Do you deserve what you get?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

No. No, no no no no! So to be deserving of rape whadda I have to do? Dress in a short skirt, get drunk and then grind my hips on the dancefloor? Oh, yeah, that'll be enough, I'm really asking for it now, aren't I? Sorry Nessie but this is the sort of attitude that puts women in burkas. "Hey, we can't control ourselves so you'd better cover up and wear a blanket with eye holes".

I don't understand where you're coming from. "Dressing provocatively" is not a risky venture, unless you're in Newcastle and the risk is frostbite.

There's me thinking that people of JREF were a bit more forward-thinking that the average religious fundamentalist. Sadly, it seems at the moment that I was wrong.

What part of "no means no, period", no matter what the situation, do rapists not understand? Stop making excuses for certain members of your sex, please.

ETA: Oh, and on this "mixed signals from a drunk female" thing you've thrown into the discussion. Even if said sozzled lady is making out on the guy's sofa, if she then says "no" then no means no. What part of her "no" is a "mixed message"?

But no one is ever deserving of rape. I am not making excuses for rapists. Yet again it is that non sequitur of criticise the victim for something and people claim that lessens the blame on the perpetrator. Utter nonsense, complete rubbish.

As for safety advice for women, there is a lot and it is all pretty much common sense

http://www.suzylamplugh.org/personal...ht-out-safety/

Since it appears I am wrong about how someone dresses and behaves and risk, the above is wrong about watching out or your drink will be spiked.

Here are the myths around spiked drinks according to Australian Police

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/...king_myths.pdf

I cannot find a link, but a UK TV programme ran a test and found that out of 100 reports to the police of spiked drinks, none were found to have been spiked.

This is based on my own experience. In Scotland it is Lothian & Borders Police who do the testing. According to them the most common cause of supposed spiked drinks (where the victim is adamant they did not have much to drink) is in reality a virus caught as people do not wash their hands after going to the toilet. That virus is short lived, but it slows the digesting (for want of a better word) of alcohol. Which means the victim gets drunker than usual and is then often very sick. This is attributed to the drink being spiked by the victim. I have dealt with such cases.

The excess of alcohol as the real cause of spiked drinks is backed up here

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658214/

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Unfortunately, nessie claims to be a serving police officer, and I have no reason to doubt him/her, so that possibly makes it other people's business.

Nice, take a quote out of context. Why not quote using my reply to the quote?

Here we go again. It is a non sequitur that criticising the victim for something they did lessens the blame on the perpetrator.

Do any of you pay any attention to crime prevention advice?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

Again: There is no evidence that doing these things is anything more than a superstitious talisman. There is no evidence to support the notion that you're more likely to have your house robbed if the door is unlocked. ......

http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-i...to-a-house.htm

"Of the reported 2 million commercial and residential burglaries reported to the U.S. Department of Justice in 2009, most (61 percent) were forcible entry. 32.6 percent of burglars found the easy way in, and the balance represented foiled attempts [source: U.S. Department of Justice]."

By the easy way in

"Warm spring days and crisp fall air make open windows irresistible -- especially to burglars. Thieves think nothing of walking the circumference of your home, trying each door, window and cellar opening until one relents to prying hands. Of course, first-floor windows and doors are more susceptible, but climbable trees and tables used as makeshift ladders place second-floor windows in as much risk.

Even when home, families should ensure their doors and windows are closed and locked; unattended or dark parts of the occupied homes are vulnerable. Consider bustling dining rooms and kitchens during dinners, when second floors can become targets for quiet burglars. Or consider the dark second-story bedroom where someone is sleeping near a wide-open window."

Another source

http://www.safeguardtheworld.com/statistics.html

"2,000,000 home burglaries are reported each year in the United States.
About 30 percent of all burglaries are through an open or unlocked window or door."

What was that about thieves not trying for insecure doors?

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Nessie

But no one is ever deserving of rape. I am not making excuses for rapists. Yet again it is that non sequitur of criticise the victim for something and people claim that lessens the blame on the perpetrator. Utter nonsense, complete rubbish.

As for safety advice for women, there is a lot and it is all pretty much common sense

http://www.suzylamplugh.org/personal...ht-out-safety/

Since it appears I am wrong about how someone dresses and behaves and risk, the above is wrong about watching out or your drink will be spiked.

