Is this victim blaming...?

[MissGoggins]

I noticed this article and it made me think about the now infamous judge's closing remarks on her last trial (regarding drunken women and increased vulnerability).

Is this different? Or by using the same logic, is issuing this warning 'victim blaming' those who have already been victims of this crime?

If the former, then how is it different?
If the latter, then what is the alternative?

www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/solihull/in-the-know/students-warned-not-to-use-local-solihull-park

As I thought. You can't answer. Of course you can't. It serves no purpose. Thanks for the biscuit, yum yum.

I know I don't HAVE to keep posting. That was quite a quick jump to asking me to leave 'your' thread because I disagree with you, OP. You don't come here much, do you?

MRA?

Trifle, do you move around MN threads simply looking for an argument, calling people goady and telling them to fuck off?

I said that the judge was "likely to have more to do with rape cases and trials than most of us." but keep selectively quoting if it makes you happy.

I didn't mention insurance. I was talking about the difference in a trial not being if the event occurred but if permission or consent was given.

Do Read More Closely Dear.

Silly trifle.

I wasn't asking you to leave although I would like to stay on topic. I suggested that if you truly think the only purpose of this thread is to be goady then you shouldn't get over invested.

I do wonder if the goady accusations come out when a poster is sinking while trying to communicate their point of view.

The word victim blaming is far too over used. We need to get past this idea that people shouldn't ever be told to use common sense or warned about going into known risky areas because to do so is somehow implying that they are asking to be raped/murdered/robbed.

In an ideal world there would be no rapists or murderers or muggers, but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in the real world.

In an ideal world I should be able to walk home via the back alley route at 3 in the morning, and make it safely to my front door. But in the real world there are opportunists who might take the chance on a person walking unseen through a back alley and potentially under the influence of alcohol or vulnerable in some other way and might rob/rape/murder them because it was a quiet back alley and they had the opportunity to do so. The victim is by no means to blame for going down that back alley, but if there had been a warning they might be aware that there were potential opportunists lurking about out there and decide to take a different route home so as not to fall victim to one of them.

Or do people never warn their kids not to walk home in the dark/to be careful of strangers/to look out for each other at parties etc because it doesn't matter what happens to them it's someone else's fault anyway?

It's ok to look out for people without implying they're asking for trouble...

Oh right, I am 'silly' - better get back in my box, hadn't I?

CheWasABitOfAHomophobe:

You're right. My fault.

But really, you think the judge's comments can't be challenged by us lesser mortals (the audience for her comments) because she is clever, or because she has been involved in rape cases? That doesn't make any sense.

but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in the real world.

Wannabe I agree with this so much. I'm often torn because I can see the logic in idealistic points of view, but in the the real world they just fall flat.

When a student who is robbed is asked why they were alone, why alone at night, why carrying a mobile phone, whether they called their mugger beforehand, whether they had been drinking and whether they shagged the mugger, then it will be a fairer comparison

They will already be asked/berated about being alone at night, carrying a mobile etc. People seem to be blind to the fact that there is a LOT of similar advice about avoiding muggings eg. don't walk through certain areas, be vigilant, don't speak on the phone etc.

As to whether, they shagged the mugger etc, rape is unique in that it is the absence of consent that makes an otherwise lawful activity illegal. With mugging, the act of robbing someone is illegal in itself. With rape, it is sex if it is consensual, it is rape if it is not. The accused will very often say it was consensual. Therefore, there needs to be an investigation into whether or not it was, in order for the CPS to make a decision as to whether to charge. Therefore, the police HAVE to ask certain questions in order to test the strength of the victim's account. The alternative is that the police don't ask questions, case goes to court and defence lawyer tears victim apart. OR we restrict what the defence lawyers can ask and get accused of breaching the suspect's right to a fair trial.

It is difficult.

Trifle you are the only one being goadie on this thread. Clearly you are trying to derail the discussion.

CheWasABitOfAHomophobe:

And the answer is no, I don't. But the premise of this post was disingenuous and the poster has acknowledged that it is somewhat goady. Clearly she (he?) didn't really want to talk about the students or the muggings.

WannaBe:

Derail it? Towards what?

just because you can doesn't mean you should...

if you want to walk through a dark park at night then rightly so no one can stop you but if you have been warned you may be attacked but still choose to walk there you cant be surprised if/when something happens to you.

I think the notion that Judges / MP's etc are 'more intelligent than us' so therefore shouldn't be questioned is laughable.

Sometimes they are intelligent. Often they are experienced. However, there are simply endless examples of them making poor or incomprehensible decisions.

Whether this is one of them is a moot point.

However, I live in Edinburgh where a 19 year old man has just been let off having intercourse with a 12 year old as 'she looked 16', so, who I am I (a mere peasant) to have an opinion???

