Private Eye Eye Crossword 794 Tuesday...
Crosswords4 mins ago
Judy Finnigan
When I saw the headlines this morning I had a sharp intake of breath - surely a woman wouldn't 'excuse' rape?
However, having now seen a transcript, what she actually said was (lifted from the BBC website);
"If he does go back, he will have to brave an awful lot of comments," said Finnigan during her debut appearance on the lunchtime programme.
"But, having said that, he has served his time, he's served two years.
"The rape - and I am not, please, by any means minimising any kind of rape - but the rape was not violent, he didn't cause any bodily harm to the person.
"It was unpleasant, in a hotel room I believe, and she [the victim] had far too much to drink.
"That is reprehensible but he has been convicted and he has served his time."
Ultimately she's right, isn't she?
As unpleasant as this man is, he has served his time, and therefore shouldn't he be allowed to continue to pursure his chosen career?
However, having now seen a transcript, what she actually said was (lifted from the BBC website);
"If he does go back, he will have to brave an awful lot of comments," said Finnigan during her debut appearance on the lunchtime programme.
"But, having said that, he has served his time, he's served two years.
"The rape - and I am not, please, by any means minimising any kind of rape - but the rape was not violent, he didn't cause any bodily harm to the person.
"It was unpleasant, in a hotel room I believe, and she [the victim] had far too much to drink.
"That is reprehensible but he has been convicted and he has served his time."
Ultimately she's right, isn't she?
As unpleasant as this man is, he has served his time, and therefore shouldn't he be allowed to continue to pursure his chosen career?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I didn't see the show, but i get the picture.
This man has paid the price for his crime and should be allowed back into society.
I agree entirely with the thoughts of ummmm on grading rape.
This has been debated many times on AB and by the strict definition of rape as suggested by some ABers, i have been labelled as a rapist.
So be it.
This man has paid the price for his crime and should be allowed back into society.
I agree entirely with the thoughts of ummmm on grading rape.
This has been debated many times on AB and by the strict definition of rape as suggested by some ABers, i have been labelled as a rapist.
So be it.
I think that Judy clumsily tried to make the point that whilst Evans was certainly guilty of rape (a specific offence) there was no suggestion that he compounded the offence by assaulting his victim.
Rape is a devastating thing to happen to someone and a violent assault accompanying the attack will be even moreso.
However, her suggestion that the victim was somehow, in part, culpable because she was drunk certainly did no favours to past or future victims of this crime.
Rape is a devastating thing to happen to someone and a violent assault accompanying the attack will be even moreso.
However, her suggestion that the victim was somehow, in part, culpable because she was drunk certainly did no favours to past or future victims of this crime.
ummm - "Murder isn't just murder though, we have murder and manslaughter. We have ABH & GBH...with or without intent and so on......"
Murder is murder - manslaughter is manslaughter -the two terms are differing legal labels based on specific circumstances. Manslaughter is not a 'lesser' degree of murder, it is a specific lesser offence.
Similarly, ABH and GBH are separate offences - not degrees one of the other.
Murder is murder - manslaughter is manslaughter -the two terms are differing legal labels based on specific circumstances. Manslaughter is not a 'lesser' degree of murder, it is a specific lesser offence.
Similarly, ABH and GBH are separate offences - not degrees one of the other.
Svejk - "as ummmm suggested, if you can't differentiate between a schoolgirl who's snatched at a bus-stop and left for dead and an older lady who willingly visits a pop-star's/footballer's hotel room, then,in my opinion, it somehow lessens the overall 'impact' of the crime and would also lessen the chance of a jury convicting in the latter type of case."
My position is this - if a female person is physically invaded in a sexual assault by a man against her will, then that is rape, and it's a crime.
If you want to get into the argument that the victim facilitates such a crime by putting herself in harm's way, then good luck with it - but i doubt you will find great sympathy among any of the victims of this dreadful crime.
Irealise you do not state specifically that the lady in this case was 'asking for it' - but your attempt to mitigate strongly indicate that this is the basis of your position.
Do feel free to contradict if you feel I am wide of the mark.
My position is this - if a female person is physically invaded in a sexual assault by a man against her will, then that is rape, and it's a crime.
If you want to get into the argument that the victim facilitates such a crime by putting herself in harm's way, then good luck with it - but i doubt you will find great sympathy among any of the victims of this dreadful crime.
Irealise you do not state specifically that the lady in this case was 'asking for it' - but your attempt to mitigate strongly indicate that this is the basis of your position.
Do feel free to contradict if you feel I am wide of the mark.
jack - "However, her suggestion that the victim was somehow, in part, culpable because she was drunk certainly did no favours to past or future victims of this crime."
My point exactly - and this is why I am arguing my point so vocifourously.
There are no 'mitigating circumstances' in the circumstances of a rape - none at all. A man sexually forcing himself on a woman without her consent is rape - there are no grey areas, and to suggest that some women are culpable by their behaviour is abhorrant.
I would be ashamed of my gender if i seriously thought that men believed that a woman attending their hotel room in an inebriated state represented a green light to violate her.
My point exactly - and this is why I am arguing my point so vocifourously.
There are no 'mitigating circumstances' in the circumstances of a rape - none at all. A man sexually forcing himself on a woman without her consent is rape - there are no grey areas, and to suggest that some women are culpable by their behaviour is abhorrant.
