The firestorm continues apace following my original blog of the same title and the Daily Mirror’s take on it.  Whatever else, it has got people talking about the issues raised in (alleged) rape cases, and most important of all, the issue of drink and drugs. Whilst my remedy for the resolution of this issue was not well received by the majority of women who have commented on it, I remind my readers that there is a real prospect of a miscarriage of justice if the prosecution are allowed to move the goalposts as Alison Saunders is suggesting.  I also remind my readers that a conviction for rape carries with it an immediate sentence of imprisonment, and trying to overturn an unsafe conviction is a protracted and uncertain procedure.

That said, the purpose of this update is to put this lively debate into proportion.  Excluding the Press and the Media, who often work to their own agenda and where truth can be a moveable  feast, the reaction of those leaving comments on my blog has been most instructive.  They divide almost equally along gender lines.  The women for the most part are strident in their condemnation.  According to the Daily Mail, leading the pack is Ms. Sarah Green, director of End Violence against Women Coalition, followed hard on her heels by Ms. Louise Pennington, of the campaign group Ending Victimisation.  By the very banner headlines under which they parade their prejudices, it is unlikely I shall find a balanced and reasoned argument.

The men have a different take on the issue.  I wonder if a brother organisation similar to Louise Pennington’s campaign group, but there to protect men from being falsely accused of rape, might find favour to redress the imbalance.

For the purposes of a headcount, I ignore the expletives and offensive comments, once again from women, which add nothing  to the debate and which have been deleted.  By the same token, I cannot comment on individual cases brought to my attention by men or on behalf of men, who claim they have been the subject of a miscarriage of justice.  I would need to know all the facts before reaching a conclusion.

You can read the comments left on my blog for yourselves and make up your own minds.

Postscript.  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. And it doesn’t stop there. There is a new government initiative to encourage discussions amongst children as young as 11 on difficult subjects such as rape, coercion, drink, and at what point teenagers are capable of agreeing to sex. You can thank me later.

Published by


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

11 thoughts on “STILL GAGGING FOR IT”

  1. The presumption of innocent until proven guilty has been dealt a death knell by ms saunders in placing the burden of proof on the man. Does this now mean every man who wants a sexual liason have to carry a preprepared pre-copulation contract ( names, dates, times, venues etc to be completed before the event)?

    What does it mean for a decent and civilsed society? According to these feminists and their supporters women cannot be held responsible for the louche behaviour that most people abhorr and that they deserve sympathy and support. What about the sympathy and support for residents and locals blighted by drunken women screeching and cackling and hanging onto anything that falls in their path? It’s a sad day when women who dress without provation are blighted by the insults and unwanted attentions that the women ms saunders and the feminists are rooting for, crave and desire.

    Rape is a horrific act. Of those women who were raped while conscious, no amount of time, help and support can ever erase the memory. However, if the person allows themselves to be in a situation where they give the impression/signals that they are ‘up for it’ and are then oblivious to what has happened to them, how can it be said that they were raped? Women must be held accountable for their actions and behaviour if only to make it easier for the genuine victims of rape to prove their case ie, they had not deliberately placed themselves in a situation to be taken advantage of.

  2. Rape is indeed horrific. Men and women can be raped. Their lives are destroyed. Rape is fundamentally about power. Mainly women are raped due to men’s superior strength. Why on earth are women so up in arms regarding a simple truth is beyond sensible comprehension. Women : do not put yourself willy nilly (if you’ll forgive any allusion..) into a situation where rape could happen. Don’t get royally plastered with barely covered body tempting and teasing or even encouraging men (who apparently consider the subject of sex every two minutes throughout a considerable period of their lives) to attempt the act. Women are inconceivably stupid and I am sick to the back teeth of ranting feminists barking like rabid bitches. Spewing nonsense.

  3. As the mother of three sons this is a frightening situation. How two people, both as drunk as each other, can have sex and the next day one be labelled a rapist is ridiculous. Maybe making it a law for a woman to not have sex whilst under the influence of alcohol will solve the problem of her not remembering if she has consented to sex or not. Men should take responsibility. As should women. Obviously women can wear what they want. They way they act is not a right for a man to rape them. But the issue is of respect. If women expect a man to be respectful in these situations surely they should also have some respect for themselves.

  4. Has anyone thought of the financial, emotional, moral and social effects on society that these decisions and actions are going to have. More anti social behaviour, more police diverting time and resources dealing with matters that really would not need investigating if both the women had stayed sober or been aware of their actions and generally not putting out for anything.

