Retiring judge warns women who get drunk

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

Deeda I do not know which era you are referring to as you don't allow us knowing your age but a women does not have to be drunk to allow a man 'having' his way.
Post war 1945+ saw a large increase in pregnancies for the unmarried woman. I am sure they were not all drink related.

In discussing women and alcohol the judge managed to reveal that she still holds views which for many are completely unacceptable. She must know that it is young men who are drunk who are in the majority the victims of violence, but she chose to target women. Rape is an awful crime but both sexes are raped so why didn't she warn young men as well? In fact the figures for men may be much higher than we actually know because men will often not report just like women. She may not have meant to imply that women are to blame but she is a clever woman and should be aware that every statement carries a subtext and in speaking as she did she opened up her words to misinterpretation.

I occasionally drive home late at night and I'm horrified by the number of young women who are walking about on their own. I put a post to this effect on a neighbourhood site and came under considerable criticism, saying that they should be able to. I pointed out that I should be able to leave my house/car unlocked but I can't. We all have to take responsibility for our safety. I will never walk around alone after dark , and to be honest I never have done even as a teenager in the 60s

Too many falling over themseives to remove all responsibility from drunks (be it women or men) when they are too out of their heads to think straight. Whether it's getting behind the steering wheel, falling into rivers and drowning (happens a lot round here), getting into a fight or anything else, if you are drunk and incapable you have contributed to your risk and must accept part of the blame.

I think it is wise for parents to discuss issues like this with their children - both male and female - and to try and ensure that they themselves behave in the way that they would like to see their children behaving.

That is entirely different from a judge making a public pronouncement which links drunkenness to - not vulnerability of both men and women to a range of criminal acts, including theft and physical/sexual assault - but specifically to sexual assault. Would it, for example, be acceptable for a judge (not a parent) to make a pronouncement that people shouldn't get drunk because it is leaving them open to being swindled or physically attacked/mugged?

Yes, perfectly acceptable.

Coming at it from a slightly different angle, isn't it a bit demeaning - sexist even - to consider that it's just the man who should act responsibly? That a woman isn't capable of being responsible for herself and that whatever state she, the little woman, might get into it's the man who is the strong one, and therefore he should never, ever under any circumstance, whatever the temptation is, or the messages being given out, or the state of his sobriety, give in to his animal feelings? That only the man can be above such things?

Not all rapes are committed by serial, preditory rapists, some are impulse and misjudgement, like someone with no money taking a purse - which should have been tucked safely away in a pocket - from the top of that shopping bag. Especially if there happened to be a £20 note peeking out!

Well done LSP - I've just been embroiled in a very similar argument on FB for daring to say that this was victim-blaming at its worst (best?). There's a huge difference between a parent giving their child a word of advice - and this advice seeming to come from an official source.
My point is that you would never get this type of blame attached to the victim of a different crime. If a child ran into the road and was hit by a speeding driver, the child would be seen as a victim and the driver would be blamed - even though the child had been warned to be careful and taught road safety by its parents. Where's the difference..?
This judge had the chance to reinforce the message that only one person is to blame for a rape, and it isn't the victim..! She chose not to do this, but to add to the sad litany of 'advice' given to women - just as when the Yorkshire Ripper was active and women were told to keep safe by staying at home. I'm old enough to remember the 'Reclaim the Night' marches - and to remember women being told that it was only sensible to stay indoors for their own safety...!
Nothing has changed it seems...

So are you saying men shouldn't drink anymore than drivers should speed?

Are women to be considered children?

I very much doubt that the driver would be held responsible in the case you quoted SueDoku.

Sorry didn't see the 'speeding' bit

Rubbish! If a child ran out into the road, depending on its age, it would be its minders fault or the child.

I'm a bit sick of all this 'victim culture'. We are women, we are able to take responsibility for our own actions. If we choose to take a risk then we accept that a risk exits; we're not stupid.

I would have thought the advice in the case of a maniac at large as the Yorkshire Ripper was at the time was eminently sensible. Just as sensible as the same advice would be if there was some maniac taking pot shots at people, or danger from very high winds, or going outside if there is high air pollution and you are vulnerable.

The judge suggested women take responsibility for their own safety. Seems like common sense to me. She used the analogy of locking your doors at night to prevent burglary. No one takes offence at that but most people would agree if you leave your house vulnerable you have to bear some responsibility.

Some of the analogies used on here are not very aposite IMO - if you are driving a car whilst drunk and drive into the river you are completely to blame - the river could hardly say' oh here is a car with a drunken driver, I will get out of the way' .Rapists have a choice unlike rivers to not inflict themselves on women who have had too much to drink.

I would caution a dd of mine re drinking and putting herself in a vulnerable situation - I disagree with the judge doing it as she knew ( or should have known) how it would be reported and perceived and she also damn well knows that this is only one small aspect of the dire state of how rapes and rapists are treated by the police and criminal justice system in our country. She could have done better.

just looked at Mumsnet ...big mix of views, just like on here!

Getting drunk is not usually a crime, unless accompanied by disorderly, obscene or aggressive behaviour. Rape is a crime. A person who is raped is the subject of a crime. The person who commits the rape is a criminal. I think it is out of order for a person of high office in the judiciary to involve themselves in the sort of social commentary that encourages victim blaming.

I don't see why objecting to these remarks is described as "victim culture".

In an ideal world you would be able to wear (or not wear) any type of clothing that took your fancy, drink yourself into a stupor in safety, take drugs etc. Sadly we do not live in such a world. People have to take some degree of responsibility for their safety - would you throw yourself out into traffic in the expectation that the cars and lorries would screech to a halt before hitting you so that you crossed unharmed?? Getting drunk is not something you need to do to live - I feel so sad when I see young men and women lying down almost comatose on pavements and/or being sick outside clubs simply because they had too much to drink. Yes, I do strongly agree that there is no excuse for rape but - people shouldn't be putting themselves in danger, we know there are people out there who would take such an opportunity, whether they are friends or a stranger, so we need to accept that we have a responsibility to ourselves to ensure our safety as much as possible.

Surely it cannot be wrong for anyone with this judge's experience to advise anyone else, men/women to take sensible precautions when putting yourselves into what could be a potentially dangerous very frightening situation. You only have to read/watch the news to understand that there are a lot of extremely unpleasant people out there and laying yourself wide open to harassment of any description which has the potential to escalate is foolish beyond belief.

Yes, your analogy doesn't hold Sueduko. Even if a driver was speeding the person he hit would be held partially responsible if they crossed without looking or without waiting for the green man. In other words they would be expected to have taken reasonable steps to protect themselves.

The judge's comments were taken from her summing up prior to sentencing the 2 men in question to a long stretch at Her Majesty's pleasure!

As far as I'm concerned, her words have been misconstrued ....