I have been following the latest machinations over rape allegations with some interest, as they have serious consequences for all involved in casual sex.  For the past ten years or more, a politically driven agenda has been thrust down the throats of  court users about the deplorably low percentage of rape allegations that lead to conviction, and successive governments have sought to do something about it.

My considerable experience tells me that there are basically two defences to an allegation of rape: “it wasn’t me, guv”, or “she was gagging for it”.  It is also correct in my own experience that most of those accused of rape are acquitted, not simply as a result of the brilliance of my advocacy, but  because the jury did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent, and that, at the end of the day, is the proper and only test to be applied.

Into this squirming sack of grubby emotions steps Ms. Alison Saunders, who is the Director of Public Prosecutions, so she should know better.  And is it just me, or are women taking over the world?  And is it just me, or do you share my dislike for the prefix ‘Ms’?  It’s all to do with political correctness, or so they say, but speaking for my wife, and I suspect millions of other wives, when she agreed to marry me, convention dictated that she took my name and became Mrs. Osborne.  She does not wish to be referred to as Ms. Osborne, nor does she wish to be known as my partner.  It’s absurd!

But I digress. Back to Ms. Saunders and her camp followers.  She has decided, or rather it has been decided for her, that anybody who makes an allegation of rape must be believed, and everything possible in the trial process must be bent towards the conviction of the accused.  Rape trials from now on are no longer to be prosecution led, but conviction led, and when you add into the mix that prison sentences for rape are getting longer and longer, the opportunities for a serious miscarriage of justice are self-evident.  Or should that be ‘ms.carriage’?

Sarah Vine, or more properly Ms. Sarah Vine the journalist, summed up the feelings of the legions of fair minded people.  Like me, she deplores the so-called ‘vagenda’ (her word not mine), the all-men-are-rapists brigade advanced by vocal feministas like Harriet Harman and the ‘femi-fascist’ twitter mob who increasingly seem to hold sway in public policy. Predictably, Ms. Harman, and I use that form of address advisedly, replied to Ms. Vine’s comments with the usual ‘feminista’ clichés, defending Ms. Saunders for trying to ensure that victims of rape get justice.

I have always found it distasteful and unattractive the suggestion that as the victim was blind drunk she was therefore unable to give her consent to sex, or more to the point, she gave her consent which she would not have given had she been sober.  In my book, consent is consent, blind drunk or otherwise, and regret after the event cannot make it rape as Ms. Saunders and Ms. Harman seem to be advocating.  It is also right to add that the converse is true, namely that if a woman does not consent, blind drunk or otherwise, it would be rape if sexual intercourse takes place.  That is what the offence of rape is all about.

PS.  It seems that my timely intervention in the casual sex and consent debate is already reaping dividends.  Teenage pregnancies have fallen to their lowest rate since records began more than four decades ago.


Published by


David is an English barrister, writer, public performer and keynote speaker. His full profile can be found on his website.

45 thoughts on “SHE WAS GAGGING FOR IT”

  1. I agree with you entirely. With two people who are equally drunk and foolish accountability should not rest with one alone purely in the basis of their sex. Well done for speaking up.

