Say NO to drunken sex - and I'm talking to the guys!

I was going to call this "This blog could save a young man's life." but anyway...

I have always considered myself a reasonable man but I was amazed to find myself branded a rapist and rape apologist by feminists on Twitter after voicing my opinion on the Julian Assange and Ched Evans cases.  

In 2010, Baroness Stern, who wrote the report on rape that brought about the change to the rape law said, “Rape needs to be discussed a lot.”  However,  it may be difficult to discuss this subject when the questioning of these new laws is greeted with such hostile abuse.

Assange is already getting abuse with his image being tarnished forever and he is only wanted for questioning.  

I knew that discussing Assange and Ched Evans would result in abuse. I regret responding to it because I appreciate some of these women have been abused and probably still hurting.  I can also understand women feeling angry that they don't get justice and what compounds the pain is when there is a conviction, people want to get the rapist out.  

So let me make it clear. Rape is wrong and the rapist should go to prison. Women are never to blame for being raped.

I had a look at what the CPS says is rape.  It’s worth a read. I was unaware of the law changes over the years and this worries me.  Not for my sake but for those young men unaware of the new dangers. 

I watch the news, I see public information notices but this totally passed me by.  If I missed it I feel it is reasonable to assume a 24 year old footballer may have missed the law changes too.  Anyway, I’ll come back to that.

Here is the law but I doubt many young men have read this or discussed it with their parents, assuming they have functional parents.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_act/#Reasonable_belief_in_consent

Reasonable belief in consent

In the offences of rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, a person (A) is guilty of an offence if (s)he:

• ·      Acts intentionally;
• ·      (B) does not consent to the act; and
• ·      (A) does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The CPS goes on to say that (A) has to make a reasonable judgement call on (B)’s ability to consent.

The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions:

(i) Did the defendant believe the complainant consented?  This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).

(ii) If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).

The law has changed over the years.  What was acceptable in 2002 was not acceptable in 2003 and what was acceptable in 2009 was not acceptable in 2010. 

If Ched Evans had sex with this girl just 18 months earlier the judge would have advised the jury to come back with a NOT GUILTY verdict.  

Case of Peter Bacon cleared of rape in 2009.

“Thank God I'm free, says chef cleared of raping woman who was too drunk to remember. But my name has been dragged through the mud.” READ MORE

Report in Guardian.

Report in Metro

But the move to change the law started much earlier. 

When Judge Evans in 2005 said, “Drunken consent is still consent.” Labour MP Vera Baird, responded with "The judge is utterly and totally wrong, he needs to be spoken to and sent on some re-training. This is a dreadful outcome because women will now think they cannot have a single glass of wine - I think this is going to put women off coming forward again and again."  What? 

After the case, a CPS spokesman said: "It was the prosecution case throughout that consent was not given. Under cross-examination I think she accepted that she could not remember refusing and it could not then be said there was no reasonable doubt.”

In October 2006 The Guardian wrote

“The government is drawing up laws to make it easier to convict men of rape if they have sex with a woman who has drunk so much that she may not know what she is doing.”

 "Easier to convict men"? That's not making it easier to catch a rapist, that is redefining the crime. That is a change to the definition of rape.  I expected to see something in this piece on this change in the law of consensual sex.  Considering that it could result in a man going to prison for 5 years. Sorry Ched, you should have read the new CPS guidelines! 

 The article doesn’t even touch upon the third part of the definition of rape  “(A) does not reasonably believe that B consents.” 

Full article

Do men have a reasonable understanding of the new law?

I’ve looked for public information films that encourage men to decline the advances of a drunk woman but all I can find are examples of the traditional view of rape.  How can we expect men to understand "reasonable belief" and drunken consent if we don’t educate them on the new law?

This is a rape advert in 2010 shown in Scotland.

12 months before the Ched Evans incident and it doesn’t come close to addressing the complexities of drunken consent and the importance of reasonable belief of consent. When men have had "NO MEANS NO!" drilled into them are you surprised a guy thinks "yes!" is ok? 

This is a classic date-rape perception in 2007 CLICK HERE

There is little evidence that young men have been made aware of the change in law that when a woman says “yes” it is HIS responsibility to judge that she understands what is going on. Even then if he believes it was ok a court may decide otherwise. That is an impossible situation for a young man to find himself in. 

