legalbeagle

Sadly Jennys it's very common - I know kids removed for ASD, ADHD, Dyslexia.....nothing that would affect the schools "intelligence" test but they still remove/refuse them......

Jennys - I didn't want them in private school (long complicated back story) so was more than happy that they didn't go. It was the principle of what I was being told that infuriated me. These schools are charities originally created to educate children and they routinely bar some of the most vulnerable? Not MY definition of charity by a long chalk. As it happens my kids are at a brilliant, lovely, caring local state primary which they love, and with which I'm very happy. In fact one of the specialists who works with my son took the time to tell me that in the 12 years she has been going in to schools to assist kids like him she has never seen a school do better. So yes they, and I, are happy. And we are lucky to have to many great schools in the area too. But still. Forbidding a child to take an entrance test, or refusing them a place JUST because they are disabled? Insert muslim or black at the end of that sentence and you get my point....

"Complained" John? Are you referring to those brave enough to overcome their trauma of being raped and to deal with the hideous process of reporting it and having it prosecuted?

oneearth - no I personally don't think you have. I'd prefer we didn't insult each other at all - but I suspect that's not a realistic hope.......

Lots of reasons why rape convictions are so low Robert. And of course men can be victims too, no one would argue otherwise. There's a really good article on it here: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/02/28/revealed-why-the-police-are-failing-most-rape-victims/

Otta - It's not that most student sex is rape. It's that there is a point of drunkenness, at which a person is no longer able to give consent, and that point will vary from person to person. It's your obligation to have a reasonable belief that the person you are having sex with is consenting to it. Where they are drunk, and there is no other information to go on - eg you know them well, they are your girlfriend, you've had sex before, they went on a date with you and came back to your room - then it is harder for you to establish a reasonable belief that they consented to sex when drunk. I suspect this is why the man who had sex with Evans's victim first was not convicted - there was additional evidence as to her and his state of mind that lead the court to think she did consent. The fact that they went on a date, both drank lots voluntarily, she agreed to go back to his room, they went through the hotel public entrances etc. (I'm not saying that doing all of this with a person means they cannot rape you, just that it is evidence adduced in court to establish your state of mind and whether it was reasonable to think you had consented). With Evans it was sneak in, shag, hide on the way out. That left him only with "I thought she agreed" and the court decided that there was not sufficient evidence of consent given her level of drunkenness. Not all sex while drunk is rape. Not at all. But establishing someone's true intentions when they are drunk and you do not know them is not easy. I think that's the point.

For those interested in why/how schools can be charities, and the "public benefit" test, there is a good pdf summary in the house of commons library: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05222.pdf

Both of my children have been refused places at more than one local private school for the specifically stated reason that they have disabilities. Please note - NOT - because they failed to reach the required academic standard, they tested exceptionally, well including with educational specialists. They were turned down (or in some cases refused the chance to even sit the entrance test) because they have a different cognitive style of learning. Three of the schools were stupid enough to put that in writing. Five schools I've looked into so far also specifically reserve the right to remove a child if they are diagnosed with a disability while at the school. Charitable? My arse........ jumping through hoops to meet the legally required minimum more like........

It's a good point that you make Robert. I also often wonder about the nature of offence. I've been incredibly offended by comments made in the media from time to time, on subjects that are close to me, for a variety of reasons. So, I am offended. But....nothing HAPPENS. Are we moving into a world in which we somehow believe that it is our right NOT to be offended? We are diverse in beliefs and views. Some of them exist in total opposition to others. We have to learn to put up with that, don't we? Be offended, if we are, and then move on? Not demand that the offence is somehow made up for? I think that's where some of the hints of hypocrisy come from when we talk about teaching others how to respond. We defend freedoms until WE are upset...... (Within the bounds of law, obviously. Being offended by criminal activity, such as an incitement to racial hatred, by way of example, is not something you should just "get over".)

Might be helpful to distinguish here between "Muslims" and "terrorists". Much like I expect Christians would like you to distinguish between them and the Klu Klux Klan. Plenty of Muslims will be offended by cartoons about their faith (as plenty of Christians were about theirs in exactly the same publication). A tiny, extreme, terrorist minority consider it worthy of a gun fight on the streets of Paris. I'm not sure anyone needs teaching anything.

You don't have to be sober......just able to agree.......

It's an interesting one, LD isn't it? Can you imagine saying: Well, you were a bit pissed so it's no surprise he punched you and took your wallet; or Well, they did have slack stock control so it's no surprise you stole a few bits from work..... But we hear, quite frequently, "Well he/she was drunk and went back to their room. What did they THINK was going to happen?" The fact that a victim's actions might either make a crime easier to commit, or attract a criminal in no way makes the crime less awful or the criminal less culpable. Nor does it mean that the victim is to blame. I think sexual offences are one of the few areas of crime where we still do often (not always) find victim-blaming going on to some extent.

Which brings me back to my original point. "She's a bit pissed but seems up for it" is an attitude that APPEARS to be common place, and that might, genuinely, benefit from some education.

Well Alan I guess anyone MIGHT be.... but the point is more, can you tell that the person has lost the capacity to consent due to alcohol. The courts have stated that this may happen well before someone passes out. I don't think a person would get far reporting a rape on the basis they were tipsy. But "drunk" is a very difficult area.

Well I put the emphasis on women since the OPs question was partly about whether Evans thought he'd done wrong. Clearly the law applies to both men and women. The sentence you object to is not meant to be a definitive guide to the law, more an indication of likely outcome. If a person is drunk, and you do not know them and have sex with them, and they then state that they did not give consent due to intoxication, you are at risk of being accused of rape. Regardless of whether you think of yourself as a rapist. I'm not sure how many people know this, or take the risk very seriously. That was my real point. For those interested, the CPS guidelines are below: "In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case. In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity. Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident."

There's a really thriving little theatre in The Bridge Tavern in Penge.

I wonder how many young men and young women actually know that drunk women cannot legally consent to sex? I think we are missing a very good opportunity at the moment to educate people on how to behave in these situations. We are very good at giving women advice on how to keep safe (and long may that continue). But we are not so good at educating young men and women on what the law is with regards to sex and alcohol, and how you should treat a drunk woman you do not know. However enthusiastic she might seem to be. Unfortunately I suspect there are a lot who think "she's up for it and so what if she's a bit pissed". They lack respect for women, but do they really believe they are rapists? I'm sure they don't. The OP's point is a good one, Evans probably genuinely thinks he didn't do anything wrong. OF COURSE he did - she was far too drunk to consent. But how has he arrived at that mindset (assuming he has). How many "borderline" cases are there, when the women seemed more or less alright and the men were happy to get what they could? If we started to teach boys that these are not "borderline" situations, but in fact it is never acceptable to have sex with a woman you do not know and who is drunk, we might start to change our culture? Just a thought.....

I almost ran Sandi Toksvig over at Borough Market. As you were.

I have freakishly large hands.

I would rather rip both eyes out and fry them than vote for Cameron, no matter how good his speech writer might be.

yeah Thursday innit

Aw. Can't do Wednesdays. It's my pole dancing class night!

Really? Who are the famous people???? *Excited Face* [sEE WHAT I DID THERE?]

Think me and Fireman are coming......

Thanks.