Oxford Union president rape allegations - alumni open letter

From where I am sitting it looks like Buffy may be biased towards women, but LRD isnt.

from not for

It's vitally important for women's safe and uninhibited participation in university life that rape is treated as a serious crime and that university societies, particularly one as famous and influential as the Union, do not play a part in rape culture by minimising it and protecting potential perpetrators.

Women are not safer if he isnt in the role than if he is.

I am picking up points for earlier in the thread.

Aw, how inspiring of you, jane.

Why don't you become a feminist, then you can do it all right and we can stop our pitiful efforts to worry about women being raped and worry about Proper Things like fictional examples of people whose livez woz ruined, eh?

Only if charged (and only in some roles) and the man here said he would step down if charged. Otherwise you end up penalising the innocent. That threshold of evidence to charge is the crucial thing. So many teachers by the way have been hugely damaged by totally made up accusations by typical teenagers, careers destroyed etc because of our culture of saying no smoke without fire. It has to stop and I hope feminists will be at the forefront of this not working against fairness and justice.

Jane, is it your view that no one under investigation for a serious crime (rape, GBH, attempted murder, causing death by dangerous driving etc) step down from their elected role whilst under investigation?

How so?

Innocent until proven guilty as with Annabel K as people say although in her case she settled with him and paid him off so you might argue she is arguably guilty and our Oxford man not.

I will be back later.

Both of whom should take allegations seriously and respond appropriately.

Thank you, yes, that is what I want to say.

larry it isn't disingenuous at all. Merely identifying a problem. What we do need both at a societal and indeed legal level is that any potential victim is credible. If I am assaulted and my nose is broken and I have a black eye, people are under no illusions I have suffered something and will tend to be sympathetic, compassionate and supportive. Also whilst I might accuse someone other than the perpetrator how often does that realistically happen?

Not so with many rapes as there is frequently no outward visible signs. So unlike many other violent crime we often fall at the first hurdle of establishing if a crime has even taken place. I might indeed take your position, but the psychological effects I am afraid are all too real.

If we treated the psychological effects the same as obvious physical ones (which sounds like what happened in the case of your jury duty). Then it is easier to establish that a crime has occurred. Then the Defence has a harder job. This is not the most likely outcome.

Now we can be more generous towards establishing wether a woman is suffering the effects of a rape in terms of treatment and counselling. Why can't we in terms of the law and public opinion?

My point is essentially more weight should be given to the psychological effects of rape, as in cases where the accused admits to sexual contact with the victim, and the victim is suffering the effects of rape it doesn't take King Solomon himself to work out beyond all reasonable doubt what had happened.

I don't know how it would work either, but yes, in principle.

But I think you are discounting the realities here.

The reasons why he should have stepped aside, in my view, are:

1. It would have shown respect to rape survivors (so, similar to AK).

2. It is a hobby of his, which should be less important than those rape survivors' feelings.

3. He was actively damaging the Union by staying - not only by trying to use their money to pay his legal fees, but because speakers were cancelling. People within the Union felt this wasn't ok.

I don't see why you think it'd be different for AK? Do you mean, because she's a woman and rape/sexual assault is a gendered issue? I know that this is true, but I don't think it should change principles, do you?

you can hardly step aside from your own company can you? I don't know how that works. She's not funded by public money either so I suppose the case is less strong

In your eyes, she should have stepped aside, shouldnt she.

poor thing

I must've missed the thread about it on here.

Indeed it does

Oh. I didn't understand that post, to be honest.

No, never heard of her at all. It sounds pretty unpleasant.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665074/I-just-wanted-curl-never-Celebrity-chef-Annabel-Karmel-reveals-torment-false-claims-pestered-employee-sex.html

I would have thought that you would have heard of what happened to her. Not read much of it tbh, but I care just as much what happened to her. I am surprised you havent referred to it tbh.

My post. Sunday 19.58

So she is, I've just googled. So far as I can see she'd never been mentioned on this thread previously.

I thought annabel karmel was the baby food maker

Mmm, if you say so, please. Dunno who Annabel Karmel is, but you've been remarkably silent about the insults to women on this thread.