Yes, it is wrong, and a website that states that "Remember, nothing will turn you into a potential victim quicker or more effectively than alcohol" is again blaming the woman and pandering to Just Worldism, the theory that the world is basically a safe place and if you play by the rules you're unlikely to get hurt. But personal attacks are to all intents and purposes random and I'm surprised at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust of all organisations for not spotting this, considering what Ms Lamplugh was doing nothing out of the ordinary or "risky" at the time her disappearance.

Originally Posted by Nessie

Here are the myths around spiked drinks according to Australian Police

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/...king_myths.pdf

I cannot find a link, but a UK TV programme ran a test and found that out of 100 reports to the police of spiked drinks, none were found to have been spiked.

This is based on my own experience. In Scotland it is Lothian & Borders Police who do the testing. According to them the most common cause of supposed spiked drinks (where the victim is adamant they did not have much to drink) is in reality a virus caught as people do not wash their hands after going to the toilet. That virus is short lived, but it slows the digesting (for want of a better word) of alcohol. Which means the victim gets drunker than usual and is then often very sick. This is attributed to the drink being spiked by the victim. I have dealt with such cases.

Well quite. That the Suzy Lamplugh Trust website is so wrong on the spiked drinks/date rape drug myth implies that this website gets its "facts" from the Daily Mail.

Be that as it may, we're a long way from your OP, in which you inferred that me putting on my mini-skirt of an evening was akin in the "asking for trouble" stakes to a Celtic supporter walking into a known Rangers pub and shouting nasty things about Protestants. If we're in the business of attempting poor analogies, then I'd suggest that a woman walking into a packed bar full of men and shouting "who's first for a ****?" is more akin to the foolish football fan scenario, because that would be nearer to incitement, would it not?

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Here we go again. It is a non sequitur that criticising the victim for something they did lessens the blame on the perpetrator.

Actually, I disagree with you on this point.

As an aside, you understand what a non sequitur is, yes? I only ask because you use the phrase with increasing frequency. You've used it six times in this four page thread already, always accusing others of wrongly employing the phrase. It's easy to hand wave away critique of your argument but simply saying "that doesn't follow" but sometimes you have to explain why, and maybe see the deeper connection between a and b, for example where castigating a rape victim for a wearing a short skirt or walking down a dark alleyway deflects attention away from the actions of her attacker. This does apportion blame on the victim of the crime, particularly when the statistics don't support your PoV, which is that so-called "risky" behaviour (as defined by you, although you're doing a good job of shifting the definition throughout the course of this discussion) makes you more likely to be attacked. The stats don't back you up on this. For a start, the vast majority of rapes are perpetrated by people known to their victims, and in their own homes.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Actually, I disagree with you on this point.

As an aside, you understand what a non sequitur is, yes? I only ask because you use the phrase with increasing frequency. You've used it six times in this four page thread already, always accusing others of wrongly employing the phrase. It's easy to hand wave away critique of your argument but simply saying "that doesn't follow" but sometimes you have to explain why, and maybe see the deeper connection between a and b, for example where castigating a rape victim for a wearing a short skirt or walking down a dark alleyway deflects attention away from the actions of her attacker. This does apportion blame on the victim of the crime, particularly when the statistics don't support your PoV, which is that so-called "risky" behaviour (as defined by you, although you're doing a good job of shifting the definition throughout the course of this discussion) makes you more likely to be attacked. The stats don't back you up on this. For a start, the vast majority of rapes are perpetrated by people known to their victims, and in their own homes.

Indeed, and taking that reasoning to its conclusion, being uppity* by asserting one's rights could also mean that one is partly to blame for any assaults.

Maybe being seen with someone of the wrong race, or being seen to be holding hands with someone of the wrong gender.

Or back to the incident that "inspired" the OP, maybe protesters** put themselves in harms way merely by being at a protest, so they are partly to blame if they are assaulted by the police?




*Many people will see what I am alluding to here.


**If bystanders are partly to blame if they wander into the scene of a protest, I'd imagine protesters have it coming to them too.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Actually, I disagree with you on this point.

As an aside, you understand what a non sequitur is, yes? I only ask because you use the phrase with increasing frequency. You've used it six times in this four page thread already, always accusing others of wrongly employing the phrase. It's easy to hand wave away critique of your argument but simply saying "that doesn't follow" but sometimes you have to explain why, and maybe see the deeper connection between a and b, for example where castigating a rape victim for a wearing a short skirt or walking down a dark alleyway deflects attention away from the actions of her attacker. This does apportion blame on the victim of the crime, particularly when the statistics don't support your PoV, which is that so-called "risky" behaviour (as defined by you, although you're doing a good job of shifting the definition throughout the course of this discussion) makes you more likely to be attacked. The stats don't back you up on this. For a start, the vast majority of rapes are perpetrated by people known to their victims, and in their own homes.