  2. I would like to say I agree with Mr. Osborne as in my opinion there are too many alegations of rape against men, particularly historic cases going back 40 years or more. IF someone has being raped and it is correctly proven that is right but when there are so many historic cases coming to light, does this not make people question why nothing and not one of these people did not come forward before now. They say they were traumatised not that traumatised that they sell there stories to the papers and can talk to them about it but they cannot talk to there families. C0uld it be the amount of compensation they get from the public purse, coz you know all you need is a crime number from the police and your half way there. Maybe the reason there are so many historic cases( usually made by members of the family) is since rule 32 and 33 of the law where abolished by the government these accusations can be made WITHOUT ANY PROOF . these days it is easier to prove your innocent of murder, please tell me what other crime is there that you do not have to provide proof. I Know how these are manipulated by the police and victims through working as a volunteer with the prisons. I once wrote to mr Cameron with a hyperthetical question 4 years ago and have still had no reply from HIM not a secretary or anyone else it was him I want to hear from as it was him I asked the question to he was on the campaign trail and he ACCIDENTLY rubbed up against the breast of a member of the public a couple of days later he is arrested for sexual assault as she said he touched her inapropreatly, how would he handle it. Simple there is nothing he could do as it would be her word against his, and if you listen to people like Alison saunders etc and they get there way you may as well lock up any red blooded mail as you cannot defend yourseilf because you do not have to provided proof its her who is right and the man is wrong. I think we should bring back rule 32 and 33 and the prison would not be full of men accused of these acts because they were found guilty because someone wanted money from the public purse so they decided to accuse someone of rape. Maybe we should bring out a law that says if a woman is found to be lying in a case like this why is she not brought to trial for pergery and made to pay the compensation back, no she just gets a slap on the wrist. I USED TO HAVE FAITH IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM NOT NOW ITS AN ASS.

  3. Excellent article which basically states what I and a very large number of people have been thinking. It is insane to think that a man can be accused of rape simply because a drunk woman can’t remember saying yes to an equally drunken guy.

    And please spare me the nasty come backs. We live in a society where getting drunk is the primary goal for a large number of our your men and women. When you make the choice get legless you simply don’t have the right to hold another responsible for your own actions.

  4. Thank you Sir. At last a fight back from within the legal profession against the absolute stacking of the cards against the defendant in rape trials. The latest directive from that CPS woman all but makes rape an absolute offence with a presumption of guilt. I hope others in the profession are as brave as yourself. On the specific, if they are sober enough to walk to a chaps hotel bedroom , why are they then to drunk, allegedly and belatedly, to consent to sex ?

  5. David Osbourne you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT and do stick to your point(s) no matter what is said to the contrary. You are a respected barrister with many years and more than enough experience to have a say on the law of the land. You have the right and authority to air your view on this matter and you must not apologise to no one afterwards.
    Justice is also about fairness so, we must not allow extreme or bigoted views in our judicial system.

  6. Bravo. It needed to be said. And if, dear Lauren above, you have got yourself so off your face with alcohol and drugs that you are incapable of communicating with your fellow humans, why on earth repeat the performance?

  7. Come on now stop it! Leave the guy alone. He was once a highly trained legal mind, his word carried weight in court. Now he is reduced to ramblings and comments from a demented mind. No reasonable intelligent person could possibly think he is writing anything he would have put his “normal” mind to. The mentally ill have to be offered help and support not vilified, even if they bring it on themselves!

  8. Well done for saying what everyone is thinking but no-one is saying. The feminist lobby rant and rave but it doesn’t change the fact that what you say is sensible. Well done for taking a stand.

  9. Finally a voice of get drunk or high while your skirt no bigger then a belt and your breaststroke are falling out. You are certainly gagging for it. Well done barrister!

  10. Thank you for having the courage to speak out on a matter that is so contentious the mere raising of the issue sparks outrage. I agree completely that without obvious evidence of force where one drunken word is against another how can a jury possibly come up with a guilty verdict. Reading the details of fact on the Ched Evans website is disturbing for any father of young men who may enter into casual sex only to be falsely accused by someone on some emotional vendetta. It would appear the responsibility for deciding whether someone is too drunk to consent is now not with the individual themselves. How can a system like that work?!

  11. Dear David,

    I agree wholeheartedly with your post on this and I admire your bravery in speaking out against the DPP’s recent astonishing pronouncements.

    I fear however that your pearls of wisdom are being cast before swine: Sadly this latter day Matthew Hopkins is engaged in a witch hunt, and in time-honoured fashion, supported by the same public hysteria which allowed Matthew Hopkins to continue his own unspeakable activities, is not about to allow Truth or Justice to stand in her way.

    I see it as wholly inappropriate that someone who has engaged in consensual sexual activity with another can, for whatever reason, later withdraw their consent and accuse the other of rape.

