Retiring judge warns women who get drunk

I agree Luckygirl. The judges comments were aimed at keeping women safe.

Many of LSP's posts use the word "blame" - it was she who introduced the word. The judge did not use it; the posters on here are only using it to reply to her posts. It is a complete red herring.

The fact that a woman was drunk when she was raped does NOT excuse the victim. But it contributes to her vulnerability and that is what is being discussed; not blame.

This argument is brought up every time someone tries to guide young women towards reducing their vulnerability and may well be a contributing factor to the problem - "I can do anything I like, get as drunk as I like - it is my right."

Whatever is said, those parents and GPs who have DDs and DGDs will I am sure continue to press home the message that being drunk makes you vulnerable.

i,m with the judge stay in control of your enviroment

The rapist is to blame. BUT if you are paralytic you are still the one left lying in the gutter traumatised and he is off free.

There seems to be such a casual acceptance of rapists though, they are compared to stormy seas, out of control cars on dangerous roads

Yes you may be right.

. Rapists are normal blokes
I dont think they are! Far from it.

The judges comments are nothing new, we have seen posters offering this helpful advice for decades. Is this sort of advice helping, has it lowered the rape stats?

Hugely I would have thought.

I dont know how old you are.
Health and safety advice. Somewhere along the way, in the 90's perhaps, health and safety took off in a big way. At first, there were definitely some daft stuff that was spouted to try and help with health and safety. But nowadays, I would say, on the whole, health and safety has become an accepted thing.
My point is though, there are not very clear ways of measuring how many things health and safety stops from happening in the first place.

And in my opinion, that is all the judge is trying to do, so good for her.

I used to walk my dog miles into the countryside. But things have changed. Because of free movement and no border checks, I no longer know who's living on my own doorstep. Society is no longer like the good old Heartbeat TV programme where we all grew dahlias and life was a lot more friendlier.
Being AWARE that the risk factor has changed, I don't feel able to rely on trusting that men should be expected to behave.. Instead I have weighed up the risks, decided to protect myself by not placing myself in a vulnerable situation of walking miles out into the countryside as a lone female.
Sad but true, I can no longer take the chance.
So I now walk in a local park or I go on a longer walk with friends. I have taken responsibility for my own safety. The argument that men shouldn't rape isn't enough. That fact is they do and as it's better to be safe than sorry, it pays to think hard about how we take the initiative to protect ourselves from harm.
The safety in numbers rule applies.

That's what the judge was saying. It's not safe for women to get so drunk and expect to stay safe. Better to weigh up the risks and protect ourselves accordingly.

Can I go back to my recent experience LSP? I was doing a loco parent is pickup outside a nightclub. The girl and boys did know each other. They called her by name telling her not to be a w***** One ofthem went back into the nightclub to get one of her friends. She was very drunk. I have no doubt that would have been used in court by the prosecution to say they should have stayed away. Which they did. But would it have been rape? And if they had been too drunk to be sensible? Would they still have been held responsible ?

FGS, what on earth is all the fuss about? The judge has absolutely hit the nail on the head! Her advice applies to men and women. You get so drunk that you don't even know where you are, then you are at risk of putting yourself in grave danger in more ways than one. In a perfect world this shouldn't be so, but the world is a deeply imperfect place with lots of awful people in it, and the sad truth is that this judge is only speaking an unpalatable truth. Lord Randolph Churchill became so drunk on a night out, so a group of 'friends' put him into bed with a prostitute - what a jolly jape! except that, LRC soon developed syphilis, from which he died horribly some forty years later! Had he not been drunk?!!

Yes, the judge may have been stating the obvious, and it is foolish to expose yourself to unnecessary risk by getting very drunk. However, the law has a duty to protect the vulnerable. Rape is a very serious crime. The law's record of catching and convicting rapists is pathetic..I don't think this judge's comments are likely to improve things in any way.

I agree nina ?

LSP I would tend to agree about looking at whether the same advice is actually doing anything ....but the stats don't tell us either way unless the stats are broken down into those committed when the woman was paralytic!!!;

The judge made it 100% clear that the rape was caused by the rapist. She also made it 100% clear that if women want to get drunk that is their free choice. She then stated an obvious fact that when drunk we are more vulnerable ....in this case to the actions/choices of men who choose to rape/ attack ! I totally agree with LSP, understand her list and the overall point that rape is the responsibility of the person committing it. But I also think that getting seriously drunk is the choice of the person who does it and in making that choice they need to take into account the potential risks...we might not like the fact that those risks exist, but they do!!

There seems to be such a casual acceptance of rapists though, they are compared to stormy seas, out of control cars on dangerous roads. Rapists are normal blokes and 90% of the time they know who they are raping. It would be common sense to look at the rape stats and target the perpetrators.

The judges comments are nothing new, we have seen posters offering this helpful advice for decades. Is this sort of advice helping, has it lowered the rape stats? Has it encouraged more women to report? I think that we can answer no, this advice has not helped before so we need to have a think about why that is.