I have used it so many times because there are so many times I am being accused of excusing the perpetrator by criticising the victim for their behavior. For example the post above.

What is wrong with the discussion progressing rather than remaining rigid to the opening post, which was simplistic to get things going?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I have used it so many times because there are so many times I am being accused of excusing the perpetrator by criticising the victim for their behavior. For example the post above.

What is wrong with the discussion progressing rather than remaining rigid to the opening post, which was simplistic to get things going?

But you are.

Why should people have to expect the police to behave illegally and alter their behaviour to fit?

Why should women not wear what they want?

And back to the Tomlinson case, would a protester who was attacked by a police officer with no justifiable reason, have been partly to blame?

The clue is where you say that the (hypothetical or otherwise) victim is partly to blame. Which implies that some of the blame lies with someone other than the perpetrator.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by jimbob

But you are.

Why should people have to expect the police to behave illegally and alter their behaviour to fit?

Why should women not wear what they want?

And back to the Tomlinson case, would a protester who was attacked by a police officer with no justifiable reason, have been partly to blame?

The clue is where you say that the (hypothetical or otherwise) victim is partly to blame. Which implies that some of the blame lies with someone other than the perpetrator.

Does the fact that over the past decade or so car security has risen to such an extent that the theft of a car is rare and is usually after the theft of the car's key mean that car thieves are now less to blame for their acts than they were over a decade ago? Of course not, there is no link between enhancing security and excusing the thief.

The implication is all yours (and many others by what has been said here) that taking care to reduce the risk of harm to yourself somehow excuses the criminal. Utter rubbish and if you think that is the case, prove it with a direct link.

Walk into a riot, dressed anyway you want to and ignore how the police can and have behaved before during riots. If harm comes your way, I told you so and hopefully you have learned a lesson. Meanwhile I doubt very much you will excuse the criminal who hurt you from what they did. And neither will I.

[mcb77]

So police officers are allowed to do anything during a protest say like injuring or killing someone who is not doing anything illeagal and caught up in the area.

Well why don't they just wade into the crowd at Celtic v Rangers games just incase they start misbehaving, their fans deserve it.

[franklinveaux]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Does the fact that over the past decade or so car security has risen to such an extent that the theft of a car is rare and is usually after the theft of the car's key mean that car thieves are now less to blame for their acts than they were over a decade ago? Of course not, there is no link between enhancing security and excusing the thief.

The implication is all yours (and many others by what has been said here) that taking care to reduce the risk of harm to yourself somehow excuses the criminal. Utter rubbish and if you think that is the case, prove it with a direct link.

Except that you're still clinging to ideas that are not true. Your analogy of car theft is inapplicable, because things like wearing quote-unquote "provocative" clothes have nothing to do with being raped.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Does the fact that over the past decade or so car security has risen to such an extent that the theft of a car is rare and is usually after the theft of the car's key mean that car thieves are now less to blame for their acts than they were over a decade ago? Of course not, there is no link between enhancing security and excusing the thief.

The implication is all yours (and many others by what has been said here) that taking care to reduce the risk of harm to yourself somehow excuses the criminal. Utter rubbish and if you think that is the case, prove it with a direct link.

Walk into a riot, dressed anyway you want to and ignore how the police can and have behaved before during riots. If harm comes your way, I told you so and hopefully you have learned a lesson. Meanwhile I doubt very much you will excuse the criminal who hurt you from what they did. And neither will I.

Citation needed. Specifically one which shows that the majority of people who experience rape were a) unaware of which precautions to take* and b) actually engaged in a proscribed behavior. **


* As if anyone over the age of 10 hasn't been bombarded with them.
** besides "existing within the sphere of a rapist."

[jimbob]

Nessie, do you still say that Tomlinson was partly to blame for being assaulted which lead to his own death?

If you do, then why doesn't this mean that some blame lay with Tomlinson and not Harwood?

[Nessie]

In the opening post I said "If you dress seductively and get very drunk....." Your emphasis on the clothes alone is why you do not get the rest of what I have said.

Sections 13 and 14 of the Sexual Offences Scotland Act 2009 was introduced specifically to help women by making it clear the law does not consider consent to have been given to sex when a woman is under the influence of alcohol or other drug.

