Male violence and harassment of women

[Tessa K]

Victims of sexual abuse/assault can now name their attacker without being sued for defamation.

A sexual assault victim who was being sued by a man for publicising her claim that he attacked her has won her case.

It is the first such judgment, clarifying the law for victims of assault who have been silenced by their abusers and failed by the police.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-65402581

[Gfamily]

FFS - a 10 second rule for sexual assault? No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66174352

[Lew Dolby]

So, presumably, if she smashes his face in but takes less than 10 seconds, that'd not be a crime either - dickheads.

[Martin Y]

So, presumably, if she smashes his face in but takes less than 10 seconds, that'd not be a crime either - dickheads.

So long as she "was joking" that would clearly be fine.

I wonder if the old caretaker gives the male 17 year old students wedgies too. Such a great joke, I bet he does. Everyone would understand he was just joking and he definitely wouldn't get beaten senseless. Which leads us to the other comment the judge made, that it was done "without lust". That's all very reassuring of course and clearly is all that matters. The power relationship that meant a man felt free to shove his hand down a 17 year old girl's pants anticipating no repercussions because there was nothing she could do about it, well that has no bearing at all. So long as the judge deduces he wasn't getting some kind of sexual thrill out of it I really can't see that anyone has anything to complain about here. Frankly wasting the court's time.

Next case.

[snoozeofreason]

Victims of sexual abuse/assault can now name their attacker without being sued for defamation.

A sexual assault victim who was being sued by a man for publicising her claim that he attacked her has won her case.

It is the first such judgment, clarifying the law for victims of assault who have been silenced by their abusers and failed by the police.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-65402581

That might be an unwise conclusion to draw from the case. According to the BBC report, the judge in this case had decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the victim's account had been shown to be true. It's not obvious that she (the judge) would have reached the same conclusion otherwise. And, of course, the fact that an accusation is true doesn't necessarily mean that it can be shown to be true in a court - even a civil court, where the standard of proof is balance of probability rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

[jimbob]

FT video about Crispin Odey

https://youtube.com/watch?v=w2NAtPX0hkw

[Opti]

Jesus f.cking Christ.
A letter in the Times today.

F54px7qXsAAMlmX.jpg (110.02 KiB) Viewed 613 times

[Tessa K]

Jesus f.cking Christ.
A letter in the Times today.

F54px7qXsAAMlmX.jpg

I saw that on X/Twitter. I can only think of words starting with F and C at the moment.

[Grumble]

At least he retired in 2020 I suppose, though clearly his attitude lives on.

[FlammableFlower]

I saw that and was appalled. There were some decrying the Times for publishing it, saying it gave acceptance to that kind of behaviour. However, I thought it was good it was published, so it and attitudes it contained could be held up to scorn and contempt and to be publicly seen to be horrendous.

[Fishnut]

Jesus f.cking Christ.
A letter in the Times today.

F54px7qXsAAMlmX.jpg

I wonder if this will open him up to claims from people who have suffered bullying/sexual abuse at his/his underlings hands? It's hard to believe that he could espouse such views so openly without having engaged in/supported the behaviour.

[Grumble]

Jesus f.cking Christ.
A letter in the Times today.

F54px7qXsAAMlmX.jpg

I wonder if this will open him up to claims from people who have suffered bullying/sexual abuse at his/his underlings hands? It's hard to believe that he could espouse such views so openly without having engaged in/supported the behaviour.

That thought occurred to me too. People who suffered in silence may be angered enough to take action. They could sue him just for the bants so it would be ok.

[purplehaze]

Jesus f.cking Christ.
A letter in the Times today.

F54px7qXsAAMlmX.jpg

His apparent doubling down/apology was even worse.

https://twitter.com/andyheeps/status/17 ... 0845650125

[Martin Y]

His demand the victims "deal with it" seems to miss the rather obvious point that calling it out is the first step in dealing with it. He doesn't mean "deal with it" he means "shut up and meekly accept it".

It does remind me of the pushback against junior hospital doctors having their absurd working hours addressed to try to avoid the obvious risk of sleep-deprived doctors making mistakes that harmed or even killed patients. Some regarded the endurance test of absurd hours on call as being a trial that they'd had to endure so the new recruits ought to prove themselves too. A few dead patients were just the necessary cost of weeding out weaklings.

[Woodchopper]

I've moved posts about Russell Brans to the dedicated thread about him.