the study didn’t think they’d been raped despite not consenting and being physically forced into it. That is rape regardless of what the victim says.

For what it’s worth, the studies I had in mind were the later studies which revealed a large proportion of women are raped at one point or another. About one in ten is the correct view.

“There is, obviously, a witch hunt. As can be seen by the removal of JS’s name from everything – last seen in the Soviet era. Some have been acquitted. Because juries are smarter than idiots who believe the activists and papers.”

The removal of his name from everything is due to the fact that many bodies don’t want to be associated with an alleged sexual criminal. Fair enough. In a free society people are allowed to do that. And this wasn’t last seen in the soviet era. The removal of statues and memorials happens all the time. It has occurred in Eastern Europe after the end of the cold war, and has picked up again recently in Ukraine.

The fact that people have been acquitted is a testament to the strength of the system, and is to be praised. Although I am not sure juries are necessarily “smarter” than “idiots who believe the activists and papers”. Jurors being human will have read the papers too but will have also been exposed to all the evidence. You’d have to be a right cock not to get that!

I do agree that the media and herd mentality about this has bordered on a witch hunt. Thankfully, the criminal justice system has continued to function well. Charges have been dropped due to insufficient evidence and accused people have acquitted. What is happening is that the lawyers and police involved are taking this crime more seriously. What’s wrong with that?

“No it isn’t. Actually. Unlike your claim about JS – which is simply that he looks creepy so he must be guilty.”

No it isn’t because my claim has never been that Jim was guilty because he “looks creepy”. I’m impressed that you can misrepresent my views and then accuse others of being idiots and lying. My own view, formed by the publicly available evidence is that on balance Jim was *probably* a sexual offender. You seem incapable of grasping nuance so I thought I would highlight the word “probably”. That is about all anyone can do for now – rely on the accounts of the relevant authorities. It might not be enough for a conviction, but it’s enough to make sure that I would not have left my kids at Jim’ll Fix It Day Care Ltd. I admit that I haven’t examined all the evidence.

Nor have you, but you’ve still decided it’s reasonable for people to dismiss the alleged victims as liars and decide that Jim is innocent, and to conclude that anyone who believes otherwise is a fool. Your own view is no more rational than the feminists you critique.

“My heart bleeds. I may never recover.”

I am touched (ba dum tssssh).

“If you think that mob violence is the right solution, you are right. It isn’t a problem. But there is no reason why any sane person should lose their head in a lynch mob. I do not intend to. And will continue to mock those like you who do.”

I don’t think there has been any violence involved. I mean there could be but you haven’t informed me of any occurrences during your rant so I am still none the wiser on that. Even if there has been, so what? People can condemn sexual offenders without being in favouring of assaulting paediatricians. You are engaging in rhetorical flurries and have not thus far demonstrated an understanding of the key moral and legal issues involved.

“Look at the evidence against him:

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-19820017

Former teen singer Coleen Nolan claimed in an interview on ITV1′s Alan Titchmarsh Show on Wednesday that Savile had suggested she join him at a hotel when she was 14, following a recording of Top of the Pops.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9600881/Sir-
Jimmy-Savile-new-allegations-presenter-abused-sick-children.html

“I was quite shy and lonely,” she said. “I don’t remember him saying anything to me but he leant down and I was excited because I thought he was going to give me a wee peck on the cheek.

“But he took my face in his hands and rammed his tongue down my throat. I was shocked.

“I had never been kissed and I didn’t really know what had happened – only that it made me absolutely shudder.

“Afterwards he just walked off as if nothing had happened.”
Kissing a girl is a sexual assault now is it? God knows Britain has aunts and grandmothers who ought to be afraid. He kissed her and walked off. He deserves jail time for that?”
It looks like it:

“A person commits sexual assault if they intentionally touch another person, the touching is sexual and the person does not consent.”

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Definitions/140000845054
9/1400008450549

“3Sexual assault

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3

I think French kissing is sexual. If that is the kind of kissing that goes between blood relatives in your family, well, it might explain your eccentricities.

I happen to agree with you though, up to a point. I do think that sexual assault definition as it stands is too broad, and there could be scope for breaking it up. I am not convinced that forcible kissing is as bad as trying to masturbate on someone without their consent (for example).

“He was once found backstage at the BBC with a 14-year-old girl who was recovering from cancer, it has been reported, while another woman claimed he tried to “groom” her for abuse following a choir performance at Stoke Mandeville.