    The words of Lord Hewett, CJ in R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233), “…justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” begin to ring rather hollow.

    I am already deeply concerned that accusations relating to alleged incidents decades previously are brought before a court and struggle to see how anyone can effectively defend such (often widely publicised) allegations when memory of what occurred 40 or so years ago has dimmed, and potential defence witnesses may have died.

    The real tragedy of the feminist agenda driving “Justice” in the UK is that, as greater numbers begin to appreciate the injustice that is being done to innocents, I foresee it will lead to a widespread loss of confidence in the Judicial System.

    In 50 years time we will look back on these days with horror at the injustices that have been done and wonder how those responsible could have been so blind, however this will be no comfort to those innocents whose entire lives have been ruined.

    The overarching principle here should surely be the pursuit of Justice, and perhaps the fundamental problem is that the DPP appears to have no interest in Justice. The DPP’s interests and motivations clearly lie elsewhere, incorrectly in my view.

  12. Your point is valid in the respect that regret does not mean rape and being drunk does not mean you are unable to refuse a proposition however, you make you point worthless by bringing in dated views on women. Has it ever occurred to you that women may dress nice for themselves and not to draw the attention of ‘red blooded males’. We live in the 21st century, women can dress how they please and drink all they like. I believe that we need to be teaching young men to respect women and if a women has had far too much to drink to think responsibly we should be teaching young men to say no, for their own safety as you are right too many rape cases are just a woman regretting the morning after. However, do take into consideration that a lot of women are genuine victims of rape and need support and justice, not being blamed for what they wore or how much they drank.

  13. I agree as well.
    If a woman cannot consent to sex when she is drunk, then it follows that all acts of sex by drunk women must therefore be illegal, even if the women think they are consenting at the time. This includes between happily married women and their husbands. There will be millions of rapes every week, and there won’t be enough prisons in the land to contain all of the guilty men who must be convicted.

  14. It is a great pity there are not more in the justice system that dare speak the truth like you Mr Osborne.

  15. Your post on ‘she was gagging for it’ is brutally honest and not before time. I was recently redirected to the daily star online newspaper (I had never heard of this paper before). There were various stories about a town called Magaluf (Shagaluf) and the scenario you describe is a regular occurrence. The number of sti’s has exploded because women allow themselves to get drunk and have things done to them, although in some cases the depravity has risen to such a level that couples don’t need to be drunk in order to copulate in broad daylight on a main pedestrian walkway in full view of passersby.The politicians and locals in Magaluf are trying to improve the imagr of the town but are bemoaning the fact that it has become a hotspot for bad behaviour, etc.Dare I say it, if people are brought up properly, this kind of behaviour would be unnatractive and men could not use the excuse she was gagging for it because women would not put themselves in a position to be taken advantage of. Millions of women go out without overtly giving the signals they are looking for a one night stand. Of these women, those who are raped are genuine victims and should be offered the full protection of the law.

  16. Yes, apparently women (or should that be “wimmin”?) ARE taking over the world, a role which nature and evolution have definitely not provided, but which Marxism aspires to in it’s destructive agenda. Have a listen to Radio 4’s “Womans Hour” (daily at 10 am) – it’s “women this” and “women that” – so much discrimination, factionalism and induced misogyny! Their shrill, piping voices are heard everywhere, popping up to give comment on football and all manner of topics which should not be worrying their pretty little heads. As far as rape goes, if people undertook a decent, stable relationship before indulging in sex – as in previous generations – instead of rutting like wandering rabbits, accusations of rape would be much rarer.

  17. Harriet Harman is a politician. Consequently, anything she says should be taken with a very large sackful of salt. The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, Has now become a politician running for Parliament. Begging the question, when did he realise he needed a record of ‘popular with the electorate’ decisions, and to hell with ‘justice’. Further begging the question of the future considerations of our current Director of Public Prosecutions, perhaps on the ‘advice’ of Ms Harman about the future need of more Ms’s needed in Parliament.

