In the news a woman has kept all her compensation for being the victim of a rape, after initially having had it reduced as she was considered to have 'contributed' or been 'negligent' (I don't know what term was used) due to her being under the influence of alcohol at the time.
Probably fair enough in her case as she was assaulted by a complete stranger on her way home. It might not have made any difference whether she was fully sober and alert, or teetering in an erratic manner on her high-heels - she could have been targeted by this thug regardless.
However, now the 'right-on' campaigners are saying "that a victim of rape is never, in any way, responsible for the crime" regardless of her possibly being blind drunk.
Hmm. I understand that most of these types of assaults are by people the victim knows/has just met/has been in a group with. And if you behave like the 'lady' in these brilliant anti-drink campaign ads shown recently, then - sorry - you almost certainly are being eyed up as a possible sh*g by some in your group (not for 'rape' as such, but as being 'easy'.)
So, you can fall-on-your-face drunk (and we all know how ones judgement can be distorted in these conditions) and not be in any way 'responsible' for what may happen to you?
What if, say, you were a bloke who was making his way home - staggering from pillar to post - and was mugged as an obviously easy target for your wallet? Were you in any way even partially 'contributing' to the likelihood of this happening to you?
Ok, take it a little further - you get to your front door, fumble for your keys, drop them, and you're on your hands and knees trying to locate them when an opportunist thief grabs them and runs?
Have you 'contributed' at any stage to the crime or been 'negligent'?
If you have, then so has she.
Over to you Lisa. Hehehe
.
Probably fair enough in her case as she was assaulted by a complete stranger on her way home. It might not have made any difference whether she was fully sober and alert, or teetering in an erratic manner on her high-heels - she could have been targeted by this thug regardless.
However, now the 'right-on' campaigners are saying "that a victim of rape is never, in any way, responsible for the crime" regardless of her possibly being blind drunk.
Hmm. I understand that most of these types of assaults are by people the victim knows/has just met/has been in a group with. And if you behave like the 'lady' in these brilliant anti-drink campaign ads shown recently, then - sorry - you almost certainly are being eyed up as a possible sh*g by some in your group (not for 'rape' as such, but as being 'easy'.)
So, you can fall-on-your-face drunk (and we all know how ones judgement can be distorted in these conditions) and not be in any way 'responsible' for what may happen to you?
What if, say, you were a bloke who was making his way home - staggering from pillar to post - and was mugged as an obviously easy target for your wallet? Were you in any way even partially 'contributing' to the likelihood of this happening to you?
Ok, take it a little further - you get to your front door, fumble for your keys, drop them, and you're on your hands and knees trying to locate them when an opportunist thief grabs them and runs?
Have you 'contributed' at any stage to the crime or been 'negligent'?
If you have, then so has she.
Over to you Lisa. Hehehe
.