Quality evidence of criminal activity there.”

That’s not really evidence of a crime though. That’s just evidence of preparation for a crime, and regardless of how the Telegraph reported it, you haven’t demonstrated that this was the standard offence that made up the report into his activities.

“She recalled her experience in a radio interview: “I was in my wheelchair, but I just remember [Savile’s] hands being everywhere and just lingering those two, three, four seconds slightly too long in places they shouldn’t […] It was in a busy room full of people in a studio so it was quite discreetly done and you don’t kind of realise what’s happening at the time, especially when you’re 14 and it’s the first time you’ve ever been in a studio and you’re very excited. But I do remember feeling uncomfortable and he had these huge rings on his fingers.”

His hand lingered three seconds some unknown place too long? Sure, this is the most prolific sexual offender in Britain.”

“The quality of the accusations against him are utterly lame. There really just is no evidence he was a sex offender.”

Wow a grand total of three items of evidence. And on the basis of that you’ve dismissed around 300 people whose views formed the basis of the report ‘Giving Victims A Voice’.

I thought you had personally reviewed each alleged victim’s account and could point to inconsistencies, patent inaccuracies and absurdities. Got anything else for us, Sherlock?

Bis,

“On the shagging of underage girls.
There’s a woman i know will telly you she’s forty…er…something. She’s actually fifty…er…something. But she understates to attract men. She’s on dating sites as forty…er…something. She shags a lot of men. No doubt the shagging is not the single attraction because there’s also the dinners, events & odds & sods she collects along the way.
But she is misleading blokes who might not be shagging her if they knew how old most of her was. Who’s the victim?”

Lying to get someone into bed isn’t a crime unless the lie relates to the act or perpetrator pretended to be someone known to the victim. That hasn’t stopped activists who were seduced by undercover police from claiming that they’ve been raped, but we shouldn’t stoop to their levels. The answer to your question is: no one.

SMFS wrote

“Even though now some percentage of female sailors are unlikely to be up to the physical demands.”

Actually, the Royal Navy Fitness Test – required pass yearly, plus on demand if your course manager feels cruel – now includes a gender-neutral speed/strength test.

It’s not terribly hard – a timed shuttle run carrying a 20kg weight in each hand – but it’s a decent approximation to carrying two drums of firefighting foam, or one end of a stretcher, and is a decent match to the likely damage control tasks.

I can tell you with confidence that the RN haven’t had to change the size of attack, support or containment parties for damage control; you don’t join a ship’s company unless you’ve passed at least the Basic Sea Survival Course (a demanding week at HMS Excellent of fighting fire and floods in the rather good simulators there). I’ve not heard of any unexpectedly high female attrition on that course, but the instructors certainly haven’t dropped the standards or watered down the course.

The US Navy used to be a bit prone to the Curse of Mongo, which was to declare a job a “one-man task” when in reality it only worked if that “one man” was a 300lb linebacker able to bench-press a Dodge Charger. When they let women onto ships, there was much furious trumpeting that an ‘average female sailor’ would be unable to carry a P-250 mobile pump up a ladder alone as it was supposedly possible for one man to do… until it turned out that the ‘average male sailor’ couldn’t, either, and the practical reality in the fleet was that it was usually *at least* a two-person lift for everyone (and even Seaman Mongo sometimes broke himself trying to do it solo)

In the RN we’d always assumed that our similar Godiva pumps needed two (at least) people to move between decks, and so bringing female sailors aboard posed far less of a challenge from a CBRNDC perspective.

AWC Andy – “Why not? The police have demonstrated that they are quite willing to lie through a media frenzy in recent years, even when it obvious to all obvservors that they are lying (cf. Plebgate).”

Well that was not a media frenzy.

“On the other hand, it seems that the investigations into Savile during his lifetime were marked by incompetence. The police officers involved made errors of law which dissuaded the victims from continuing.”

Allegedly. There is no evidence of it. We are in a bind if we deny the police any competence at all. If we assume they have some, they are likely to be right most when they are swimming against the tide. As in this case.

“And it isn’t just the police who have admitted failings. Associates of the DPP and lawyers in the CPS have admitted to shortcomings, and have said that the evidence would have been strong enough for Jim to face prosecution.”

That is just part of the Cultural Revolution style self abasement they are expected to do. Notice how poor their judgement is given that the people they are prosecuting are walking.