Papafran I had an experience as a student where someone claimed to know me and gained entry to my bedroom where they stole one item of high value.

When the police came I was cross examined and left feeling very much like the criminal because if my irresponsible student lifestyle.

There was definitely victim blaming going on. The thing is, they were right. We had people coming and going from the house. I spent a lot of time at the pub and everyone knew my name and where I lived (local to that pub).

It was horrible. Never found out who it was.

Therefore, the police HAVE to ask certain questions in order to test the strength of the victim's account.

Of course they do. I was being facetious. The point is that there will be no interrogation of the victim about why they were in that place after dark as part of the investigation into what happened to them, and while I understand that the police do have to probe more into those facets of a rape allegation, it is that fundamental difference that makes this thread an exercise in pointlessness. No-one is ever going to feel 'blamed' as the victim of a mugging. Almost every rape victim feels guilt and shame and blame. So people in authority (like the judge) have a duty not to make that burden heavier with cackhanded statements about 'common sense'. The judge, if she is as intelligent as I am being told she must be and if she has as much experience in dealing with sexual assault and rape cases, must have known how these comments would be taken.

The point is that there will be no interrogation of the victim about why they were in that place after dark as part of the investigation into what happened to them,

Of course there will be!

There was definitely victim blaming going on. The thing is, they were right. We had people coming and going from the house. I spent a lot of time at the pub and everyone knew my name and where I lived (local to that pub).

They had no right to make you feel that way. So what if everyone knew your name?

Did you pull that line straight from 'Cheers'?

Wannabe, I agree but I think it's really subjective where you place the boundary between 'warning' and 'responsible'. An example, for me, would be Madeleine McCann where the parents thought it would be ok to leave the kids alone (as a result of the case I think it's much widely publicised that it is not ok to leave kids alone in a hotel room). Were they then partially 'responsible' or is the only person responsible the person who abducted her? If you wear really skimpy clothes eg. a skirt barely covering bum and a bra-style top, and then get so drunk you are unaware of what is happening to you, are you in any way responsible for the way you are then treated? Where is the line drawn here?

*The point is that there will be no interrogation of the victim about why they were in that place after dark as part of the investigation into what happened to them,

Of course there will be! confused*

Why? Why would the police waste their time?

Let's see:

Victim: He jumped out of the bushes and put a hand over my mouth.

PC Victim Blamer: And you were on your way to Tesco at this time?

Victim: Yes. He had his hand over my mouth and he said...

PC Victim Blamer: Hold on. Why did you need to go to Tesco? Don't they deliver to your area? Couldn't you have gone earlier in the day?

Victim: Well, yes, but I decided to go. I needed milk.

PC Victim Blamer: Just milk? What else did you buy?

Victim: A bag of revels.

PC Victim Blamer: Sharing size or individual?

Victim: Is that relevant?

PC Victim Blamer: It may be. We need to establish how well you knew the mugger.

Sorry, I was enjoying that too much, wasn't I? Clearly bollocks comparison between the way mugging victims are treated and the way rape victims are treated though.

Trifleorbust

The OP said goady confusing it with being emotive, I think. Their subsequent posts don't seem goady and nor does the thread really.

I don't think that judges shouldn't be above their opinions being questioned but I do think that the weighting given to someone with knowledge of a subject (and intelligence) is clearly a sensible thing to do.

You suggested she hadn't thought twice before giving her advice (and advice was in quotation marks - not sure why). I said she is likely to have thought long and hard.

*WorshipTheGourd"

a mere peasant

Grow up.

I didn't say 'they' were beyond being questioned. I said experienced and intelligent. Two qualities I look for (amongst others) when assessing how seriously to take advice or an opinion.

A long thread ran about that case in Edinburg. Interesting opinions on either side of the debate (and those on the fence). A very unusual case.

MerryMarigold:

Are you serious? You are NEVER responsible. It doesn't matter what you were wearing or how drunk you were.

Have I woken up in the 1950s or am I missing some intended parody in your post?

CheWasABitOfAHomophobe:

I didn't quite say she didn't think about it. I said she (in my opinion) needed to think more.

MerryMarigold That's such an interesting comparison.

Even before that happened I would have never done what they did and I would have imagined what they did was tantamount to neglect. I understand that my opinion on this matter is obviously wrong as they have never been prosecuted for neglect, but that would have been my opinion prior to the event.

However I don't think their perceived neglect led to the abduction. That happened because someone abducted a child. The question is, could the abduction have happened if they weren't left alone?

The same question can be applied to rape of a drunken women: could rape of a drunken woman occur if a women did not get drunk?

No intended parody. It was questioning Wannabe's post - where do we draw the lines? With other things too. That is what this whole post is about isn't it? When does a warning become victim blaming? And can people sufficiently distinguish? Do we just have to use 'common sense' and then isn't that very subjective?