  18. Your analysis of the issue is very clear and based on legislation but conveniently avoided, in the interest of political gain, by the Feminista. Reverse their argument and every woman who wakes up and cries a drunken rape should be subject to automatically charged with indecent assault on the male accused. After all if sobriety is to be questioned for men it has to be likewise for the other too.

  19. What a well written piece. As a woman, I am often annoyed by how much women really do bring the problems on themselves by the way they dress, act and speak. I am a stay at home mother and I think a lot of the ‘feminist agenda’ would go away if those people just found themselves a husband and had some babies. Women who go out of the house dressed like sluts – and then take to drink, which many simply don’t have the body weight or mental capacity to tolerate – are asking for trouble in my view. Thank you for speaking up Mr Osborne!

  20. Thank you Mr Osborne. I am now retired but I once worked for many companies, large and small around the world, sometimes living abroad. I have always considered my safety to be my concern. I never permitted myself to get drunk, never went to men’s hotel rooms and always met them in reception. A simple “No thank you! I’d rather we met up in the coffee shop.” was all it took. I was once asked if I came with the contract. I stood up, picked up the contract and walked out. My boss backed me all the way. I am horrified at the way I see girls behaving these days, particularly when they they don’t accept the consequences. In the days when men had to work hard to get a girl into bed they were much nicer to women in general.

  21. This piece is simply common sense truth. Being able to void drunken consent on a whim and turn regret sex into rape is utterly horrifying.

    As the feminist Raperati move closer to making more and more heterosexual sex ‘rape’, some men, who are no danger to the public, will end up in jail simply for nothing more than a drunken bunk-up and branded ‘rapists’… no different, the Raperati suggest, to the alleyway psycho.

    I deplore casual sex culture but it shouldn’t be turning people into convicted sex criminals. Don’t want to wake up in a strangers bed the next morning? Don’t get drunk! Take some responsibility!

    And of course this is completely sexist anyway. What if the couple were both equally drunk? Can the man simply say, ‘Well, I submit a counter-rape allegation?’ I expect not.

  22. Although some elements of your writing are provocative and bound to cause a stir amongst the lobbying feminists, your point is a valid one. There seems to be contention about use of the word ‘complainant’ in place of ‘victim’, but in legal parlance this is the correct term.

    Women of consenting age need to understand how their dress and behaviour can sometimes give the wrong impression. It’s naive and foolish to fall back on ‘it’s the 21st century and I’m going to dress and act how I like.’

    See it from the man’s perspective and take some responsibility for your actions!

    Well said Mr Osborne.

  23. Having read Mr Osborne’s blog only after reading a number of sensationalist press comments, I feel that I must have been reading comments based on some imaginary blog. Yet another illustration of something I learned in a long legal career in the City, namely that almost without exaggeration, when I read in the Press about something of which I had personal knowledge, what I was reading was either misrepresented or downright wrong; it was invariably not wholly correct. The above responses to Mr Osborne’s comments on rape show that there are, thank goodness, many who can think sensibly and without hysterical overreaction when an emotive subject is aired.
    To the charge (not made by Mr Osborne) that if a young woman is parading herself in a skirt above c-level and with her tits falling out of her top, then allows herself to become rat-arsed, she is fair game for any predatory male I would say that it’s no crime to make an exhibition of yourself (although you may be a pain in the arse), and that the kind of behaviour we deplore exists largely because too many of our young have no respect either for themselves or for others.
    Sexual urges are pretty much inevitable, but it should not be an obligation to give in to them as we are led to believe appears to be prevalent in many of our schools; this, and the lack of respect I’ve mentioned, is what has created the casual sex culture.

  24. One is responsible for oneself, man or woman. As a woman, I ensure I’m safe, from rape, theft, etc. when I leave my home. Part of that includes not allowing myself to be so inebriated that I have no control over myself. I’m not suggesting that drunk/ scantily clad women are asking for it, but being heavily under the influence of any substance surely doesn’t help. I’m amazed at the media outrage, because it seems biased. They all seem to have assumed that the man is always fully aware in that situation. Surely, it is possible that both parties were under the influence to be able to make a sound decision? And yes, I agree with your point of view, despite some (potentially) provocative language, because it’s fair and common sense. I hope the media stop fussing over some of the phrases used in the blog (and spinning a completely different yarn out of it!) and focussed more on the real issue here.

