David Osborne seems to have taken down his blog blaming rape victims for being raped during his interview with Stephen Nolan on BBC 5 Live. I’m reproducing it here with quotes from his interview with The Mirror since misogynists shouldn’t get to pretend they aren’t misogynists by hitting delete:
“She was gagging for it”
I have been following the latest machinations over rape allegations with some interest, as they have serious consequences for all red-bloodied males who are out on the rut. For the past ten years or more, a politically driven agenda has been thrust down the throats of court users about the deplorably low percentage of rape allegations that lead to conviction, and successive governments have been enjoined to do something about it.
My considerable experience tells me that there are basically two defences to an allegation of rape: either “it wasn’t me gov”, or “she was gagging for it”. It is also correct in my own experience that most of those accused of rape are acquitted, not simply as a result of the brilliance of my advocacy, but because the jury did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent.
Into this squirming sack of grubby emotions steps Ms. Alison Saunders, who is apparently the Director of Public Prosecutions, so she should know better. And is it just me, or are women taking over the world? And is it just me, or do you share my dislike for the prefix ‘Ms’? It’s all to do with political correctness, or so they say, but speaking for my wife, and I suspect millions of other wives, when she agreed to marry me, convention dictated that she took my name and became Mrs. Osborne. She does not wish to be referred to as Ms. Osborne, nor does she wish to be known as my partner. It’s insulting!
Anyway, back to Ms. Saunders and her camp followers. She has decided, or rather it has been decided for her, that anybody who makes an allegation of rape must be believed, and everything possible in the trial process must be bent towards the conviction of the accused. Rape trials from now on are no longer to be prosecution led, but conviction led, and when you add into the mix that prison sentences for rape are getting longer and longer, the opportunities for a serious miscarriage of justice are self-evident. Or should that be ‘ms.carriage’?
Sarah Vine, or more properly Ms. Sarah Vine the journalist, summed up the feelings not just of red-bloodied males but also the legions of fair minded people. Like me, she deplores the so-called ‘vagenda’, the all men are rapists brigade advanced by vocal feministas like Harriet Harman and the ‘femi-fascist’ twitter mob who increasingly seem to hold sway in public policy. Predictably, Ms. Harman, and I use that form of address advisedly, replied to Ms. Vine’s comments with the usual ‘feminista’ clichés, defending Ms. Saunders for trying to ensure that victims of rape get justice. Gawd help us!
I have always found it distasteful and unattractive the suggestion that as the victim was blind drunk she therefore unable to give her consent to sex, or more to the point, she gave her consent which she would not have given had she been sober. In my book, consent is consent, blind drunk or otherwise, and regret after the event cannot make it rape as Ms. Saunders and Ms. Harman seem to be advocating. Save us from the Mssss!
I have a very simple solution which I hope you will agree is fair. If the complainant (I do not refer to her as the victim) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, when she was ‘raped’, this provides the accused with a complete defence. End of story and a victory for fairness, moderation and common sense!
I have been surprised by the comments from many quarters of the press and the media, as well as individuals, about this article, and in particular the interpretation placed on the final paragraph. By way of clarification, I remain concerned about Ms. Saunders’s possible manipulation of the system by coaching witnesses before they give evidence (see my earlier blog), as well as seeking ways to excuse inexcusable behaviour. That said, if the complainant or victim is under the influence of drink or drugs, she is perfectly entitled to refuse consent, it is quite wrong to take advantage of her drunkenness, and the red-bloodied male proceeds at his peril.