Me on Channel Five News

In case you missed it: me on channel five news debating page three. Check out Neil Wallis's patronising back pat at the end of the clip!  Eww.  ***takes Brillo pad into shower***

I seem to be their guest of the moment lately, here's me from a few weeks back discussing the Delhi Rape case with the much more sensible Sunny Hundal:

Speaking out on Free Speech

It never fails to amaze me how often people try to silence me by talking about free speech.  If you believe in "free speech", then say "I disagree with you but I respect your right to hold and express that view". Doh.

Personally I am in favour of free speech as a general ideal.  I don't however think that it is something that should be defended to the exclusion of all other concerns.  If twenty children are standing around one smaller child shouting "ugly little shit", I do not care for their right to free speech - that is bullying and it needs to be stopped and measures taken to prevent it happening again.  If I see a pile of BNP leaflets in my local library I pick them up and throw them away.  Even if they say nothing even vaguely controversial.

It's not about something being offensive because that's a rather meaningless concept.  I can look at a picture of kittens playing with wool and say "I am offended". People around the world have regularly looked at pictures of their imaginary friend (who of course must never be depicted) and decided they are offended.  We can't waste our time sacrificing free speech because somebody is offended.

When people stand outside abortion clinics with images of aborted foetuses I call that bullying, not free speech.  If people want to put those images on websites or campaign leaflets then fair enough (though again if I find them in my library, as it happens, I chuck them out) but outside clinics is harassment. Which is really just a grown-up word for bullying.

I think there is also a temptation to confuse editing or promoting with attacking free speech.  When newspapers edit content, that's not attacking free speech.  Well not unless they edit it so that it changes the author's meaning, or misrepresents what they were trying to say.  They might accept one article and not another, and that is their right.  If that wasn't the case I'd exercise my right to free speech and have a lengthy column in every single newspaper in the UK every day. The one in the Daily Mail would just say "Richard Littlejohn is a total idiot" over and over again.  But they can publish what they like and when I disagree I can write angry letters and if they won't publish them I can put them on other websites or this blog, or Facebook, or whatever.  And if Facebook decides what I've written is not acceptable on their platform they can also remove it, cos it's their website.  Similarly I do not publish every comment made on this blog.  Only the ones that I think are of interest to my readers.  Unless you all want to buy viagra and hear about the ways in which I "deserve" to be violently gang-raped...?

And I am also entitled to a view on what criteria others should use to edit their content.  I'm entitled to say I think the Guardian should moderate comments on it's Comment is Free site more carefully, or that they should include more voices challenging prostitution and less presenting full legalisation as a solution to abuses. I'm entitled to think Nick Griffin shouldn't have been allowed on Question Time. It's about who is given a particular platform.  I think I should get to write for the Mail, but he shouldn't be on Question Time. Those are my opinions. Yours may be different. We can all say them, but not on BBC One unless specifically invited.

I'm also entitled to an opinion about how businesses run and how they are regulated.  If you want to have the world's weirdest sex and invite your friends and neighbours to come along and watch, I fully defend your right to do so (obviously assuming it's all very clearly and carefully consensual).  But I think lad mags should be sold on the top shelf at newsagents and pornography websites (which make large amounts of money from adverts on their sites or paid downloads and subscriptions) should be made to remove violent scenes and make the rest available only to over-18s who have opted in using a verified credit card or proof of ID. None of this is about free speech, it's about how businesses are regulated. I also think supermarkets shouldn't be allowed to sell battery-farmed eggs or products made from them. You might not agree with me - but it's not about free speech and it IS my right to express those views if I want to.

Now a website appeared a few days ago that I caught wind of called Rape Is No Joke. The website tag line says "Campaigning for comedy without misogyny" and they offer a pledge where comedians and comedy clubs can pledge not to tell "rape jokes" and not to put on comics who do.  Now I understood from this that they were asking people not to tell jokes which trivialised rape or blamed victims. I didn't take it as meaning the subject could never be raised onstage. I mean if someone wants to talk about having been raped - wow, give them a mic, what a brave thing to do. And if someone (like me, I do this) wants to make jokes about the poor police response or about the awful things that the likes of George Galloway and Brendan O'Neill have said, again, that's great. I assumed the website was not saying the word could never be uttered or subject could never be raised. I assumed that "rape joke" (especially since they were talking about ending misogyny in comedy) meant the bad sort. So I signed the pledge and posted the link up so others who wanted to could do so.

Suddenly I'm the wicked witch of the west (again!). Apparently firstly I am told I wrote the site. I did not, I don't know who did, but I like them. Apparently (actual quotes):

"Comedy is the last bastion of free speech" - ha ha ha, if that's true we are fucked. Every comedy club in the world has a booking policy, some nuanced and helpful, others arbitrary and stupid. In my opinion. Comedians who do racist material are not as popular as they used to be, most clubs won't book them. Rightly so.

"Implication is that if you don't sign pledge you're seen as not willing to act 'responsibly'" - yeah and if you refuse to say you're not a racist, we might all think you're a racist. But no-one is stopping you from writing your own statement of what you consider responsible and what you will and won't include in your set.

"If we start that where do we end it?" - in a world without rape culture, yeah!

