We Believe You - continued

[Frontpaw]

The old thread was full. It was the first of a few I think.

I think the no means no message needs to change. It's been taken too literally for years now.

No does mean no but not saying no does not always mean yes, unless the woman actively says yes or likewise or is actively participating in the act then not saying yes or no also means no.

There are many reasons a woman may not say no. Fear of further violence, shock, lack of consciousness or inabilty of coherent speech owing to alcohol/medical reasons, simply not being able to find the words/power of speech because of what is happening etc.

There are men who get just as blotto on a night out and yet they aren't in fear of being raped.

I believe her.

Originally, No means No was part of a wider slogan:

Yes means yes, No means no
However we dress,
Wherever we go

The yes means yes bit has been well and truly dropped, hasn't it?

That's exactly the message I was trying to tweet the other day.

It isn't consensual because she didn't say no. It's rape because she didn't say yes.

I also tried too drunk to say no = too drunk to say yes

Apparently that means that "in my eyes that must mean that most of the population has been raped at some point then".

I managed to silence him with a reply of it's nothing to do with my eyes, it's the law. It's also basic human morality.

Funnily enough even an mra didn't have a comeback to that one.

Seriously though, the views of these people are both terrifying and unbearably sad in equal measure.

When did it become presume yes unless she says no? It's just heart breaking.

Hi I don't know if any of you have an app called Flipboard? It's very USA based, but the I Believe You campaign is currently one of its cover stories. The word is getting out there!

One warning the Page does lead to a You tube page about a photo project that maybe triggery but is vey moving.

I really hope that the letter to the PFA is noted and they actually remove Ched Evans from this honours list.

Football is basically the national sport in this country and footballers are in a position of responsibility whether they like it or not as they are heroes to many. They need to set an example and be good role models.

Rape is a very serious crime and it needs to be acknowledged. I can't understand why it is not always seen as such in the UK. There are so many myths about rape, it really needs to be brought to people's attention again.

I also think it would be hugely beneficial to have some sort of education about this in schools so that teenagers know what is right from wrong and if they ever do become victims of this crime they know there is support. They also need to be advised on how to look after themselves e.g. Not accepting drinks from strangers. It may seem over the top, but looking at the statistics, if so many people are victims of this crime then we need to be educating kids to help them avoid this.

I believe her

I've just sent a blistering reply to Roy Belcher/Nick Clegg for that awful reply, saying that Mr Elvish has no right to apologise for the offence I take at his comments - they were offensive and need to be retracted in full. The Libdems had a real opportunity to speak out now and say that Mr Elvish's comments were totally unacceptable and so is anything that anything which tries to make excuses for what happened, and they have blown it.

I really welcome this 'campaign' - it is more than time to stand up and be counted on this issue, and for women everywhere to be able to speak out loud and clear. Also welcome the reminder above that we can all contribute something to Rape Crisis too. Will be sending off a donation.

A one night stand?? - I believe when one has a one-night stand, one is entitled to choose who she has it with. The victim was pounced upon by two random men.

This isn't an e-mob; nobody is bombarding Mr Evans' email or Facebook account or crashing any websites at parliament or the football clubs. We are voicing our opinions peacefully and in an orderly manner.

Typo : "who she has it with" should read "whom he or she has it with".

Just had a response from Mr Belcher:

Thank you for contacting us regarding the comments made by Liberal Democrat council candidate Liam Elvish on Facebook about the Ched Evans case.

I would like to make it absolutely clear that the party does not agree with the views expressed by Mr Elvish. It is completely inappropriate and damaging to make light of offences such as rape. He has now recognised his mistake and has apologised for his remarks.

However, the Liberal Democrats take comments like these very seriously. The local party will be looking into these comments and will take appropriate further action.

Thank you once again for making us aware of your concerns on this matter.

Kind regards

DH also emailed last night and he's had exactly the same answer. We are at receiving stock, mass produced responses.

I am also not happy with the assertion that Mr Elvish has apologised for his remarks. He didn't. He apologised if he offended anyone but qualified this 'apology' by stating that everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter.

Not impressed.

Elvish came bottom of the poll in his ward - a derisory 100 votes. Still 100 too many. Can only assume he has a lot of relatives - who else would vote for a twat like that?

Can't make the link work for some reason, but here are the figures.

