Nick Ross on rape - warning you may feel the need to punch a wall(485 Posts)
sorry it's a daily mail link.
I am full of rage, particularly his comments on aggravated rape. Wtf. Presumably he means that there are situations in which he will not be able to stop himself from raping someone because it is aggravated. This has made me so angry. Please they'll me he no longer works for the BBC. I truly hope he loses his career over this. How the hell are we supposed to educate people who think like this?
Was it him they were talking about on Jimmy cards news thing when one of them said "and if we can't trust the views on feminism of a man who can't enter the USA for fear of being arrested for rape, who can we trust?" Or was that someone else?
Bumbleymummy, yes he is encouraging rape victims to blame themselves.
By quoting with approval the views of a rape victim who blames herself, he is a) encouraging her to continue to blame herself, rather than allocate the blame to where it belongs, that is with the men who raped and her and b) encouraging other rape victims to blame themselves because they read that and realise that any other response than blaming themselves, will be looked on askance.
I could write to Nick Ross and tell him how I blamed myself for being raped for about twenty years as well, but I now realise that that self-blame was a result of a culture which encourages me to blame myself and that that culture is wrong to do so and needs to be changed, so that other rape victims don't do what I (and most) rape victims did for for years and blame themselves.
But I somehow don't think he'd be quoting me as justification for his rape apology, do you?
That might encourage some rape victims to put the blame where it belongs and Nick Ross wouldn't want to encourage that, would he.
Let's all ask ourselves why, shall we?
Why would a man be so desperate to shift responsibility for rape from rapists to victims?
Dizzy that was Roman Palanski.
This going to be really long, but bumbleymummy did ask.
Bumbleymummy Re: the difficulty with convictions. I used to be a court reporter. I've seen a lot of people plead not guilty to a lot of things and I've seen some of them convicted.
My unscientific observation is that juries tend to have more difficulty convicting in the case of rape rather than other offences. It's a serious offence to ask a jury about their deliberations so I don't know for sure why that is.
I'm not trying to dodge, it's just that it's going to make my answer even longer than it's already going to be. I'll give you my thoughts in another post if you want.
You mention assault - I'm taking it you don't mean sexual assault, but assault with fists or a weapon.
I'm not a lawyer, so someone else should correct me if I'm wrong or if there are other reasons, but IME someone might plead not guilty, saying the alleged victim or witnesses are unclear or lying. That's common to every not-guilty plea I've ever heard, regardless of the charge.
They might object to being charged with one of the more serious forms, such as wounding with intent, which I think carries about 5 or 7 years in jail, whereas they might accept they were guilty of a lesser assault charge, but the Crown Prosecution Service believes there should be a heavier charge.
That's not really relevant to rape, because we don't have gradations, but some people want there to be and there are sexual assaults that aren't rape.
Though I'd be the last person to think that the CPS and police get it right all the time, I think most ordinary people would support people being charged appropriately to the offence, rather than a bargain being struck for convenience.
It's very complicated, as are all offences. You don't usually get film and audio, and sometimes when you do, like the Lords accused this weekend of accepting money for lobbying, you might get someone saying he only said what he did to outwit the people trying to entrap him.
But you don't get people in CPS, police or judiciary saying that rape and other sexual assaults should be especially difficult offences to prosecute. The difficulty comes in with jurors, because people who don't do that for a living, routinely say rape or other sexual assaults are different to other offences, despite having no basis for this.
And to address your other point: I don't accept the concept of victim-blaming, but I am nothing if not realistic. Still, if you're doing your job right as a juror, what you think of the alleged victim or the defendant shouldn't come into it.
The only other thing I'll say now is that I've listened to a number of rape cases but never one where a masked man dragged a woman, stone cold sober or otherwise, into bushes.
Of course it happens. It just doesn't happen that often. The overwhelming majority of rapes are committed by someone you know, even for just an hour or so, which makes sense because women are so used to being told to be careful.
Yet Nick Ross thinks that's not really rape and because of attitudes like his, women I'd say had been raped also don't think they have.
It's not my place to tell them what to think, but it's not his either.
"I disagree Basil"
D'you want to elaborate why?
'I put myself in situations where there would certainly have been confusion/ambiguity on the mans part'
Sweet Jesus I can't actually believe Mr Ross believes that that email helps his case. I feel a lot angrier now.
It's so terribly sad isn't it?
This woman who believes that men are too stupid and too insensitive to actually clarify whether she wanted them in her body or not?
And yet they're so clever that they run the world and have done for centuries.
Cognitive dissonance is a very useful thing.
Of course rape (of a woman by a man or a man by a man) is always the man's fault. What the fuck is he on about?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.