This is aimed to stop men claiming she was the one behaving seductively and who wanted sex when the woman is drunk and consent is not clear.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Walk into a riot, dressed anyway you want to and ignore how the police can and have behaved before during riots. If harm comes your way, I told you so and hopefully you have learned a lesson. Meanwhile I doubt very much you will excuse the criminal who hurt you from what they did. And neither will I.

Oh, I fully intend to avoid any riots. However in the Tomlinson was there actually a riot where he was killed? There was violence, but all that I have seen on video was instigated by the Met. I am willing to be convinced, but I have found nothing so far except for the describing two plastic waterbottles being thrown, which translated as a "hail of missiles" (possibly the feeblest hail of missiles in the history of "violent" disorder).

This is also a distraction from the main point of my post, which was

Would a peaceful protester who had been kettled, so unable to leave and then was attacked by a police officer with no justifiable reason, have been partly to blame?

Going back to the kettling.

ETA: Here is footage of some peaceful protesters who have been kettled by the police and then attacked for not complying with physically impossible orders.

Quote:

"We got no response. And if you didn't move, they'd kick you in the shins. It sounded like serious injuries were occurring because of the insanely small space they'd given us.

"The worst part wasn't in the video. The police knocked my phone out of my hands and they continued to move in tighter and tighter, and there was crying and screaming. I couldn't even hold the camera up because I couldn't lift my arms it was so tight," he added.

Were they partly to blame for their being assaulted by the police? I understand that there are situations where police might have reason to kick someone, but not if these people are trying to comply with the police instructions and can't due to the actions of the police.

The clue is where you say that the (hypothetical or otherwise) victim is partly to blame. Which implies that some of the blame lies with someone other than the perpetrator.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Nessie

In the opening post I said "If you dress seductively and get very drunk....." Your emphasis on the clothes alone is why you do not get the rest of what I have said.

Sections 13 and 14 of the Sexual Offences Scotland Act 2009 was introduced specifically to help women by making it clear the law does not consider consent to have been given to sex when a woman is under the influence of alcohol or other drug.

This is aimed to stop men claiming she was the one behaving seductively and who wanted sex when the woman is drunk and consent is not clear.

By that confused logic then getting very drunk should protect me from unwanted advances, rather than vice versa.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Indeed, and taking that reasoning to its conclusion, being uppity* by asserting one's rights could also mean that one is partly to blame for any assaults.

Maybe being seen with someone of the wrong race, or being seen to be holding hands with someone of the wrong gender.

Or back to the incident that "inspired" the OP, maybe protesters** put themselves in harms way merely by being at a protest, so they are partly to blame if they are assaulted by the police?




*Many people will see what I am alluding to here.

Yes, which is why earlier I alluded to attitudes like Nessie's being what puts women in blankets with eye slits for holes. The person who says that women should avoid "risky" behaviour like wearing short skirts or getting drunk in bars is not so more showing a caring paternalism but displaying the (almost) acceptable face of an underlying misogynistic hatred for female-kind.

Women are adults, not children. Lecturing them on what to wear and how much to drink is not the same thing as making sure your children don't get in cars with strangers to go and see some puppies.

As for comparing ensuring women don't dress "provocatively" to improving car security, well sorry but that's straight out Taliban's 'how to' manual. "It's your property, lock it up!" Nessie, if you can't see how patronising this is then it really worries me if you are a serving police officer.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Oh, I fully intend to avoid any riots. However in the Tomlinson was there actually a riot where he was killed? There was violence, but all that I have seen on video was instigated by the Met. I am willing to be convinced, but I have found nothing so far except for the describing two plastic waterbottles being thrown, which translated as a "hail of missiles" (possibly the feeblest hail of missiles in the history of "violent" disorder).

This is also a distraction from the main point of my post, which was

Would a peaceful protester who had been kettled, so unable to leave and then was attacked by a police officer with no justifiable reason, have been partly to blame?

Going back to the kettling.

ETA: Here is footage of some peaceful protesters who have been kettled by the police and then attacked for not complying with physically impossible orders.





Were they partly to blame for their being assaulted by the police? I understand that there are situations where police might have reason to kick someone, but not if these people are trying to comply with the police instructions and can't due to the actions of the police.

The clue is where you say that the (hypothetical or otherwise) victim is partly to blame. Which implies that some of the blame lies with someone other than the perpetrator.

Riot/disturbance call it what you want, the point is there was trouble, it was not peaceful.

Re kettling and partly to blame. I would ask questions as to how the person got caught up in the kettle, but irrespective of that, as I have always argued, criticism of the victim does not exonerate the criminal. This is not a percentages game. If we must use percentages it would be a 100% for the criminal all the time. Then, as the likes of insurance companies and Criminal Injuries Boards do, you then look at the victims actions as well to see whether or not they made themselves unnecessarily vulnerable or not/took reasonable care.