A Judge can get it terribly wrong saying “Drunk sex is still consent” but yet we must believe that 12 months after a change in the law that a 22 year old man with no legal expertise was aware of the rapidly changing political mood of the nation's law makers. 

Remember, rape is only rape if (A) believes he hasn’t got consent i.e. He is aware he is committing a crime.

Ironically, during the period where the Labour Government wanted to increase rape convictions they have also relaxed the licencing laws on late night drinking.

This article in the UK's most popular newspaper, The Sun, suggests that Tulisa would not have consented to a sex act recorded by her then boyfriend if she had been sober. 

Tulisa from X Factor claims she was too drunk to remember making a sex tape.

“I believe I must have been intoxicated at the time the video footage was taken.

“Now that I can see the video, I can see it is me in it.”

This article written in 2012 is about being drunk and not being capable of consenting and it doesn’t even make any reference to a possible rape case.  If a role model like Tulisa gives drunken blow jobs what message does that send out?  What is a man's reasonable belief of drunken sex?  Drunk women give blow jobs? Well not anymore mate. That's FIVE years for you! You think I'm joking?  Ask Ched Evans how funny that is.

A man could possibly have endless encounters with drunk girls who don’t claim rape but then comes across one that takes offence to a sex tape on the net.  The only thing a man can reasonably do is avoid drunken encounters. Are they? Of course not. Young, drunk and stupid men will be persuaded by the pull of pissed sirens. Many will escape but the odd one will pay the price of his lust. "But she said 'yes'! he cries to his mum as they cart him away.  Clunk!

Now the thing is,  I’ve seen the tape and she didn’t appear drunk and that opens up the question, what if Tulisa was lying because she was just too embarrassed? 

She goes on to say “I must have been very drunk to let my then boyfriend Justin Edwards, who I also know features in the video, take the footage.”

Justin Edwards claims in a letter to his solicitors that ‘I took many pictures and videos of us having sex’ and I still have those videos. That is completely untrue.” 

Is Tulisa lying about being too drunk to remember?  That opens a whole new tin of worms that must never be opened. 

Men have a perception of sex and women that needs to be dispelled but locking up young men who are products of the drink/sex culture without educating them is totally dismissing the "reasonable belief" part of the definition of rape.

Brendan O'Neill sums it up perfectly.

It's wrong to say "Sex Without Consent is rape."

“Feminists always focus on the state of mind of the woman or women involved in an alleged rape and disregard the state of mind of the man.

This is a terrible error, because in order for rape to have occurred, it is not enough to prove that the woman did not consent; we must also surely prove that the man knows she did not consent, or was utterly reckless as to the question of her consent, and carried on regardless.

Feminists who are subtly rewriting the meaning of rape are taking us away from this civilised approach and towards something more backward, even feudalistic: the criminal punishment of people who do not have criminal minds."

For me, the thought that men (any man over 16) are now totally responsible for the welfare of drunk women who offer up sex is concerning. 

Until this "drunken consent" topic is addressed properly so that men are properly educated, they need to change there approach to drunk women who are potentially hazardous.  

Gary Lee-Walters wrote this great article taken from The Barrister Magazine that looked at the whole problem in detail. 

“The public and parliament need to move with the times, tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis. No doubt improved sociological education of what might happen if men have sex with women that are intoxicated, especially those that do not overtly consent. A simple caveat to any man considering in engaging in intercourse with an intoxicated woman is simply not to do so. The law has and will continue to have difficulties dealing with such issues but unless a contract is drawn up for the two parties before a night out, these problems will re-present themselves.

In trying to make more sense of the law on voluntarily intoxicated consent, Alan Reed encapsulates the feeling well: “Arguably the true meaning remains as opaque as ever.” need for reform, the author asserts, is stronger now post-Bree and the SOA 2003, than ever before.”

Thanks for reading.

P.S. I haven't even started on our drink culture,  but this video is good place to get you thinking...

Sex in Alcohol Advertising.