  25. The issue of consent involving drunkenness is never clear cut. At what point does one lose the rational power of thought and how can one’s partner tell that the point has been reached and exceeded in order to then make an informed decision about whether consent is given or not?

    The job of ascertaining the truth of what happened sufficiently well in order to serve justice is then made considerably more difficult by the absence of clear memories of the events and the fact that there may be no witnesses not to mention the trial date will be some months later. It can then come down to ‘his word against hers’ and a court battle based how well the accused and victim respectively come across to the jury (who will have their own built in biases).

    What this leaves is mess and there is, I’m afraid, no easy solution. I certainly don’t have one.

  26. Picking up on Colin’s point, the law itself leaves a gaping hole, when it comes to determining capacity to consent, in cases where the complainant has got voluntarily drunk before the alleged “rape” takes place.

    Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, sets out circumstances where it is presumed that consent was not given. These include Subsection 2(d), where the complainant is actually asleep or unconscious, but do not include where the complainant is merely “drunk”!

    When he overturned the conviction on Benjamin Bree in 2007, Sir Igor Judge set out that a person can consume substantial quantities of alcohol and still retain the capacity to consent, but they can loose the capacity to consent some time before unconsciousness. But how soon before unconsciousness? There are no laid down criteria against which to judge whether capacity to consent has been lost or not. In fact Sir Igor made a very good argument that it would in fact be impossible to derive such criteria

    So, unless it can be shown that the complainant was actually unconscious, then it is seemingly impossible for a jury to reach an objective decision which is consistent with other similar cases.

    As Colin says’ it’s a mess and leaves justice somewhat akin to pinning the tail on the donkey!


    The main way feminist pressure groups have successfully pushed for – Unprecedented, Accuser-Biased, Date Rape Laws – is by their constant and loud assertion… “No women would ever lie about being raped“. Amazingly, this assertion is now universally accepted, by our media and politicians as true. I say amazingly because the evidence to the contrary is so easily found. Here is just a small fraction of what’s out there …

    KELLY-ANN FERGUSON, told police that her husband of raped her but after being shown a video taken by her husband, she admitted to police that she had made up the story because he wanted to separate from her.

    MISS ROBIN LEVITSKI, had accused a man of raping her but finally admitted… “the entire story was fabricated” after police had shown her video evidence which contradicted her story.

    CHANEYA KELLY, whose testimony jailed her own Navy Veteran father for 20-40 years for rape, now says she was “coerced by her mother to lie about the charges”.

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” Female, accuses police officer of sexual assault on camera but is then forced to confess that she lied when she is shown footage from the officers car camera.

    NICOLE RICHESS, finally pleaded guilty to making false rape allegations against two soldiers because she “did not want to admit she had been unfaithful to her boyfriend” ;

    WANETTA GIBSON, now admits, she Falsely Accused Football Star of Rape – He Receives Five Years In Prison, She Receives $1.5 Million of Taxpayers’ Money;

    NATASHA FOSTER, now admits that she “lied to police about being raped” has finally pleaded guilty to a charge of perverting the course of justice;

    KATELYN WEBSTER, now say she lied about being raped, because she “didn’t want to get into trouble with her father for having sucker bites”

    REBECCA HOWARD,now admits to making false rape claims against two innocent men;

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” Female, had a Man locked up for ten years for rape, but finally came forward and admitted to police that she and her witness had “lied about the rapes”.

    KIMBERLEY WHEELHOUSE now admits to making false rape claims against two men, after attending a house for “arranged sex”.

