Saturday, 7 April 2012

"I don’t go out to do that, I go out to have fun and go home."

Frankly, doesn't sound like my sort of fun:
Their 19-year-old victim had been out celebrating her birthday in Hull with friends when she was targeted by Fabio Ferreira and Daniel Haldenby, then aged 17.

She had become separated from the group she went out with and the pair discovered her passed out on a bench outside a Kwik Save supermarket.
Judge Sampson told them: 'She was alone, vulnerable, drunk and incapable of coherent speech and you quickly realised that.

'She couldn’t walk and needed help and assistance. Instead of helping her you carried her to your tent and you raped this young woman.'
Yes, there's no doubt they are utter scum.

But can't we at least point to some fault on her side? Why is the 'Mail's angle how awful it was that the CCTV operators missed this? I rather doubt anyone at the newspaper is aware of just how common an occurrence this ('this' being drunken females) is in city centres...

And no, we can't fall back onto bemoaning how awful it was that no-one offered any help, either:
A couple had walked her back into the city to get a taxi but she sat on the bench by Kwik Save. Despite the couple offering to stay with her, she refused to let them, insisting she was fine.
What are they supposed to have done, forced her? Called an already overburdened police and ambulance service?
The woman was tearful as she told the court: 'I cannot remember anything. It was not with consent. I don’t go out to do that, I go out to have fun and go home.
'I’m not like that, I wouldn’t let people carry me somewhere and do that. I wouldn’t go and have sex with a stranger.'
Sorry to sound harsh and judgemental, love, but how the hell would you know? If you make a habit of drinking yourself to oblivion, and therefore can't remember?

I know I'll get some stick from the feminist nutjobs for this, but Jesus Christ! Are women not to bear any responsibility for their own safety?

I mean, we can all see that they are judged not to bear any responsibility for their violent actions, no matter how vicious and incomprehensible:
...Pattison walked free from Teesside Crown Court with a suspended prison sentence after admitting a charge of unlawful wounding.

Judge Les Spittle told her most people would have expected her to be locked up, but he described that view as ‘over-simplistic’ in Pattison’s case.
No, judge. It really is that simple. In fact, if she'd been a dog, we'd have put her down...


Curmudgeon said...

There seems to be a fundamental inconsistency between saying that rape victims bear no responsibility for what happens to them, but theft victims do. Indeed I vaguely remember a while back some over-zealous police officer removing items from unlocked cars in an attempt to "teach people to be more careful".

JuliaM said...

Indeed, you do remember correctly...

Surreptitious Evil said...

My 2p?

Crime victims don't necessarily bear 'responsibility' for the crime but they may have exhibited 'high risk behaviours'.

The piteous weeping over the unfairness of people alledging the former has completely obscured the unexceptional* and trivial latter.

* Except to some hard core feministas.

Non-drinker said...

I seem to recall a distant time when having fun didn't involve getting so drunk you cannot help yourself.

This isa bit of an anti-drinking rant, but we seemed at some point about twenty years ago, to have entered a mindset where the quicker you can get plastered the more fun you are deemed to have had. I lost count of the times my colleagues on Monday morning, when asked if they had a good weekend, would routinely tell me that they got rat-arsed or pissed or some other phrase and could remember nothing of the weekend.

It was a badge of such triumph, the hallmark of someone so determined to have fun, that in losing control of all bodily functions they were classed as truly having 'a good weekend'

Indeed some of them even came to work that Monday morning not just hung over but still slightly drunk.

Then we have the people, and this includes girls, who now get drunk before they go out drinking, because that is real fun.

Now I will sit back and await the howls of protest from 'responsible' drinkers and people 'who can hold their beer' and consequently know how to have fun.

Like my colleagues did. All weekend.

Anonymous said...

As my dad used to say to my sisters "your a life support system for a fanny. Look after it and dont put it at any risk. It can get you into enough trouble without being drunk"

JuliaM said...

"...but they may have exhibited 'high risk behaviours'."

And when people are making a living telling women that they have a god-given right to exhibit these, and no-one should cast aspersions, we can really only expect more of the same, can't we?

"I seem to recall a distant time when having fun didn't involve getting so drunk you cannot help yourself."

And, more to the point, when it was shameful to do so. When it was seen as a sign of a weak character.