Excuse mistakes - I make loads. will probably make some amendments.


http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/   
freephone helpline
0808 802 9999

Grace Dent Reckons She Knows Her Stuff – Oh dear.

I’ve just read an article in The Guardian about The Voice by Grace Dent. here

It was so bad I just had to write down my thoughts. Grace Dent is a writer of stories. Long stories are called novels which is very impressive – but hey, they are still just stories. She is paid to watch telly, write about it and write long stories. She is creative and funny but does writing stories and watching telly make you an expert on singing and talent shows?

In her very first sentence Grace Dent reveals her lack of knowledge by ridiculing Will.i.am for saying that The Voice is “not like a traditional karaoke talent show.” The fact that singers come on playing instruments, a live a band and the coaches judge only the voice has totally been lost on this wordsmith.

She then uses “clank” and “honk” to describe the vocals of the coaches. What? Tom Jones? Jessie J? Now I may not have the wit and writing ability of Grace Dent but I know my music and this was a great opening to a new show. Does anyone really think that Tulisa from N-Dubz showing off her tattoo to Carl Orff’s “O Fortuna” is a more impressive start to a talent show?

Ms Dent then has a pop at Jessie J for being young and attractive and the only woman on the panel like “every other blooming panel show”. There goes another perfectly good bra going up in smoke. No mention of Jessie J’s writing or singing ability just describing her as “tits, teeth and occasional sparkle”. I’m amazed the lack of respect for one of the greatest UK newcomers in years.

It’s a pity that the biggest point that Grace Dent touched upon she failed to get it. In an effort to get Jessica Hammond on his team, Will.i.am played up what he could do for her.

Dent says, “Balls to managing expectations: this was a new level of televised talent-show bullshit.” Sorry Grace you really don't understand the music industry. It's full of bullshit.

When artists have a number of record labels interested in them they get told everything to get them to sign. This is a reality.

What is refreshing about The Voice is the lack of desperate wannabes set up just so we can see them sucking up to Tulisa and on their knees to Louis Walsh. The Voice have admired coaches with real talent giving aspiring singers a new level of respect. Not unusual for the BBC as they have proved with Strictly Come Dancing but X Factor rejects will be rejoicing.

We all know that due to the cut backs, newspaper are no longer filled with news but more an outlet for novelists and chatterboxes to voice their opinions. I’m tired of these people who come out of university as professional smarty-pants who can write in a manner and an air of confidence that makes them look like they know what they are talking about. We really have to be careful not to confuse a wealth of vocabulary with a wealth of knowledge.

Excuse any mistakes - I'm a singer not a writer.

Has X Factor judge Tulisa blown her Job?

I had to write a blog about the biggest X Factor story in ages. It truly is perfect for the tabloids. It’s sex, lies and videotape. It’s a proper front page titillater.

Except one thing, it wasn’t meant to happen so don't hold the front page.

The X Factor "EXCLUSIVES" and crazy headlines that you read are mainly manufactured to promote the show.“Tulisa: Head Judge?” doesn’t really fit in well with the X Factor family image.

If you didn’t know, Tulisa Contostavlos is an X Factor judge who denied being in a sex video but has now done a U-turn and told the truth.

Tulisa's lawyers insisted it was "100 per cent fake". They said: "She is horrified that someone would go to the extreme lengths of fabricating a video. It is absolutely not her." - Oops!

Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets half way around the world before truth has a chance to put his pants on” but with social media truth is quickly catching up.

It is going to become increasingly difficult for PR to dictate what you read about and so they have had to work on disaster management.

So, the pro-X factor tabloids have played down what would normally be a big story.

They have given Tulisa the victim make-over, you know, hair off the face, little make up, plain Jane top…and….Action! Cameras roll.

Tulisa - betrayed victim.

Stacey Solomon - smoking confession.

Tulisa spends five minutes saying why she felt safe enough in her relationship to perform oral sex on video with her boyfriend and unsurprisingly the press have been very sympathetic to her. She gives the tabloids all the sound bites they need to distance them from the propaganda (it's her words not theirs) Betrayed –check, intimate – check, violated – check. She truly delivered what they wanted and The X Factor is saved from another humiliation - they hope.

