Radio 5 phone in on consent at 9.00am

That's a good point caprice, but a course in its short time frame is also not going to be cover every possible situation where there might be misunderstanding either. Would we then say they had to take multiple courses until every single variable in every possible situation was extensively covered and remembered? I'd say no, this wouldn't be right.

Right thinking men wouldn't rape a woman and would seek to clarify if there was every misunderstanding or confusion. I dont feel a course would do that particular group of people any good. On the other hand I can see why the people who said they would rape (when rape was described without being called rape) would benefit from a course. They clearly have a thing or two to learn.

I can understand why they wouldn't want to go to go on that course. In their view, they aren't a rapist so what good is a course teaching them not to rape? It's like asking a qualified driver to take the test again. In his mind he's already a good driver, he's proven that to society by driving within the law, so why go on a course to prove the same thing again?

But he was arguing, amongst other things, that rape is a rare occurrence because there are only 1000 convictions a year, that 'silly' feminists want to be able to decide 'the morning after' that they've changed their minds and for that to then be classed as rape. He denied (I think) that sexual assault can happen within relationships and denied that women being touched and groped without their consent was a form of sexual assault. He was odious in the extreme. Yet he sounded so reasonable, so measured. He was utterly chilling

Is this the guy from Warwick who refused to do a consent workshop? Because if it is, then he is exactly what a rapist looks like. The very picture of one.

Treacle

I don't think I'll listen, blood pressure can't take it.

I don't know who he was as I didn't catch the introductions at the start.

But he was arguing, amongst other things, that rape is a rare occurrence because there are only 1000 convictions a year, that 'silly' feminists want to be able to decide 'the morning after' that they've changed their minds and for that to then be classed as rape. He denied (I think) that sexual assault can happen within relationships and denied that women being touched and groped without their consent was a form of sexual assault. He was odious in the extreme. Yet he sounded so reasonable, so measured. He was utterly chilling.

I missed this. Who was the man? It wasn't Luke Gittos was it?

Sadly I missed the discussion as I was at work by that time. But I certainly went off to work in a bit of a lather that there are actually men as awful as him out there. Men who think they are victims. He was much more frightening than any stranger lurking down a dark alley looking suspicious.

I came on here specifically today to ask if anyone had heard the man on 5live breakfast this morning discussing this? No idea who he was as I only caught part of it but if he was for real he was terrifying.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-third-of-male-university-students-say-they-would-rape-a-woman-if-there-no-were-no-consequences-9978052.html

Then there was that - 1/3 of the students surveyed would rape a woman if there were no consequences.

Does no harm to learn about consent at all - even if you think you already know it.

That's like objecting to driving tests because you're already a good driver, why do you have to prove it.