    PHILIPA COSTELLO, had claimed she was raped but later admitted “lying to police” about the incident and pleaded guilty to “perverting the course of justice”

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” Woman, now admits to making a false rape allegation against a male student, but will not be charged. “Our focus is towards support and care for her,’’said university police chief Pete Andrers;

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” Female, now admits her “rape claim was false” but will not face prosecution;

    JOANIE FAIRCLOTH, now says… the statements she made to police about being raped by Conor Oberstare were “100% false”

    ANN-MARIE GOUGH, finally admitted to lying over rape claim against two men in car;

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” Female student, reported a sexual assault in the Texas Tech Student Recreation Centre, but has now admitted her “statements were false”.

    BILLIE JO EADS, now admits to making a false rape claim to police against an innocent man;

    CHARMAINE RIPLEY, claimed she’d been raped in a park, but finally admitted wasting police time;

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” female, admitted putting an innocent man behind bars by “falsely accusing him” of rape because she was afraid of what her boyfriend would do when he found out she had cheated on him;

    SUSAN BRADLY, had accused two men of raping her but now admits “the attack never took place”.

    MICHELLE GRAFTON, now admits making up rape claim because “she liked the attention”

    AMANDA ROLAND, had made a detailed rape accusation to police, but latter admitted that she had “made up the story and staged a scene” at her home to make it appear as if a struggle had taken place.

    MELINDA DENHAM, now admits to “falsely accusing her boyfriend of rape” because she was angry at him for not returning her phone calls.

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” Female Student, now admits that she “lied about fighting off Rapist”.

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” female, who claimed she was sexually assaulted by two male students, now admits “it didn’t happen”.

    BIURNY PEGUERO made a rape claim that saw a man sentenced to 20 years in prison, but finally confesses four years later, to a priest and then to the DA’s office that she “made the whole thing up” because she wanted people to feel sorry for her.

    GEMMA SCOONES, now admits to making, what turned out to be her “second false rape allegation” but still avoids prison;

    ELIZABETH JONES, finally admitted she “lied about her latest rape allegation” because she did not like the man she accused of attacking her.

    EMILY CHATTERS, plagued” police with dozens of calls to make complaints of rape. Only after police showed her “irrefutable evidence” that her version could not be true, did she finally admit…. “Yes all the allegations were false”.

    DANMELL NDONYE, had five men arrested after accusing them of gang rape. Only after prosecutors confronted her with a cellphone video that captured “the whole sordid episode” and showed she had willingly participated, did she finally admit she had in fact “lied about the incident”.

    LEANNE BLACK, had made multiple allegations of rape to police against a series of ex-boyfriends, over an eight year period, but finally made a full admission in open court that the “rapes never happened”.

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” Female, who claimed she had been sexually assaulted a man, later admitted that she “made a false report” to the police.

    EMMA SAXON, claimed to have been raped in a supermarket car park, but now openly admits “the matter never happened”.

    MICHELLE ROSSITER, made a series of allegations of rape against one man, but eventually admitted to the police that the rape allegations she had made to them previously “were not genuine”.

    JUNE PLUNKETT, accused a man of rape, but finally “pleads guilty” to making a false rape claim which included her “slashing herself” with a blade or razor before making the allegations to police.

    AMANDA MOYSE, eventually admitted in open court, to perverting the course of justice by making a “false allegation of rape” against an innocent man.

    CHARLENE KIELTY claimed to police that she was raped by a bus driver in the back of his coach, but finally admitted in open court, to “making the false allegation”.

    “IDENTITY PROTECTED” Woman, admits that she made a false allegation of sexual assault.

    MEGAN FRANKS, claimed to have been raped by a man who was subsequently arrested, but eventually admitted to police that she had made up the rape allegations and even to injuring herself to be more credible.

    CATHY RICHARDSON, told police officers that she had been sexually assaulted several times but now admits her “allegations were false”.

    JACQUELINE McCOMMOND, made an allegation that she was raped, but finally admitted to police that she “made the whole thing up”.

    BEVERLY BRANDRETH had “cried rape” against an ex-boyfriend but finally pleaded guilty to lying in court.

