Enhanced Britishness

[Pale Rider]

And despite you ditching your minidisc, mine still works just fine.
Just as Fabbers ditching LoHaG or writing alternate lyrics wouldn't stop anyone choosing their own preference.

I see no censorship, so the repeated suggestion of it for however many pages is ridiculous.

@Pale Rider - sometimes your understanding and use of language is unusual. I won't accuse you of being deliberately obtuse, other explanations are possible.

For example my son has a condition (which i think comes from me) which can make effective verbal communication difficult.

Something like that might explain your inability to grasp that one person's dislike does not equate to censorship.
It might also explain weird or troubling statements like the court "[giving] Ms Everard a good send off" or your repeated claim of "there is no violence in those rapes" .

Let's have some accuracy.

I said there is no violence in some rapes, which there isn't, even the victims concede that.

As regards Ms Everard, I've seen some murderers receive their life sentences in sentencing hearings lasting no more than 10 minutes.

Yes, there many have been a five or eight day trial, but the sentencing itself does not take very long.

The phrase 'good send off' is one routinely used in court corridors, so offers a little insight into the process.

This hearing was always going to take a little while because of the defendant's guilty pleas, the case had not been opened in public, which it has to be as part of the public administration of justice.

I'd expected a full day, taking it into a second day is unusual, but then it was a very unusual case.

 

[Rusty Nails]

The phrase 'good send off' is one routinely used in court corridors,

Then it might be better if it remains used in court corridors as court jargon rather in a public forum post on situation like the Sarah Everard trial, where those not in the know might think it trivialises the issue.

 

[Pale Rider]

Then it might be better if it remains used in court corridors as court jargon rather in a public forum post on situation like the Sarah Everard trial, where those not in the know might think it trivialises the issue.

I first heard it in relation to funerals.

If the church was packed, a relative - without a hint of malice - might comment the deceased had 'a good send off'.

There is always a chance of wires becoming crossed, but I do like to occasionally drop in nuggets of information in my posts about the court process which those who never go are unlikely to know.

 

[Deleted member 49]

I said there is no violence in some rapes, which there isn't, even the victims concede that.

Paley I'm not sure you meant it to come out like that....but that's a shite statement to make.Rape itself is a act of violence.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I first heard it in relation to funerals.

If the church was packed, a relative - without a hint of malice - might comment the deceased had 'a good send off'.

There is always a chance of wires becoming crossed, but I do like to occasionally drop in nuggets of information in my posts about the court process which those who never go are unlikely to know.

That is exactly the point. It is usually used to describe the funeral or wake, that went well or was well attended, of someone by their families and friends.

Not the summing up and sentencing in a vicious murder trial. I doubt that her parents or family would think it gave her "a good send-off".

 

[Pale Rider]

Paley I'm not sure you meant it to come out like that....but that's a shite statement to make.Rape itself is a act of violence.

How would you characterise the many cases in which the victim says she submitted to the rape in order to avoid a violent assault as well?

She makes no allegation of violence in such a case, only that sex took place without her consent.

The law recognises this because there is no force required for the offence of rape to be proved, only that 'you knew, or ought to have known, the victim did not consent'.

If all rapes had to be violent, the conviction rate would be even lower than it is now.

 

[Deleted member 49]

How would you characterise the many cases in which the victim says she submitted to the rape in order to avoid a violent assault as well?

She makes no allegation of violence in such a case, only that sex took place without her consent.

The law recognises this because there is no force required for the offence of rape to be proved, only that 'you knew, or ought to have known, the victim did not consent'.

If all rapes had to be violent, the conviction rate would be even lower than it is now.

I'd say rape in any form is a act of violence.Its a sexual assault either way.The conviction rate is a discrace.

 

[Rusty Nails]

How would you characterise the many cases in which the victim says she submitted to the rape in order to avoid a violent assault as well?

She makes no allegation of violence in such a case, only that sex took place without her consent.

The law recognises this because there is no force required for the offence of rape to be proved, only that 'you knew, or ought to have known, the victim did not consent'.

If all rapes had to be violent, the conviction rate would be even lower than it is now.

You continue to be unable to move beyond the narrow meaning of words that support your argument. This is not a suitable issue for pedantry or hiding behind interpretations used in courts of law as a get-out clause.
In the wider discussion of violence and rape I believe the definition of the World Health Organisation is more appropriate:

“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.”

 

[mudsticks]

I'd say rape in any form is a act of violence.Its a sexual assault either way.The conviction rate is a discrace.

I'd say that too.

Yes it's a disgrace, but then so is so much around this issue.

The supposed distinction is that 'straightforward' rape not had extra added violence, heaped on top.

But yes it's already violence.

If rape wasn't already an act of of violence, against the body and mind of a person..

With or without with extra 'added' violence.

If it wasn't that, then it would be consensual sexual activity.


The lack of understanding, or lack of care even on the long term effects on the life of a victim still seems to be woefully lacking.

Many people will of course still diminish the impact, even on themselves, as a form of self protection.

It's not that long since victims were dismissed as not being 'real' victims because they didnt 'fight back'.

That there was no such thing as 'marital rape'

That complainants had their phones taken away from them and scrutinised.


That what they were wearing, at the time of the incident, was somehow significant.

And many other supposed 'defences'.

At least nowadays there seems to be a lot more talk around true consent, among younger people.

Not just assumed consent, nor all the bastuff about women supposedly needing overpowering, or subduing into submission.

Some of the old Bond films for example, depicted pretty much full on sexual assault, if not actual rape scenes.

I've not watched any , but I'd imagine that a lot of violent pornography depicts far worse...

I don't see how that can be a helpful influence on impressionable minds.

And bringing it back to brexit..

Cos we like to do that.

The European parliament, had far more influence on, and did upholding of women's rights, than the UK one did.

 

[mudsticks]

How would you characterise the many cases in which the victim says she submitted to the rape in order to avoid a violent assault as well?

She makes no allegation of violence in such a case, only that sex took place without her consent.

The law recognises this because there is no force required for the offence of rape to be proved, only that 'you knew, or ought to have known, the victim did not consent'.

If all rapes had to be violent, the conviction rate would be even lower than it is now.

Rape itself is a violent act.

Whether or not it has 'extra added' physical violence added on top.

I expect your 'average' person can grasp that.

Just like murder always results in someone being dead.

It doesn't have to be qualified.

It doesn't need to be called 'death murder'

The fact that the victim had their life taken is a given.

And 'a good send off' is a nice, or well attended funeral, usually for someone who has died peacefully of natural causes.

If you'd wanted to use a fairly well understood phrase in another context , then in a discussion around the brutal murder of a young woman , wouldn't seem like the best time to try that one out.

Especially as no context was given at the time.

It looks dismissive at best.

I'm not going to say what, it looks like, at worst.

 

[Pale Rider]

“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.”

I agree, note the words 'threatened or actual'.

In the type of case I cite, there is a clear threat of violence, but no actual violence.

Not that the WHO use 'violence' in their definition, but I suppose 'physical force or power' sort of comes to the same thing.

Although if I gripped you in a bear hug, using physical force, to prevent you thumping someone, I doubt anyone would say I'd used violence to restrain you.

Which is an indication of why the law also steers clear of the word violence when defining rape.

If you'd wanted to use a fairly well understood phrase in another context , then in a discussion around the brutal murder of a young woman , wouldn't seem like the best time to try that one out.

The phrase was used to demonstrate how some in the court system would view the hearing.

That view is most unlikely to be disrespectful, quite the reverse.

A lowly clerk might say something like 'at least we gave the poor lass a good send off'.

Wouldn't you rather read something on here about the case that you didn't already know, rather than read something you already knew?

 

[mudsticks]

I agree, note the words 'threatened or actual'.

In the type of case I cite, there is a clear threat of violence, but no actual violence.

Not that the WHO use 'violence' in their definition, but I suppose 'physical force or power' sort of comes to the same thing.

Although if I gripped you in a bear hug, using physical force, to prevent you thumping someone, I doubt anyone would say I'd used violence to restrain you.

Which is an indication of why the law also steers clear of the word violence when defining rape.



The phrase was used to demonstrate how some in the court system would view the hearing.

That view is most unlikely to be disrespectful, quite the reverse.

A lowly clerk might say something like 'at least we gave the poor lass a good send off'.

Wouldn't you rather read something on here about the case that you didn't already know, rather than read something you already knew?

No I'm not particularly interested in court vernacular, in that instance no.

And certainly not used like that out of context, in that thread.

The thread wasn't particularly about the legal details of that case nor the court proceedings.


Not everything in life revolves around what happens in courts, nor should it.

If you can't see that your using that phrase in that context could very easily be misconstrued as dismissive , then you might need to revisit your use of language in a public forum, when discussing sensitive subjects.

Tbh I'm overall doubtful that it isn't sometimes intentional, used in order to get a rise.

The thread itself was about having women's fears around abuse and assault taken more seriously.

And encouraging society as a whole to do something.

Not just leaving it to police and courts

Although as we see so often, and particularly so in the Sarah Everard murder, that is in itself so often ineffective.

Action needs to be taken before these crimes happen, attitudes need to change..

How we talk about these issues, is part of that .

So how about actually listening, acknowledging that fact even.

Rather than just dismissing, it as unimportant.

When a woman on here objects to language used, around the rape and murder of a woman.

 

[newfhouse]

How would you characterise the many cases in which the victim says she submitted to the rape in order to avoid a violent assault as well?

She makes no allegation of violence in such a case, only that sex took place without her consent.

Put yourself in the place of a victim for a moment. If you submitted to being penetrated against your will out of fear of the same but with an added beating or worse, would you really still say that no violence had taken place? Surely the very act is a violation?

I have asked you the same question twice before and not had a reply, but here’s your chance on the new forum to put that right.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I agree, note the words 'threatened or actual'.
In the type of case I cite, there is a clear threat of violence, but no actual violence.
Not that the WHO use 'violence' in their definition, but I suppose 'physical force or power' sort of comes to the same thing.
Although if I gripped you in a bear hug, using physical force, to prevent you thumping someone, I doubt anyone would say I'd used violence to restrain you.

“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation."

The WHO definition of violence clearly includes the threat of physical force, not just its use.

Physical force is just one possible meaning of violence. I believe you like Wiki as a source and even they say there can be verbal violence and sexual violence, in addition to physical violence.

What does Grammarly.com say? Perhaps that has a definition you like.

We are going round in circles, a bit like your wilful obfuscation over insisting that 'ditched' means 'censored' despite all the facts showing otherwise, because it is clear you are not prepared to move beyond the narrow confines that suit your agenda, preferring to use weasel word arguments.

 

[newfhouse]

We are going round in circles, a bit like your wilful obfuscation over insisting that 'ditched' means 'censored' despite all the facts showing otherwise

At least there’s some wry amusement to be had watching those contortions. Rape, not so much.