Yes good post lovebeige

Good post lovebeigecardigans1955.

I am starting to think the bottom line for some people is they dont like all the rules, as you said.

If we look at the stats 90% of rapes are carried out by someone the victim knows, the idea that women are attacked by strangers is kind of a myth, it's colleagues and friends, family members who are the rapists. I think that as that accounts for 90% of all rapes then it would be common sense to target the issue, why do these men view women as someone they can have sex with without their consent.

I see your point. But there is the other 10% to consider too.And yes, what the judge says i not particularly talking about family members I wouldnt have thought. But who knows?

If we take colleagues and friends, that still doesnt mean that it is wise for the woman or man to get "out of it" shall we say.

I think you are seeing the issue as only having one solution to it, ie concentrate on the rapist.
But actually, there are often more ways in life than just one, to help with a situation.

The judge did not say or suggest it is ok to rape drunken women.

I can well imagine what you're getting at re Mumsnet so for the sake of my blood pressure I won't read it or bother to put my opinions on there. I'd get flamed!
If you don't want to get run over you don't stand in the middle of the road, do you? Or cross without looking?
Surely getting legless, or whatever the modern phrase is (oh yes, I know, 'rat-arsed' or 'off your face') a foolish thing to do and puts you at risk of being attacked, robbed, raped or worse. When drunk you can't run or put up a fight - so why do it then?
These youngsters claim the moral high ground by saying that they should be able to behave exactly as they wish with no consequences but life isn't as 'ideal' as that, is it?
A quote from an old forensics programme which stuck in my mind, "We must deal with the world as it is, not as it should be" is very apt here. Of course men shouldn't attack women no matter what state they're in BUT sadly the bad ones do.
What's so good about drinking to excess anyway? If your life is so bad that you have to get pissed to make it worthwhile then there's something wrong, isn't there?
Since when did it become socially acceptable to get in this sort of state? When I was young being drunk was considered to be something to be ashamed of but now you're thought to be weird if you don't. A very sad state of affairs indeed.

There is no way the judge told rapists 'its ok to rape drunk women' *LSP.Its ludicrous to misinterpet her words
Have you read what she actually said ?

Judge might have said, you can get run over, fall down stairs, lose your purse etc.

What is wrong with people that they don't want to be safe?

Judge was stating the obvious but people are too frightened to say that kind of thing now...get a rape whistle ????? Really. Use a buddy system????????? drunk buddy = 2 drunk people this isn't 1970 you know. Giving off signals of being available is not a good look.

Be prepared for all eventualities is what I think, and tell my kids, girls and boys alike.....the world out there can be bloody dangerous.but if you want the right to be a mug, that's OK too because you'd be more vulnerable than my kids and that works for me.

Research shows that criminals select victims for the vulnerablilities...........so if you want to improve those odds have a skin full.

Fine mess we are in when people are afraid to mention that.

Presumably youve all seen the news coverage of a new book written by a woman who was raped at 16 by her boyfriend ?They wrote it together .She was blind drunk when it happened and the inference is that she might have been better able to prevent it had she not been ...

If we look at the stats 90% of rapes are carried out by someone the victim knows, the idea that women are attacked by strangers is kind of a myth, it's colleagues and friends, family members who are the rapists. I think that as that accounts for 90% of all rapes then it would be common sense to target the issue, why do these men view women as someone they can have sex with without their consent.

Ankers, sorry if my thinking is muddled but it's another thorny issue! I think private advice is fine, but this advice from a judge is harmful, the same as all the other helpful advice given to women.

I think that this advice will cause harm today, I know it's conjecture but we know that last night women were raped. If they wake up and turn on the tv will they be more or less likely to report the crime?

I think the worst thing is the message that this sends to rapists, that it's okay to rape drunk women.

OMG Jayanna!
No one is saying its an either or situation LSP. Obviously men should take responsibility but women should do what they can to protect themselves. One can only imagine the sad parade of cases that judge has seen over the years
.

She didn't at any time say that the victim was guilty. She had just jailed the perpetrator and not blamed the victim, but it's a shame that she's getting flak for stating an unpalatable truth.
What a pity we NEED to be told that getting very drunk makes us vulnerable-to driving accidents, to health issues and unfortunately to attacks by those who see drunks as vulnerable. If you can take steps to keep yourself safe then you should, instead of expecting someone else to take responsibility for you. Some people though, see that as an infringement of their rights.
Look at the idiots who go to the sea wall when there's a storm, even when they've been warned off, then cry because their friend, partner, dog, loved one has been washed away.
Rapists are always the guilty ones and we shouldn't have to worry about being attacked, but since we do have to worry, any steps we can take to minimise the risk are sensible not accusations of blame.

Do none if the abive criticising LSP recignise irony when they they see it ?I have see these 'rules'before on FB .
I have two DDs and I go along with the judge. If you read her actual words there is no way she is blaming women .All she did is point out that your judgement might be a bit warped and you are more vulnerable when drunk