I would be ashamed of my gender if i seriously thought that men believed that a woman attending their hotel room in an inebriated state represented a green light to violate her.
ummmm - "You know what I'm trying to say. You stilled killed someone."
Indeed - no argument.
Bu the law allows for circumstances which may be relavent to the manner of the killing, and that is why separate offences exist in law.
We are talking here about a young woman who accopanied a man tohis hotel room, and was raped. I fail to see any circumstances that make that OK - be it that she went there willingly, or that she was intoxicated.
Are we really suggesting that visiting a strange man's hotel room indicates a willingness for and acceptance of a sexual assault?
is that what we are saying?
Well I for one, am not.
Indeed - no argument.
Bu the law allows for circumstances which may be relavent to the manner of the killing, and that is why separate offences exist in law.
We are talking here about a young woman who accopanied a man tohis hotel room, and was raped. I fail to see any circumstances that make that OK - be it that she went there willingly, or that she was intoxicated.
Are we really suggesting that visiting a strange man's hotel room indicates a willingness for and acceptance of a sexual assault?
is that what we are saying?
Well I for one, am not.
\\\\If you want to get into the argument that the victim facilitates such a crime by putting herself in harm's way, then good luck with it - but i doubt you will find great sympathy among any of the victims of this dreadful crime. \\
I am not answering for svellk but for myself.
Yes, i would like to put that argument forward.
If Mike Tyson invites you to his hotel room at 1.am for a "chat", then you put yourself in a position whereby rape is a possibility and likewise if you go to the hotel room of a footballer, the same situation may present itself.
It shouldn't, but it does and this has been the state of affairs for the past 25-30 years and hasn't changed.
Women know this.
I am not answering for svellk but for myself.
Yes, i would like to put that argument forward.
If Mike Tyson invites you to his hotel room at 1.am for a "chat", then you put yourself in a position whereby rape is a possibility and likewise if you go to the hotel room of a footballer, the same situation may present itself.
It shouldn't, but it does and this has been the state of affairs for the past 25-30 years and hasn't changed.
Women know this.
All through history men have "encouraged" women to have sex with them.
Certainly in the past (though maybe not so much nowadays) women could be reluctant to have sex due to pregnancy, and the "shame" that brought on them.
But that still did not stop the man trying to "go a little further" than the woman might want to go.
I am sure there are few men on here who could say they have never encouraged a women to go further sexually than she may want to go.
But when does that encouragement become too strong, and when does it become rape?
Any woman who agrees to go back to a man's hotel room is putting herself in a rather compromising position.
But if she changes her mind and does not want sex then the man should respect that.
However none of us know what actually goes on inside anyone's bedroom so in this case we don't know how much "encouragement" was used.
However I do find it strange that the lady has no memory of the "rape" (so how does she know she was raped and did not give consent?)
But also another footballer who had sex with her at the same time was found not guilty of rape. Surely if one was rape so was the other (or if one was NOT rape then neither were).
Certainly in the past (though maybe not so much nowadays) women could be reluctant to have sex due to pregnancy, and the "shame" that brought on them.
But that still did not stop the man trying to "go a little further" than the woman might want to go.
I am sure there are few men on here who could say they have never encouraged a women to go further sexually than she may want to go.
But when does that encouragement become too strong, and when does it become rape?
Any woman who agrees to go back to a man's hotel room is putting herself in a rather compromising position.
But if she changes her mind and does not want sex then the man should respect that.
However none of us know what actually goes on inside anyone's bedroom so in this case we don't know how much "encouragement" was used.
However I do find it strange that the lady has no memory of the "rape" (so how does she know she was raped and did not give consent?)
But also another footballer who had sex with her at the same time was found not guilty of rape. Surely if one was rape so was the other (or if one was NOT rape then neither were).
Interesting point
you punish someone for what they have done and not what they are
Sqad will know that if a doctor is convicted of an offence he may not go back to his job when he comes out of the slammer.
Dishonesty is especially badly regarded by the GMC....
If a bank manager is convicted of fraud I dont think he goes back to being a banker....
and yet if a politician is convicted of fraud, when he comes out he goes on lying and lying and lying sorry when he comes out he goes on being a politician frequently with an increased majority....
you punish someone for what they have done and not what they are
Sqad will know that if a doctor is convicted of an offence he may not go back to his job when he comes out of the slammer.
Dishonesty is especially badly regarded by the GMC....
If a bank manager is convicted of fraud I dont think he goes back to being a banker....
and yet if a politician is convicted of fraud, when he comes out he goes on lying and lying and lying sorry when he comes out he goes on being a politician frequently with an increased majority....
JTH
\\\\Few women would willingly go to the room of a known rapist.\\\
Quite, but until a man has been convicted of rape, a woman would not know if her "partner" for the night, was indeed a rapist.
\\\\The woman involved may suspect that the man they have accompanied back will 'try it on', but they also know that they have the right to say "No" and have that respected.\\\
and that is where we get into this "grey area" and the debatable grades of rape.
\\\\Few women would willingly go to the room of a known rapist.\\\
Quite, but until a man has been convicted of rape, a woman would not know if her "partner" for the night, was indeed a rapist.
\\\\The woman involved may suspect that the man they have accompanied back will 'try it on', but they also know that they have the right to say "No" and have that respected.\\\
and that is where we get into this "grey area" and the debatable grades of rape.
Latest Posts
Road rules4 mins ago
News9 mins ago
It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Getting A Better Wifi/Ethernet Signal.
Technology14 mins ago
