Your Reply to my first post: “Please read the blog. I made it very clear that if a woman says No

While i wont disagree that there is a difference between date rape and stranger rape to characterise the former as a disagreement between lovers is at best unfortunate and at worst inflamatory.

Yes, in the real world there is some measure of implied consent between those in a long term relationship, but rape is an exceedingly complex issue, and date rape doubly so. How long have the two known each other, are they “a couple”, have they had sex before, is there a history of violence or other abuse? These and many other questions become important when the attacker and victim know each other, and to not talk about these complexities does you, the victims of these crimes and those wrongfully accused a disservice.

You are appear to be a well educated fellow, and i assume well advised about posts such as these. You must have known that statements like this would gain attention beyond your normal blog readers.

To those getting tired of the labour party but still without trust in the tories such statements appear cynical and attention grabbing, especially when there are MANY other less contentious cases of over criminalisation of society some of which you deal with in this post.

reply: Please do not misinterpret what I wrote. I think anyone ignoring a woman’s “No” should be prosecuted for rape. I was drawing attention to the many cases where courts find there was no rape, where the courts regard it as a disagreement between lovers.

Whilst I do not agree with everything you have said in your career, you do make some valid points, particularly in regards to rape. Please go one step further and demand that women be punished harshy for false allegations and, also, please make the distinction between REPORTED rapes and ACTUAL rapes.

Not all reported rapes are legitimate, and juries often see through lying women, especially ones who falsely accuse ex partners to get them out of the family home or famous persons (footballers) through blackmail.

Perhaps you could make this point when you are questioned in public, as it needs saying, and there are a lot of young men (first time voters) like myself who are at college, who want to see MP’s stand for matters concerning males.

I expect you will be as derogatory about the Guardian as you are about everyone else, you must be very busy being negative about them all. Maybe I do you an injustice because I haven’t read your entire blog, but not sure I have the energy, it is depressingly unpleasant about others. Try just being lively about your own ideas, slinging mud is so turgidly familiar from politicians.

Reply: If you read the blog I have said rape is rape and should be prosecuted. The issue is the courts find many cases of alleged “date rape” are not rape.

http://lastditch.typepad.com/lastditch/2007/04/operation_ore_f.html
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/74690/operation-ore-exposed.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2059880,00.html

http://www.mensaid.com/false_allegations/

http://www.angryharry.com/esNSPCCNeedsToBeStopped.htm

The Legal Burden of Proof Should NOT be lowered.

Any one would think there was a clear agenda a destabilise and destroy our Patrichal Society.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/rockefeller_admitted_elite_goal_microchipped_population.htm

On that Basis it is remarkable that there are any convictions.
You cannot lower the burden off Proof because there are not enough convictions !

This suggestion further highlights a very clear Anti Male Bias spreading through our Society.

If women were (nicer - text edited) than men in personal disputes, explain why 100′000 Fathers every year have to apply to the courts to get their former Wives to Honour the already agreed Contact arrangements with their children.

On the Principle of Equivalence, and all things being equal, One ‘Persons’ word should carry no more weight than another.

Case Dismissed.

I wonder where this Cancerous Marxist Anti Male, Anti Family Pro Feminist Bias can be Coming from that increasingly Pervades our society.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/rockefeller_admitted_elite_goal_microchipped_population.htm

Reply: Please do not misrepresent what I am saying. I have made it clear that rape is rape, whether by a stranger or by someone known to the woman, where there was no consent. I did not say I thought there should be two sorts of rape. The issue is the large number of cases where the courts decide it is not rape.

Reply: I am not advocating a differentiation, merely pointing out courts find a lot of alleged “rape” is not rape.

If rape cannot be proven, the defendent should not be found guilty. Rape is a disgusting crime, under any circumstances, but lowering the bar for conviction is extremely dangerous.

And, I’m afraid, there *is* a self-evident moral difference between a street rape, and a drunken one-night stand where things went a bit further than people intended. Comments by John Brennan and Peter Carter are absolutely spot-on, and tie-in with what I’ve heard from a couple of police officers.

Some of the other comments you’re getting show how hard it is for people to think rationally about the subject. All the pathetic self-righteous feminist posturing is doing serious rape victims great harm.

The low rate of rape convictions in recent years certainly does have much to do with the equivalence of stranger and date rape in prosecution. However, the issue is not the question of which is more morally reprehensible, even in the minds of the members of a jury, but the difference in available standards of proof in either. It used to be the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service to only prosecute in cases of rape where they judged that there was sufficient evidence to make conviction likely. It is the reversal of this policy that has led to the low rates of conviction, as prosecutors are compelled to take cases to court even if there is a high likelihood of failure. Under the previous system, date rape was addressed separately because it was by nature much harder to prove an absence of consent in such cases.

One in six women becomes a victim of sexual assault during her lifetime, almost all at the hands of intimates. Do not tell me to re-read your blog, as you have told other women above who object to your language. I have already read it, and I’ve seen that you’ve graciously allowed that “young women have every right to go on a date and to say ‘No’, having it respected.” Big whoop. This does not disguise the fact that you are openly trivialising acquaintance rape, a violent and devastating crime that affects a huge number of women.

I would also like you to clarify the following phrase:
“a man using unreasonable force to assault a woman on the street,”

Could you please explain what would constitute “reasonable” force to assault a woman on the street?

reply: Like you I am against all rape, and made it clear on the blog that if a man violates a woman’s right to say “No” he should be prosecuted. Please do not twist what I wrote.

You say: If a woman says No

Needless to say I will not be voting Tory. Ever.

reply: Please do not be so foolish. Like you I wish to see rapists prosecuted. I was drawing attention to the courts who often find men not guilty because there is not sufficient evidence they did commit rape. I presume you do not wish to see the innocent convicted?

Reply: I placed nothing in the tabloids - it’s silly Labour spin to create trouble where none was meant.

Reply: I was distinguishing between rape, and court judgements that allegations of rape are false.

Should we look at steps like hiding the identity of the accused, because this is such a controversial issue and can ruin the lives of innocent men. I would think so.

It still comes back to the fact that rape is rape - no matter how well or not you know the other person.

Reply: yes, I agree - that is exactly what I said. If a woman says “No” then there is no consent and a rape will occur if the man persists. I was pointing out that courts sometimes not convict where there is disagreement about whether there was consent or not.

Reply: Please read what I said. I said a woman has a right to say “No” and that must be respected. We do not disagree I suspect.

Shame on you

Reply: Please read the blog. I made it very clear that if a woman says “No” then there is no consent. Rape should be prosecuted.

I wish I could have confidence that all this damage done by Labour will be set right in the first few months of a new Conservative Government - or even set right at all!

Heather Harvey, manager of Amnesty International’s UK Stop Violence Against Women campaign: “There’s very little difference between rape by a partner and rape by a stranger - both amount to sexual violence and both can leave a woman deeply traumatised. Instead of splitting hairs, Mr Redwood should concentrate on the real issue, the appallingly low conviction rate for rape in Britain.”

Reply: I was not splitting hairs. I agree that rape is a nasty crime that needs suitable prosecution and punishment. I was pointing out that courts do not convict in some cases because the the man thought there was consent. These things do need to be judged on the evidence. If a man is found not guilty, there was no rape.