How does criticising the victim exonerate the criminal?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

By that confused logic then getting very drunk should protect me from unwanted advances, rather than vice versa.

If you think that is confused logic then you need to study Scottish Criminal Law and the history of rape convictions.

Fact is rape guilty verdicts were very hard to achieve as the defence would say she was drunk and gave the impression to the male that she did consent to sex. Consent means no rape, so no conviction under the law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8619833.stm

The new Act made consent, or more importantly non consent easier to prove. If she is drunk, the make cannot claim she gave consent. No consent means it is rape. The result is greater protection to women and rising convictions rates

http://www.cjscotland.co.uk/2011/12/...-scotland-act/

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Yes, which is why earlier I alluded to attitudes like Nessie's being what puts women in blankets with eye slits for holes. The person who says that women should avoid "risky" behaviour like wearing short skirts or getting drunk in bars is not so more showing a caring paternalism but displaying the (almost) acceptable face of an underlying misogynistic hatred for female-kind.

Women are adults, not children. Lecturing them on what to wear and how much to drink is not the same thing as making sure your children don't get in cars with strangers to go and see some puppies.

As for comparing ensuring women don't dress "provocatively" to improving car security, well sorry but that's straight out Taliban's 'how to' manual. "It's your property, lock it up!" Nessie, if you can't see how patronising this is then it really worries me if you are a serving police officer.

Tauri, if you cannot see how your exaggerated version of what I have really said and cherry picking of the least important element of dress over all others is a strawman argument, it worries me you are on this forum.

I take it Rape Crisis, The Susy Lamplugh Trust, the Police, even parents who give personal safety advice to their daughters are being patronising when they "lecture" (emotive word alert/strawman argument warning) them?

Is there anywhere I have said don't dress as you wish? No, yet you persist in the dress part as if it is the be all and end all.

If you want to dress like a pole dancer, go out alone, get blind drunk, chat up strangers and invite them home for 'coffee', please go ahead.

Do you agree or not as to the above scenario being a higher risk one?

You have the police and NHS to help you pick up the pieces if it all goes horribly wrong for you. The police are proud of the huge improvements in the way they deal with rape cases and now getting increased convictions. But understandably, both would rather see a drop in actual rapes than an increase in convictions.

[Rolfe]

"I would ask questions about how the person came to be caught up in the kettle."

In Tomlinson's case, purely by accident, no matter how much you claim he deliberately walked into trouble "looking for a bit of fun" or whatever your initial spin on it was.

In another case? How does "wanted to exercise my right to peaceful protest" grab you. Are you advocating that nobody should seek to exercise this right in case a policeman goes rogue and kills them?

Rolfe.

[Nessie]

Tomlinson was not caught inside the kettle. He did encounter the police as they expanded to create an outer cordon. The kettle at the Bank Of England remained as it was. Thats when he was attacked by PC Harwood.

Are you seriously claiming he walked up to the kettle cordon at the Bank Of England by mistake?

You are ignoring the fact I retracted my initial comments about what he may have been up to and apologised. I was remembering initial reports of how how he was acting, which I now find were wrong.

This is pure strawman rubbish "In another case? How does "wanted to exercise my right to peaceful protest" grab you. Are you advocating that nobody should seek to exercise this right in case a policeman goes rogue and kills them?" With 31,772 posts I would expect you to have learned by now how to recognise a logical fallacy in your own arguments.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Nessie

If you want to dress like a pole dancer, go out alone, get blind drunk, chat up strangers and invite them home for 'coffee', please go ahead.

Oh, I have your permission, do I? Thanks for that.

Not forgetting though that most rapes occur in the home, so statistically going out to bars per se would not appear to be the riskiest behaviour that I could indulge in.

Originally Posted by Nessie

Do you agree or not as to the above scenario being a higher risk one?

Higher risk than what? Staying at home with an alcoholic, abusive partner? Or staying at home on my own and not having a social life?

ETA: Look, I do appreciate your point that going out at night on one's own in a bad neighbourhood increases one's chances of being a victim of violent crime. That's a no brainer. But you might as well focus of all victims of violent crime by strangers, including people who get mugged. In the OP (and I'm sorry I keep going back to it, but the issue women's dress sense does keep popping up in this conversation) you specifically mentioned provocative clothing. In doing so you made the number one error of thinking that rape has anything to do with sex. It doesn't. Rape is about power, not about sex.