Now, I think it's right that they go easy on Tulisa. There are enough guys out there with little respect for women and these images do nothing to help make men respect women more. In fact I think it does more harm when a role model like Tulisa is humiliated like this than silly old Dennis "punchy" Waterman trying to excuse his inadequacies but I digress.

It’s a shame the press didn’t show the same amount of compassion for Lascel Woods. ...Who?

Lascel Woods was a cert for the X Factor 2011 finals until they found out about his secret past. He claimed someone had uploaded a sex video of him to a pay site exactly like Tulisa has done. Unfortunately, Lascel was just a black gay guy and we have Andy Peters so we don’t need any more thank you very much! Lascel had no PR and in my mind was a real victim.

It was a shame to witness. Lascel was a talented singer with a difficult past. He was in care from the age of 4 due to his mum’s mental health issues but he just wasn’t as important to the show as say, Tulisa is.

Lascel went out and we end up with… Frankie Cocozza.

So don’t worry Tulisa, you may be a bad judge of men but your job as a judge on The X Factor is safe.

JUST CONFIRMED >>>> COWELL SAYS TULISA JOB IS SAFE

Lascel Porn Shame. – Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2041376/X-Factor-2011-Lascel-Wood-porn-video-Sian-Phillips-axed-criminal-past.html

Lascel Woods X Factor Star Porn Shame, Vile Video, - The Sun

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/x_factor/3833449/X-Factor-star-Lascel-Woods-porn-shame.html

Lascel Woods in care from the age of 4. – The Daily Mirror

http://akastg.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/x-factors-lascel-wood-in-care-153094

Just Having Fun...Like The Tabloids but "they don't like it up 'em Mr Mannering!"

In July 2011 it was reported that Trinity Mirror would be making huge cuts. Now in 2012 nearly 20% of the editoral work force will be slashed. Funny, this hasn't made any headlines in the tabloids. This is the company that have mocked me for the last seven years so it was time for me to give a little love back.

One girl who worked at Heat and Editor for The Mirror 3am had been responsible for a number of negative pieces including a piece suggesting I used auto tune on X Factor. She is also sister to The Sun's Editor who regular takes cheap shots at me.

I did a tweet and it got an interesting reaction from some journos.

"3am girl Isabel Mohan quits her job and now I read The Mirror are making cuts. *wry smile”

Another Journo replied:

Little did I know that this ONE tweet would unleash the hounds of media hell. (a bit extreme but this is a tabloid blog)

Now I have no idea if Isabel Mohan took voluntary redundancy and don’t really care but to even suggest that she did has upset a few editors and journalists.

I have ‘enjoyed’ 7 years of tabloid humour at my expense so forgive me if take the opportunity to give a little bit back.

Considering I’m apparently no longer relevant (which is true - in fact I never was) this tweet got a pretty heated reaction from the tabloid media types.

Now, I have maintained that the negative propaganda from Cowell's PR team left me in a situation where I could either play the game and accept the harsh hand I was given or go away and try and do my own thing. The problem is the tabloid press are there to watch how I'm doing and ridicule anything I try.

I find it hypocritical that these people feel they have a licence to mock who they like regardless of the consequences and yet when I even look at them they take offence.

My tweet was nothing compared to some of the things written about me over the years but the reaction shows you just what a close-knit community some of these tabloid jounalists are.

These are some of the screen grabs from last nights exchange.

According to Alison Perry, Executive Editor of More! Magazine

I was attacking in a 'real twatty way'.

Nikki Bayley of Glamour, Metro and The Guardian

Had to google who I was but felt compelled to interject.

...and when all else fails revert back to "He's just bitter".

These are just some of the people who made comments on Twitter, trust me, some will be talkin... and guess what as if by magic, I've just had someone in the 'business' ask me if I would support Belinda Carlise in Nottingham for £100. This guy hasn't offered me work in SEVEN years. What do you think - should I do it? No chance of an article suddenly appearing that takes the piss?

Last thing:

Obviously, there are people who will lose their jobs that had nothing to do with me or Cowell's PR machine and I have no reason to dislike them. I don't want people to lose their jobs who does? but it's like feeling sorry for the train driver of the Warsaw ghetto. It's sad but maybe they should've consider a career move anyway. I did.