“See my comments to Mr Ecks. The presumption of innocence applies to protect us from the state; it doesn’t mean individuals can’t form their own views.”

Actually it implies universally, but it was intended to protect us from the mob, not the state. You know, the mob you are part of.

“It is circular, because no one is saying that Jimmy should be investigated because he was weird and creepy.”

Yeah pretty much they are.

“Your scepticism is unwarranted, and your arguments paper thin. And as your standing judgement over others enthusiasm of the evidence (including those who have seen more of it than you (not myself)) I don’t see why you’re so perplexed here.”

Your lack of understand is not a problem with my argument. My skepticism is entirely warranted.

“It was reported in the Guardian:”

So is bound to be bullsh!t.

“Spindler praised the victims who had come forward and said their accounts all corroborated each other.”

So it is not your judgement on the evidence, it is someone in the Guardian reporting someone else’s judgement? You see how pathetic this is?

“Jimmy was probably a rapist (among other things) and we’re talking about him.”

There is no evidence of him raping anyone and whatever you are talking about, that is not what I was talking about. As I said, stop lying.

“There you go comparing a real crime to something supernatural and mythical again. You are maintaining your cuntish views despite denying that you were a cunt your last post.”

I don’t think I have ever denied being a cunt. Where did I do that? Satanic abuse is a real crime? Do tell.

“At least you’re a consistent cunt.”

More importantly I am right.

“As for the volunteers, their livelihood does not depend on it, despite what you initially wrote. Unlike Julie Bindel (as an example) they would be quite happy if rape never occurred.”

So they would say. But they have an interest in rape, given they have chosen to hang out in an environment where they can think and talk about rape *all*the*time*. I would not be so sure about their real feelings.

“Indeed, the (first) Koss study has some limitations.”

You can’t even admit open bullsh!t is open bullsh!t? Amazing.

“The fact that the women involved didn’t describe themselves as victims of rape isn’t one of them. Rape is an objective crime, and people can be victims of crimes without perceiving it as such.”

No it isn’t. Rape exists entirely in the minds of two people – the victim and the rapist. Which is to say, it most exists entirely in the mind of the rapist. It is not even remotely objective. If women do not call what they did rape, it is not rape. Suppose that my SO and I decide to try a little role play, and at her urging I dress up as an intruder, break in and force her to have sex. How is that rape?

“Heck a person could be raped or sexually assaulted without even being aware of it.”

Of course.

“The true limitations of the (first) Koss study relate to ambiguous questions, particularly around alcohol and drugs. If memory serves, many women in the study didn’t think they’d been raped despite not consenting and being physically forced into it. That is rape regardless of what the victim says.”

No it isn’t. Many women answered questions designed to produce a misleading result and had their answers interpreted in ways that many of them specifically rejected – they often specifically said they had not been raped, but they were put down as rape victims anyway. If the rapist doesn’t think it is rape, and if the victim doesn’t think it is rape, it is not rape.

“For what it’s worth, the studies I had in mind were the later studies which revealed a large proportion of women are raped at one point or another. About one in ten is the correct view.”

More of the same bullsh!t by the same people. Cite some.

“The removal of his name from everything is due to the fact that many bodies don’t want to be associated with an alleged sexual criminal.”

Just as many people did not want to be associated with Trotsky once he fell from power and so he was removed from the history books and photos. As I said, the last time this nonsense was seen was in the Soviet Union.

“The fact that people have been acquitted is a testament to the strength of the system, and is to be praised. Although I am not sure juries are necessarily “smarter” than “idiots who believe the activists and papers”.”

As you are one of those idiots I am not surprised. No it isn’t a testimony to the strength of the system because these charges should never have been brought in the first place.

“Jurors being human will have read the papers too but will have also been exposed to all the evidence. You’d have to be a right cock not to get that!”

What evidence? There is none. No doubt they would have been. So they are smarter than you – they did not believe the hysteria.

“What is happening is that the lawyers and police involved are taking this crime more seriously. What’s wrong with that?”

There is no evidence they were not taking it seriously to start with. What they are doing is bowing to the mob.

“My own view, formed by the publicly available evidence is that on balance Jim was *probably* a sexual offender.”

Except there is no evidence. There are just people reporting that he was creepy and some people who look like Care in the Community Cases making absurd claims.

“I admit that I haven’t examined all the evidence.”

Because there isn’t any.