    MISS SO LEONG-YING, told police in graphic detail how she was gang-raped by four men. But after police confronted her with evidence of the bogus rape and robbery, admitted to “making up the story” in the hope of attracting publicity to her name.

    CHARLENE STEEL made an accusation of sexual assault against a man, but later pleaded guilty to “falsely claiming to have been raped”.

    KELLY HARWOOD, claimed that her friend’s son had raped her, later confessed that she “had made it up”.

    NATALIE MORTIMER, had accused her grandfather of raping her, but later admitted she had “made it up” in a bid to claim inheritance money.

    JOANNA ROBERTSON now admits to “making up a sex attack allegation” — leading to an innocent man being held in custody.

    EMMA BLUNDEN, told police that she had been raped by four men, but was eventually found to have been lying.

    KATHERINE CLIFTON statements led too rape charges against a professor who subsequently spent nine days in jail as well as being placed on leave from his job, eventually pleaded guilty in court to “making false statements” to the police.

    TEMITOPE ADENUGBA, made a rape allegation to police against a man they later arrested, but subsequently admitted in open court to making “false statements” and perverting the course of justice.

    It’s worth noting that in most of the cases above, the woman only admitted to lying because she was shown irrefutably evidence ( video, CCTV, eye-witnesses, phone tracking, DNA…. ).

    One truly shudders to think just how many men are sitting in prison today because they were unlucky enough to cross paths with one such Vindictive female.

    Of course there will always be False-Rape-Denialists who will try to argue that these women were bullied into recanting and that we should ignore their confessions. But isn’t it funny how they never use this argument when an accused man confesses, even though he is likely to have come under a great deal more pressure from police.

    I promise you this…. No man will be found guilty of “date-rape” while I’m on the jury!

    As Enlightened Red Pill Men and women it is our duty to educate and inform other less fortunate brothers and sisters, as to the truly evil nature of this feminist contrived gender war. So feel free to cut and paste this list and post it where ever you find a “False Rape Denialist” spouting pretty lies.

    So why do some women lie about rape?

  28. It is rare for me to approve such a long comment from David Power, but a considerable amount of thought and research has gone into this that I felt it important to share it with you. I should add that the Bar Standards Board has confirmed my right to freedom of expression, and with one egregious exception who should have known better, the profession as a whole has been very supportive.

  29. I applaud your courage in putting this article online in your own name in today’s fem-centric society.

  30. The issue of drunkeness is very peculiar to northern countries where any sort of “having fun” seems to involve getting drunk, and then regretting it, and being stupidly drunk is regarded as a human right that should have no consequences.

    In other countries the law is wise and says that any action performed while drunk is considered voluntary unless the drunk person can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were made drunk against their will (for example because their drink was hugely spiked). In that case the responsibility for the actions of the drunk person shifts from them to the person who caused them to be drunk involuntarily (e.g. if A spikes B’s drink so much that B ends up killing C, it is A that is responsible for the death of C, subject to the relevant burdens of proof).

    The wisdom of the above is that taking intoxicating substances while pleasurable carries the risk of becoming intoxicated and then regrettable behaviour, and that risk should be borne by the person making the voluntary choice of taking them, as they get the pleasurable consequences and should get the regrettable ones too.

  31. 抽脂除了可以消除掉身體不需要的脂肪外,更可以廢物利用,將抽出來的脂肪移到身體其他部位,比如說隆乳或是補臉,一舉兩得。

  32. It is an interesting analysis, but one that is not worthy of any form of formal endorsement or acceptance. It is an opinion deserving, at best, a few nods of acknowledgment. A law should be generic and reflective of the societal values and circumstances. The law has been necessitated to take this form, from a historical and statistical perspective. Though many takes advantage of the law, it is true for every other legislation. It would be wrong to treat a drunken consent as a valid consent, for it has the potential to open a flood gate. Instead, putting a procedural barrier would be more wise, to prevent unmeritorious claims from reaching the court.

  33. Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do a little research about this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more from this post. I am very glad to see such fantastic info being shared freely out there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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