Why is rape special?

Help me out here, because I think I must be missing something.

I ask because of this:


Now, I’m not a lawyer (as should be obvious, really), and I labour under the (possibly false) assumption that those accused of a crime are, before the law, innocent until proven guilty.

This is why, in criminal cases, there is a burden of proof placed upon the prosecution – the defendant must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Blackstone’s formulation says that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

There are a number of things that I don’t understand about the claim that this new initiative represents “a move into the 21st century”:

The naive interpretation of this “move into the 21st century” would be that this is “progress”. I don’t see the voilation of Blackstone’s formulation as progress. Perhaps this “move into the 21st century” is just that. The direction in which this move takes us seems not to be forward to a more just system, but backwards into a less just one. Have I got this wrong?

More widely, and to come back to my titular question, why is rape special?

I’m not trying to trivialise rape – it’s is an incredibly serious offence, with potentially lifelong effects on the victim, depending on the nature of the event and the demeanour, resources and resilience or otherwise of the victim.

But I am questioning whether it’s special in so far as the victims of this crime are entitled to any rights which are not afforded to victims of a burglary, mugging, serious assault or other life changing infringements on the person or their property.

More importantly, in recognition of Blackstone, I question whether those accused of rape are to be stripped of the rights and protections afforded to those accused of burglary, mugging, serious assaults or murder?

Consider the person facially disfigured by a knife attack, rendering them unattractive and more limited in their opportunities to find as good a quality of life partner as previously. Or an assault rendering a person unable to start a family should they wish to. Or someone whose arm, leg, neck or back is broken by criminal act whose career and/or hobbies are curtailed.

Consider the physical, emotional, financial and social costs of these consequences of violent crimes.

Then I ask if this is the thin end of the wedge of justice denied. After all, if the undermining of hundreds of years of principles of criminal jurisprudence yields perceived benefits for the victims of rape, why would those benefits not be extended to the victims of the other crimes I mention above?

What are the chances that this special privilege will only ever be afforded to the victims of rape?

I can only see this whole thing as a terribly retrograde step away from true justice, and I hope it is duly dismissed as utterly incompatible with the principles of a free and fair society.

Any thoughts?


UPDATE: Words elsewhere

Breitbart.com: The New Rape Rules Which Will Infantilise Women and Criminalise Men

Imagur: UK: if you act “normal and reasonable” after a sexual encounter, it could be used against you as evidence of rape.

Guardian: Rapists use social media to cover their tracks, police warned


This room has an elephant in it…

This from the Tellygiraffe…


Quite apart from the loaded question and the “numbers don’t lie” bollocks (damned statistics), there’s a very significant thing that this otherwise fairly comprehensive article completely fails to mention.

There is a politically driven effort in the UK justice system, to keep female offenders out of prison.


The end of days…

You think you’ve seen it all. All of the brainless, scaremongering, hypochondriac horseshit that man can possible conceive of.

But you hadn’t counted on the Daily Mail.


The only question is.. how are they going to top this?

How hydrogenated water is making you fat?

The iron in your blood is leaving you susceptible to leukaemia from the earth’s magnetic field?

Anyway, this can only mean one thing.


Fuck’s sake.

By way of a silver lining, I’ll be sure to throw this into any arguments about passive smoking.


UPDATE: A perhaps more measured and sensible discussion of the “issue’’ can be found here.

Story of conformism and fuckwittery

Here’s a controversial one…


Honestly, in spite of everything I’ve written, said or implied before, I don’t think this story is about Islam.

It’s about 2 things:

1) A total arsehole

2) Stupidity and conformism

The total arsehole is obviously the bloke who wouldn’t interrupt his sky pixie conversation to help a woman who was in need of his medical care. The sad thing is he can’t be sacked for his negligence, because sky pixie.

The stupidity and conformism are two-fold. The first is the sky pixie wallah, but the second is key:

Mrs Shaw, who broke down and wept in the witness box, said she would have called an ambulance immediately after the fall but had only since discovered that staff could override a nurses’ decision.

I… err…  really?

Why, even if you had doubts, would you hesitate?

Idiot mindless conformism kills.


We’re all going on an ummah holiday…







Have diversity officers been deployed yet, to assess whether anyone has suffered any Islamophobia as a result of this terrible incident?



Juxtaposition of the Day



Sounds like the Weegies need to stop picketing bin wagons and go back to their roots,


%d bloggers like this: