Judy speaks for a significant portion of UK. How do we know? Conviction rates for rape. There has been effort put into getting cases to trial but the establishment cannot 'make' juries give a guilty verdict. To denounce her view as extreme is completely missing the point. Juries are very clearly distinquishing between (what they see) violent and non violent rape / stranger / date rape. It may be an age issue and in time the situation will change but society at large is not currently in step with thelliberal elite. That is obvious with growth ofUKIP.
She is allowed an opinion but half her facts weren't correct, for starters rape is a violent crime, also rape is more than 'unpleasant' its absolutely digusting and another thing I highly doubt she would be saying this if her precious daughter was in exactly the same position.
But then it is Loose Women, this program should have been axed 10 years ago, I can't believe people still watch this. It's just a bunch of middle age women talking over each other and spouting rubbish.
There does seem to be a lot of question marks over the case as I understand it so maybe she's just echoing what a lot of people think ?
That was my first thought. If that is the case, she can't say what she really feels anyway... so she expressed it by downplaying the rape and hope her point would come across?
I don;t think Judy meant it in a clear-cut way. She's not a stupid woman and has a great deal of empathy. But she is clumsy and not particularly eloquent - I think she just really wanted to say something else but obviously couldn't.
We all feel things we can't say in public. The best thing therefore is not to say anything in public!!! She needed to apologise and has.
I'm surprised Judy went back to live TV. I wouldn't have thought she felt the need to do it at this stage of her career, especially in a witches' cauldron like Loose Women.
She never looks comfortable, or quite 'with it' and even 10-15 years ago was shaking like a leaf while presenting This Morning.
I don't agree with her viewpoint, personally. Trying to place incidences of rape into some sort of 'hierarchy' of severity is muddy territory. The act of rape is still rape.
The footballer has already been convicted, so it's not as if these are merely allegations.
Nothing wrong with what she,said. plenty of people, me for one, agree with her.
I agree with her too. If a girl goes out and gets so drunk to the extent that she doesn't know what she is doing and is happy to go to a hotel with a stranger then I am sorry but don't go crying rape.
Well it does in my book. I am entitled to say what I like to whoever I like without having the PC brigade on my back.
Except you're not entitled to that at all. If you started going around using racist slurs, you would be called on it. If you randomly called someone something homophobic, you would be called on that too. Thinking that you can go around saying horrible things without fear of consequence is just arrogant and nasty.
I don't understand what's PC about being disgusted at someone defending a rapist
I'm surprised Judy went back to live TV. I wouldn't have thought she felt the need to do it at this stage of her career, especially in a witches' cauldron like Loose Women.
She never looks comfortable, or quite 'with it' and even 10-15 years ago was shaking like a leaf while presenting This Morning.
I don't agree with her viewpoint, personally. Trying to place incidences of rape into some sort of 'hierarchy' of severity is muddy territory. The act of rape is still rape.
The footballer has already been convicted, so it's not as if these are merely allegations.
^ Yes, she went into really dodgy territory there. Regardless of the details of the case in question, 'downgrading' a rape in order to justify a convicted rapist's return to a former job is never going to end well.
I agree with her too. If a girl goes out and gets so drunk to the extent that she doesn't know what she is doing and is happy to go to a hotel with a stranger then I am sorry but don't go crying rape.
Given the low level of guilty verdicts recorded in cases like this that go to trial it would seem that your view is more mainstream than many believe. Juries it would seem (as it cannot be known for definite) err on the side of caution in convicting a male in these circumstances. As I said this may alter in time as the social attitudes of the young are reflected more broadly in Jury trials.
I agree with her too. If a girl goes out and gets so drunk to the extent that she doesn't know what she is doing and is happy to go to a hotel with a stranger then I am sorry but don't go crying rape.
Why? Does it suddenly not count as rape if she was drunk? Should the man get away with having non-consensual sex just because the woman he raped went back to his hotel room?
It's a shame that instead of teaching people not to have sex with someone who is too drunk to consent, we're teaching people not to get drunk.
Why? Does it suddenly not count as rape if she was drunk? Should the man get away with having non-consensual sex just because the woman he raped went back to his hotel room?
It's a shame that instead of teaching people not to have sex with someone who is too drunk to consent, we're teaching people not to get drunk.
Surely people shouldn't get that drunk that they can't remember whether they consented or not
I think I kind of understood the point she was trying to make but rape is still rape. It is ALWAYS unpleasant, the whole nature of it being rape means it is without consent, therefore unwanted. She may have set back all of us who are struggling dealing with so called date rape and rape within relationships years.
Judy speaks for a significant portion of UK. How do we know? Conviction rates for rape. There has been effort put into getting cases to trial but the establishment cannot 'make' juries give a guilty verdict. To denounce her view as extreme is completely missing the point. Juries are very clearly distinquishing between (what they see) violent and non violent rape / stranger / date rape. It may be an age issue and in time the situation will change but society at large is not currently in step with thelliberal elite. That is obvious with growth ofUKIP.
To me, anyone who tries to paint one kind of rape as being no big deal compared to other kinds, whether its a jury or someone like Judy Finnigan or just your average member of the public, is a person who desperately needs to be educated on the damage rape and ANY sort of non consensual sex can do to someone.
Are you trying to say that thinking ALL rape is abhorrent no matter how "bad" the type of rape is or if the victim was under the influence of anything that clouded their judgment is just some kind of woolly liberal viewpoint? Funny that, I thought it just meant being decent human being.
I can't believe someone would use THIS topic as a chance to gleefully bash rivial political views. How tasteless.
Why? Does it suddenly not count as rape if she was drunk? Should the man get away with having non-consensual sex just because the woman he raped went back to his hotel room?
It's a shame that instead of teaching people not to have sex with someone who is too drunk to consent, we're teaching people not to get drunk.
A. Teaching people not to have sex with someone who is too drunk to consent
B. We're teaching people not to get drunk.
If you're successful with B, you don't get to A. You also don't get women who are completely paralytic but somehow still conscious enough to voluntarily make the decision to go to a guy's hotel room, thus giving him the come on, happily doing the horizontal mambo with him, and them screaming rape when she wakes up in the morning with a thumping headache. If she's capable of making the decision to go to the hotel room, then she's capable of declining sex. She either didn't decline it, or couldn't remember if she did. In that situation, as far as I'm concerned, she has no case. Does sex now have to be a written and signed contract?
All this "I didn't consent" is bollocks. She consented to it when she got pissed and decided to she wanted to go back to the guy's hotel room. It what's men and women have done since the dawn of time.
All this "I didn't consent" is bollocks. She consented to it when she got pissed and decided to she wanted to go back to the guy's hotel room. It what's men and women have done since the dawn of time.
What kind of a man has sex with a woman who is paralytic? Doesn't it say far more about the male than the female? Yes, there are things we can do to teach young women to protect themselves but if there weren't such animals about, it wouldn't be necessary
What kind of a man has sex with a woman who is paralytic? Doesn't it say far more about the male than the female? Yes, there are things we can do to teach young women to protect themselves but if there weren't such animals about, it wouldn't be necessary
A man who is almost paralytic? I'd imagine a large number of these cases are between two people who were both too pissed to have made a clear judgement call.
A clear thinking sober man who takes advantage of a paralytic woman is an animal...I'd have a hard time making that call if they were both incredibly drunk.
To me, anyone who tries to paint one kind of rape as being no big deal compared to other kinds, whether its a jury or someone like Judy Finnigan or just your average member of the public, is a person who desperately needs to be educated on the damage rape and ANY sort of non consensual sex can do to someone.
Are you trying to say that thinking ALL rape is abhorrent no matter how "bad" the type of rape is or if the victim was under the influence of anything that clouded their judgment is just some kind of woolly liberal viewpoint? Funny that, I thought it just meant being decent human being.
I can't believe someone would use THIS topic as a chance to gleefully bash rivial political views. How tasteless.
My point is very simple. Judy viewpoint is not so out of touch with mainstream opinion on this subject as you might believe. Liberals like yourself can have your view on this subject and it is totally valid but until such time as mainstream opinion shifts then the conviction rate for 'date rape' is not going to rise significantly. Juries are made up of 12 everyday folk from all walks of life, different life experiences and opinions. They come together to reach a decision on guilt or not of rape. The guilty verdicts are not coming through so there must still be a majority (in this instance 10 out of 12) who do not see these cases as rape. Or are not sufficiently convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it is. You are dealing with a he said/she said situation which is always going to be difficult.
Comments
Anyway, she's apologised, at least.
But then it is Loose Women, this program should have been axed 10 years ago, I can't believe people still watch this. It's just a bunch of middle age women talking over each other and spouting rubbish.
That was my first thought. If that is the case, she can't say what she really feels anyway... so she expressed it by downplaying the rape and hope her point would come across?
I don;t think Judy meant it in a clear-cut way. She's not a stupid woman and has a great deal of empathy. But she is clumsy and not particularly eloquent - I think she just really wanted to say something else but obviously couldn't.
We all feel things we can't say in public. The best thing therefore is not to say anything in public!!! She needed to apologise and has.
She never looks comfortable, or quite 'with it' and even 10-15 years ago was shaking like a leaf while presenting This Morning.
I don't agree with her viewpoint, personally. Trying to place incidences of rape into some sort of 'hierarchy' of severity is muddy territory. The act of rape is still rape.
The footballer has already been convicted, so it's not as if these are merely allegations.
Exactly whatever happened to Freedom of Speech????
Has someone stopped her from speaking
I don't understand why people think freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want without consequences. It doesn't.
Exactly, you are never going to have everyone agree with what you say, but you shouldn't be criticized for speaking your mind.
I agree with her too. If a girl goes out and gets so drunk to the extent that she doesn't know what she is doing and is happy to go to a hotel with a stranger then I am sorry but don't go crying rape.
Well it does in my book. I am entitled to say what I like to whoever I like without having the PC brigade on my back.
Except you're not entitled to that at all. If you started going around using racist slurs, you would be called on it. If you randomly called someone something homophobic, you would be called on that too. Thinking that you can go around saying horrible things without fear of consequence is just arrogant and nasty.
I don't understand what's PC about being disgusted at someone defending a rapist
No, they're not. They're footballers. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only role models a child should have should be their parents.
He is perfectly entitled to resume his career when he is released. Or do you think he should be punished again after release?
^ Yes, she went into really dodgy territory there. Regardless of the details of the case in question, 'downgrading' a rape in order to justify a convicted rapist's return to a former job is never going to end well.
Given the low level of guilty verdicts recorded in cases like this that go to trial it would seem that your view is more mainstream than many believe. Juries it would seem (as it cannot be known for definite) err on the side of caution in convicting a male in these circumstances. As I said this may alter in time as the social attitudes of the young are reflected more broadly in Jury trials.
Why? Does it suddenly not count as rape if she was drunk? Should the man get away with having non-consensual sex just because the woman he raped went back to his hotel room?
It's a shame that instead of teaching people not to have sex with someone who is too drunk to consent, we're teaching people not to get drunk.
Surely people shouldn't get that drunk that they can't remember whether they consented or not
To me, anyone who tries to paint one kind of rape as being no big deal compared to other kinds, whether its a jury or someone like Judy Finnigan or just your average member of the public, is a person who desperately needs to be educated on the damage rape and ANY sort of non consensual sex can do to someone.
Are you trying to say that thinking ALL rape is abhorrent no matter how "bad" the type of rape is or if the victim was under the influence of anything that clouded their judgment is just some kind of woolly liberal viewpoint? Funny that, I thought it just meant being decent human being.
I can't believe someone would use THIS topic as a chance to gleefully bash rivial political views. How tasteless.
A. Teaching people not to have sex with someone who is too drunk to consent
B. We're teaching people not to get drunk.
If you're successful with B, you don't get to A. You also don't get women who are completely paralytic but somehow still conscious enough to voluntarily make the decision to go to a guy's hotel room, thus giving him the come on, happily doing the horizontal mambo with him, and them screaming rape when she wakes up in the morning with a thumping headache. If she's capable of making the decision to go to the hotel room, then she's capable of declining sex. She either didn't decline it, or couldn't remember if she did. In that situation, as far as I'm concerned, she has no case. Does sex now have to be a written and signed contract?
All this "I didn't consent" is bollocks. She consented to it when she got pissed and decided to she wanted to go back to the guy's hotel room. It what's men and women have done since the dawn of time.
You're such a wind-up merchant.
What kind of a man has sex with a woman who is paralytic? Doesn't it say far more about the male than the female? Yes, there are things we can do to teach young women to protect themselves but if there weren't such animals about, it wouldn't be necessary
A man who is almost paralytic? I'd imagine a large number of these cases are between two people who were both too pissed to have made a clear judgement call.
A clear thinking sober man who takes advantage of a paralytic woman is an animal...I'd have a hard time making that call if they were both incredibly drunk.
My point is very simple. Judy viewpoint is not so out of touch with mainstream opinion on this subject as you might believe. Liberals like yourself can have your view on this subject and it is totally valid but until such time as mainstream opinion shifts then the conviction rate for 'date rape' is not going to rise significantly. Juries are made up of 12 everyday folk from all walks of life, different life experiences and opinions. They come together to reach a decision on guilt or not of rape. The guilty verdicts are not coming through so there must still be a majority (in this instance 10 out of 12) who do not see these cases as rape. Or are not sufficiently convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it is. You are dealing with a he said/she said situation which is always going to be difficult.