Originally Posted by Nessie

You have the police and NHS to help you pick up the pieces if it all goes horribly wrong for you. The police are proud of the huge improvements in the way they deal with rape cases and now getting increased convictions. But understandably, both would rather see a drop in actual rapes than an increase in convictions

Great. Good for them. An individual who wants to rape will rape and will find a target no matter what, so efforts to reduce the number of assaults should focus on the behaviour of potential offenders, not that of victims of crime. Despite the proclamations of those who believe in the doctrine Just Worldism there is no stereotypical rape victim out there.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by Nessie

If you want to dress like a pole dancer, go out alone, get blind drunk, chat up strangers and invite them home for 'coffee', please go ahead.

Do you agree or not as to the above scenario being a higher risk one?

I don't agree that the scenario you posted is a higher risk of getting raped. If that should happen and the woman still says no to sex and/or passes out while having coffee, why is that a "higher risk" of getting raped?

Whether a woman is dead drunk, dressed provocatively and with a man she thinks she can trust or a young 10 year old girl, dressed like a ten year old girl who is with her mother's brother getting ice cream the risk of getting raped depends on exactly the same thing:

The morals, ethics, empathy, attitude and decision of the man involved. Period.

[Nessie]

Crime prevention is getting far more attention from the police and other organisations than ever before. The Local Government Scotland Act 2003 has required the likes of the police and local councils to meet and work together on all sorts of issues, such as crime prevention.

The Scottish Police College has a course on Crime Prevention that is now a recognised qualification. Much of that course is about partnership working and that has resulted in everything from post delivery workers being given talks on looking out for potential problems on their rounds and how and what to report, to the police themselves funding youth activities, to action on security on major building projects.

None of that crime prevention work is ever seen as diminishing the responsibility of the criminal. Neither is about being condescending or nanny state. It is all designed to reduce crime and make people feel safer.

Maybe we have ended up at cross purposes with each other over this topic as I have been greatly influenced by the above (as have all police) without the public being that ware of what has been going on.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Crime prevention is getting far more attention from the police and other organisations than ever before. The Local Government Scotland Act 2003 has required the likes of the police and local councils to meet and work together on all sorts of issues, such as crime prevention.

The Scottish Police College has a course on Crime Prevention that is now a recognised qualification. Much of that course is about partnership working and that has resulted in everything from post delivery workers being given talks on looking out for potential problems on their rounds and how and what to report, to the police themselves funding youth activities, to action on security on major building projects.

None of that crime prevention work is ever seen as diminishing the responsibility of the criminal. Neither is about being condescending or nanny state. It is all designed to reduce crime and make people feel safer.

Maybe we have ended up at cross purposes with each other over this topic as I have been greatly influenced by the above (as have all police) without the public being that ware of what has been going on.

Perhaps. But the point that I think we're trying to get across is that being drunk and scantily clad does not raise the risk of getting raped.

I will go along with the idea that it makes the rapist use the excuse "she looked like she was asking for it" as a defense, but it does not increase the chances of getting raped. A person (for men get raped too) gets raped no matter the clothing worn, no matter how sexy the person is, no matter how old the person is.

[Nessie]

Rape is only one form of sexual crime and the rarest. Forget the dress part, what about alcohol and other forms of sex crime?

http://www.vawnet.org/applied-resear...hp?doc_id=1586

There is clearly a link for both accused and victim.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Rape is only one form of sexual crime and the rarest. Forget the dress part, what about alcohol and other forms of sex crime?

http://www.vawnet.org/applied-resear...hp?doc_id=1586

There is clearly a link for both accused and victim.

Sorry I took so long in responding. Been away for a while.

But ....seriously?????? I'm sorry, really? The ONLY thing it said about alcohol and the victim is that it makes the victim a more vulnerable target for being raped. That is true of ANY crime. If the victim is drunk, they could get robbed, kidnapped, etc.

So tell me why being drunk constitutes a rape victim to deserve the rape whereas it doesn't for any other crime?

I know the answer it doesn't. Period.

I get that you are talking about preventative steps, but seriously, you are advocating that no one goes out and drinks ever because, if you're a woman, you have a better chance of being raped.

That's like saying to women "Don't ever go out on a date. Getting raped on a date (if I remember correctly) is one of the most situations when a woman does get raped. So better to not go on a date. Ever."


ETA: Rape is the rarest sexual crime? Or the crime least reported?

[Tatyana]

Only if you vote Republican.