Candidate Votes
Conservative Elaine Still 900
Independent Jo Walke 735
Labour Ann Chapman 183
Liberal Democrat Liam Elvish 100
Rejected ballots 8

Turnout 1926
Conservative hold

Good.
Now he needs to apologise and get removed from their candidate list.

I believe her.

"This was a disgraceful verdict. So much for British justice. Ched has played brilliantly this season. Could anyone genuinely guilty of rape perform their job to such a high standard, especially one in the public eye? No way! Most people would hide away. Lets hope the appeal is successful and justice is finally done".

^^ from someone on the 'free ched evans' fb page. So they are conflating being able to play football well with whether you are a rapist or not? Beggars belief it really does

#Ibelievehere

Good GRIEF

Are these people in possession of a standard human brain?
And not one that was destined for some sewer amoeba or similar?

It says something about the education system in this country, that people can write something so utterly devoid of critical thinking.

It's so randomised - you can't be a rapist if you're good at football. What a very odd idea. What else can you not be a rapist if you're good at? Cooking? Ski-ing? Carpentry? And what's the scientific connection between whatever it is you're good at and that meaning that you can't be a rapist?

Do these people really believe this, or are they just dumbing down to bond with their peers? If they really believe it, tbh you have to feel a bit sorry for them, the world must be an extraordinarily confusing place for them. They must anticipate all sorts of connections that just don't exist and go through life in a fog of incomprehension.

Where have all these extra Puffins come from?

Jolyonsmummy this is what Daily Mail reported at the time "that before Evans became involved, McDonald got up and closed the curtains because a 'couple of lads' were watching through the window. ".

sylview, perhaps you should rely on more reputable news sources, as it might aid your understanding of matters. The Daily Mail famously described the scene and then quoted reactions on the spot from numerous sources when initially reporting that Amanda Knox's appeal had failed. It had succeeded. They made things up.

One of "the lads" was Ched Evans' own brother, and they claimed they were invited to join in by Macdonald. This is from contemporaneous legal reporting in the Guardian: [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/11/ched-evans-clayton-mcdonald-accused?INTCMP=SRCH Evans told police he went to the Premier Inn with his brother Ryan Roberts and "associate" Jack Higgins after he received a text from McDonald saying he had "got a bird". He claimed that after entering the hotel room, McDonald said: "Join in."

In interview, McDonald told police that when he met the woman she asked him where he was going and told him she was going with him. He said she had not appeared to be drunk but admitted that others watched through the window.

Philpotts said that while the attack happened Jack Higgins and Roberts had watched through a window. Video recordings found on Higgins's phone showed that he had been filming or trying to film the incident.]]

It's interesting that Macdonald denied she appeared drunk to police, because the Premier Inn receptionist testified that he was so concerned about her level of drunkeness that when he left he asked her to be aware that the girl in the room needed an eye kept on her.

"A receptionist at the hotel described the woman, who was 19 at the time and worked in a restaurant, as "extremely drunk" and said she was "stumbling" and "slurring" and occasionally grabbing hold of McDonald to steady herself.

The receptionist said he saw the two men who were waiting outside watching what was happening in the room through the window.

Afterwards, McDonald came through to reception and said: "You know that girl I was with? Keep an eye on her. She's sick." Philpotts said: "He knew how intoxicated the complainant was, dangerously intoxicated, so that she needed to be kept under observation for her own safety."

So yes, they did know. They were invited, they were involved. They are to an extent culpable.

This whole thing is depressingly redolent of a film called The Accused. It seems sod all has changed in 20 years.

FormSquare, I'm interested that you said this: "Rape cases are such an issue that, quite frankly, the Police MUST be absolutely sure that they are doing the right thing."

Because, you know, in this case the police were "absolutely sure" they were "doing the right thing". That's why the police put the case forward for prosecution.

And, you know what? The police believed her. The CPS believed her. The jury believed her. And a big pile of people here believe her.

I believe her.

Perfectstorm The daily mail account is taken from the questioning of the defendants and appears also on the BBC and several other online papers. The Guardian article is taken from the prosecutors case. The Guardian does not seem to have covered the defendants case as there is no article between the one you quoted and the verdict that comes up on their online search which I find strange.

You're ignoring two facts:

1. "two lads watching" does not reflect the fact that both were invited and one was the convicted rapist's brother
2. Evidence from the receptionist is not somehow solely prosecution evidence. It is witness evidence.

Though given your earlier comments, I'm not really interested in debating this (or indeed any other subject, now or in the future) with you. My time for rapist's apologists is exceedingly limited.