An article in Spiked prompted me to think about the issues it was raising. This was the opening paragraph.
‘At the end of last week, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), Alison Saunders, announced a ‘major action plan’ to deal with ‘the issues preventing rape cases from successfully progressing through the criminal-justice system’. The plan emphasises the importance of focusing on the behaviour of the accused rather than the behaviour of the complainant to investigate “what steps the accused took to establish whether the complainant was consenting to sex and the extent to which they were capable of consenting”. Saunders justified the action plan in the following terms: “Even though there have been slightly more defendants convicted, the steady increase in conviction rates we have seen in recent years has halted, and this must be addressed immediately.” She was referring to the fact that the overall conviction rate for rape cases has fallen from 63.2 per cent in 2012-13 to 60.3 per cent in 2013-14. ‘
Obtaining more convictions is exactly what this is all about. It certainly is not about justice and balance.
This odious woman, Saunders, is now the head of the British public prosecution service, and she is implementing a feminist narrative using a feminist law, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, enacted by a feminist government – the Blair Labour government, that changed the burden of proof from a man’s reasonable belief a woman has consented to sex, to the so-called ‘consent model’.
To defend an allegation of rape now, the man must prove that the woman’s consent was reasonable, ‘… having regard to all the circumstances’ and, in particular, he must demonstrate what steps he took to check whether or not she was consenting.
Defending a charge of rape in Britain now hinges around proving that a woman actively, indeed enthusiastically, consents to sex – at EVERY stage of the sexual encounter, right up to intercourse (and even during it). An accused has to prove he had positive agreement from the woman throughout. Her acquiescence or failure to express dissent is not sufficient.
For example, if a woman simply allows an intimate encounter to proceed, ultimately to intercourse, perhaps because it is just her way of giving consent in what might once have been called demurely succumbing to a man’s advances, the man is at risk of not having obtained enthusiastic consent and, therefore, would find it difficult to defend himself against a charge of rape later brought by her. What kind of situation is this for god’s sake?
Worse still, if a man buys a woman a drink, say when chatting her up in a bar, and they both get drunk but the evening ends in an accusation of rape from her, he is probably stuffed. She will be held not to have been able to give unfettered, enthusiastic consent.
This is the minefield in which a man has sex with a woman since the SOA 2003, and it is all part of the developing – and very dangerous, feminist grip being ever tightened on men – and on our society.
Saunders and her like look very much like they are out to get men, using the power they have gained by playing a long game to get that power. We are now in a time when the long-term infiltration of feminists into our country’s establishment is about to emerge with a dire vengeance – and men are unaware of it.
It is frightening, frankly.