“I don’t think there has been any violence involved.”

Good thing Britain’s paediatricians are safe.

“People can condemn sexual offenders without being in favouring of assaulting paediatricians.”

They can. But they cannot support the irrational baying of the mob without supporting where that irrational baying mob goes and ends up doing.

“You are engaging in rhetorical flurries and have not thus far demonstrated an understanding of the key moral and legal issues involved.”

Projection like this is cute.

“It looks like it:”

No it doesn’t. Not what most people think of as sexual assault anyway. Nor is there any reason to think it was a sexual act. Assuming both it took place at all, and it took place as this idiot of a woman claims to remember. And hence would not come under the Act.

“I think French kissing is sexual. If that is the kind of kissing that goes between blood relatives in your family, well, it might explain your eccentricities.”

Good for you. But did Jimmy? Assuming that it took place as she claimed – notice that she uses cliches, not her own words. So you do not know it was French Kissing.

“That’s not really evidence of a crime though. That’s just evidence of preparation for a crime, and regardless of how the Telegraph reported it, you haven’t demonstrated that this was the standard offence that made up the report into his activities.”

I agree it is not evidence of a crime. It is not even evidence of preparation for a crime. One is a fact that a girl was back stage. Which happens all the time and has no sexual connotation at all. The other is an opinion by the girl years after the event – where no sexual act took place at all.

This seems to be the quality of the evidence. No one has managed to report anything more serious than this.

“Wow a grand total of three items of evidence. And on the basis of that you’ve dismissed around 300 people whose views formed the basis of the report ‘Giving Victims A Voice’.”

Presumably Wikipedia and the media are reporting the strongest claims. But if you think there are stronger ones, by all means, let’s see them.

“I thought you had personally reviewed each alleged victim’s account and could point to inconsistencies, patent inaccuracies and absurdities. Got anything else for us, Sherlock?”

I don’t need to. You’re making the allegation. The burden of proof is on you. Not that any of the allegations rise to need serious examination. They are too weak for that. As you seem to admit.

So where’s your evidence?

SMFS,

I’m referring to the strength test which was added to the RNFT in 2012.

https://pdevportal.co.uk/assets/upload/ckfiles/bobsleigh/princes_trust/files/RNFT%20policy%20and%20protocols%202013%20-%20U.pdf

“RNFT Protocols – Strength Test
a. Test criteria. The strength test is a ‘task based’ simulation test that assesses the level of strength to produce a result that correlates directly to the strength required for on board fire fighting Tasking. It involves a load carry of 2×20 Kg over a distance of 4×15 meters with the requirement to pick up and place down the load at the start/end of each shuttle.”

The time required was orignally one minute for the first experimental year, since dropped to forty-five seconds, gender neutral.

I know it’s there because I have to do it every year as an RNR officer…

SMFS,

I think if you’re adequately determined to take a seat on the outrage bus, then I can’t stop you boarding. Yes, the Navy – like all three services, and like most forces worldwide – has different VO2 standards by gender and age. Obviously they’re *all* wrong. Why is it justified that a fortysomething intelligence officer gets an easier PT test than an eighteen-year-old AB, by the way, and where’s the dismay at that rampant ageism?

Medical deferrals are very strictly reserved for cases like the (male) CPO on crutches who simply cannot conduct a RNFT due to broken bones, but who as part of that medical downgrade is on remedials (swimming and other exercise that won’t aggravate his injury) to maintain his fitness so once he’s healed up he can smash in a pass. Turn up saying you feel a bit poorly and your Mum says you don’t have to run. and the clubswingers will laugh themselves sick.

Once you’re past the basic hurdle of the RNFT, qualification and advancement depends on how you perform. Fred – the much hated man-overboard dummy, used as a casualty at Dartmouth – weighs the same whether male or female officer-cadets are trying to rescue and move him. The night navigation exercises (speed marches in Armyspeak) and crashouts at both BRNC and Raleigh are the distance they are, and the Marine instructors don’t call a halt for the girls before the boys. Shoring timbers at Phoenix don’t come in ‘male’ and ‘female’ versions, differently weighted. This seems to be generally known and understood, and we make it work.

We could set a single RNFT standard, age and gender neutral, and bin everyone who failed… but we’re already screamingly short of people in a number of areas and it’s not immediately clear how sacking half the Navy because they can’t meet the recently-moved goalposts would help with that.