  5. I have just seen the article about the debate Mr Osborne had with Allison Phillips. She is completely correct, women can dress how they choose and get drunk whenever and as often as they please. Where she and all those on the media circus who vilify David Osborne are WRONG is violent rape or rape under duress carry scars that drunk rape, where the woman concerned is going out looking for a one night stand. Whoever she ends up with is beside the point as her only objective is to get laid.

  6. Three men have been convicted of rape, despite a judge trying to stop their trial because of a lack of evidence. The judge halted their trial saying it could not be proved the woman did not have the capacity to consent.In an unusual move, the prosecution challenged the decision and the Court of Appeal overruled the judge.

    This story was published in today’s news. It nicely covers the complexities of dealing with women who drink too much and pick up men.

    At the time the woman was videoed she was unresponsive and could not have given consent at that point in time. However, when she met the man/men was she in a position to give consent, as all credit to her, she does state she may have consented to sex.

    You have the rabid mob mentality of juries caught up in the feminist media frenzy and judges who clearly are divided as to what constitutes consent and the time that consent may have been given. At this rate, HM prisons are going to be filled beyond capacity with men who pick up a woman who might give the indications of consent at the time of being picked up but are well and truly inebriated at the time of the act.

  7. One final point about the men convicted of rape in my previous post. How many men of a given mental, intellectual and cultural capacity are actually aware of what now constitutes rape? Surely this is a mitigating factor?

  8. Your articles concern me – you do not comment on any male concerns but pass glib judgment on female comments. This is not balanced. The above comments indicate your suggestion of abolishing the jury system to have merit – not one comment above depicts the action of a man but the loose morals of women who should know better. This confirms a misunderstanding of how rape occurs. Is it unlawful to wear revealing clothes? No. Is it unlawful to get drunk? No. Should a woman be implied to consent if she appears ‘comely’? No. Consent is consent and it us about time men started actually asking themselves and the woman before them ‘does she agree? Can she agree?’. If in doubt perhaps men could be gentlemen and keep it in their pants.

    The last comment about men misunderstanding the law as a defend.. Of course guv’nor I didn’t know rape was illegal, but if a woman flirts with a man she is asking for rape…

  9. Just read up on the case “Couldn’t agree more” raises. I have two points to make.

    The first is that although it is quite possible she may have consented before hand, the point is that by the time sexual activity took place, she probably no longer had the capacity to maintain that consent and that is what made it rape.

    Secondly, there seem to be those who are trying to make out that this case means it is now possible, in cases where the complainant cannot remember, to say that consent was not given. I disagree.

    The crucial piece of evidence here, is that video which apparently shows one of the men having sex with the complainant. According to the reports in the press, the complainant appears not to be taking an active part in things and appears inert. It is this which gives the impression that she had by that time, lost the capacity to consent.

    Without that video, we would be in the same situation David Osborne has highlighted, where three men say she consented, and she cannot remember if she consented or not! In which case the judge would have been right to abandon the trial in my view!

    Oh, one more point, reference is made to the amount of alcohol the complainant had drunk that night. The point at which alcohol removes the capacity to consent, can vary considerably from person to person, and even in the same person from day to day. So, trying to judge her capacity to consent from what she is said to have drunk that night is not a reliable method.

  10. “The men have a different take on the issue” – very true. Could this possibly be because women are far more likely to be the victims of rape?

    I do wonder which occurs more often, men being falsely accused of rape or women being taken advantage of when they make the grave mistake of drinking so much they can hardly stand? I don’t condone either false accusations or irresponsible drinking. But if we put things into perspective, statistically speaking, which one is truly the greater, more pervasive harm? Which group requires the greater protection? As the author mentions in his first piece, convictions for rape are very rare. Given the proposed changes, all that needs to happen is for men to ensure that their potential partner isn’t so drunk that their consent is dubious…

  11. It’s not about rape at all. It’s about power!

    The introduction of these one-sided, anti-male “date-rape” laws, is more about women gaining the complete and uni-lateral power to deciding whether a man is treated as a human being or a useless piece of s**t – regardless of the legal evidence.

    Men (and women with sons or brothers they care about) need to wake up to the fact that these unfair date-rape laws, have nothing whatsoever to do with with preventing real rapes. They are just being used as another weapon in the current and increasingly vicious, feminist contrived war on men and boys.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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