"I would of though of all people to attempt to censor be Kate its very very hypocritical" - I'm not censoring anyone, I'm putting people in touch with a golden glorious opportunity to express their views on rape and rape culture and to choose to express their own commitment to ending it.  You are welcome.

"Rape affects men too you know" - well if it affects men too isn't that DOUBLE the reason not to trivialise it and belittle the victims? And may I be the first to add: Waaaaa what about da menz...

"As someone who works in the criminal justice system, I can assure you that EVERYONE takes rape allegations seriously." - interesting that we've still got a 6% conviction rate then. Also I personally know a number of women who've been to the police to report rape and been ignored and belittled and disbelieved and treated like crap. In fact I don't know any women who've had good treatment after reporting rape.  Not admitting that's a problem would seem to make you a part of the problem. Plus rape culture affects women's decisions as to whether or not to report.  If comedians are making jokes suggesting women are at fault if they are raped, that might mean women don't go to the police.

"This comes across like an attempt at using emotional blackmail to advance your own particular agenda." - yeah that's what I was planning when I POSTED A LINK ON FACEBOOK.  Definitely.

(this is my favourite) "All sounds ominously like loyalty oaths and anti-commie affirmations in 1950s USA" - yes, circulating a link to a website about rape jokes is definitely just like trying to persecute communist 'sympathisers'. No, I mean it, you're definitely right there. Thank goodness you pointed it out, there I was being all McCarthy-ish, suggesting people might want to sign a pledge about violent crime and sexism in stand-up comedy.  One day someone will write something like The Crucible about me. Really. I can hardly wait.

This has nothing to do with free speech.  Clubs have freedom to put the acts they want onstage (again otherwise I'd play a lot more clubs that I do). Acts have the freedom to do whatever jokes they want. If you or your club wants to make a choice not to include "rape jokes" then go for it. If you'd be willing to sign it if the wording was slightly clarified, why not drop the website a line and say so? Or start your own website. Be a part of the solution. And if you don't want to sign it at all, don't sign it.  But don't come telling me that my circulating the link has infringed your right to free speech because I will be exercising my freedom to not listen to you or your probably not very good comedy routine.

Still not sure if the criminal justice system is institutionally racist and sexist?

This is one of the most heart-breaking things I've read in a long time. Makes me feel very petty for worrying about silly stuff like reviews.

Rod Liddle and rape

Had a chat with one Rod Liddle this morning on BBC Ulster about rape and (joy of joy) it IS available on listen again here. Starting 1h 16m in.

Problems in the Drunk Tank

This BBC report is about a centre in London that deals with people who've drunk too much in an attempt to ease the burden on hospitals. It's not entirely clear whether the point is that since symptoms are similar there's an efficiency improvement or whether it's just accepted these days that if you somehow "brought your illness on yourself"* you deserve substandard treatment. Looking at the "beds" - thin mattresses on the floor in mixed sex overcrowded rooms, I'd guess the latter.

In the video a male medic says that the women are "leaving themselves vulnerable to sexual or physical attack" and that such attacks "needn't have happened". He fails to use the phrase "men should stop attacking women who are drunk" or the phrase "we take all reports of sexual assault seriously regardless of how much the woman has drunk". Then a female medic says "they say 'I've been spiked' and I say - no, it's the alcohol". Surely what she should say is "we'll perform a full set of tests and store the results in case they're needed in a criminal prosecution"?

This is on Newsbeat by the way - aimed at young people. Hey kids! If you drink too much alcohol and get raped, it's your fault and if you don't drink too much (or even any) alcohol and get spiked and raped, we'll assume you drank too much alcohol and blame you anyway.

Talk about irresponsible journalism. Oh and irresponsible behaviour on the part of medical professionals too... Ugh.

*Footnote: not withstanding that alcohol addiction is an illness so it's not actually reasonable to blame people for suffering from it.

Sleep Crime Rules

Sad that this needs addressing, but it evidently does. If you commit a serious, violent crime but are found innocent because you "did it in your sleep" you are a risk to the public. Until you can demonstrate that medical science can cure you of your sleep criminality you need to remain under medical or police or prison care at all times, especially if you appear to be nodding off.

For some reason it is always men who commit these dream-attacks against women isn't it? The most recent is the murder of Christine Thomas. But we have had similar issues before with sleep-rape (of course check with Whoopi Goldberg, this is different from rape-rape...). James Bilton was cleared of three counts of sleep-rape while his reassuring medical team opined that only 1-2.5% of the population suffered from this condition. So we can all sleep easily knowing that only 1 in 40 guys are liable to rape you in the night and get off scott free. Shame he never bothered to sleep-check-for-consent first.

Well just so you know, I'm developing a dreadful condition where I sleep-take-revenge-for-crimes-committed-by-the-criminally-asleep. If you find me stood over you with a hand gun, I am probably having one of those buying-a-gun-on-the-street-and-shooting-you-in-the-head-dreams. Gosh will I be embarrassed when I wake up...

Outside the Man Box

This is ace, you should watch it.

Sun, Sea and Sex Crimes

Well I was away over the weekend doing a couple of gigs in Tenerife (yeah I know, tough life, but ex-pats deserve to be entertained too!). The highlight for me was the opportunity to bag a boat-trip from Puerta Colon and go out and watch pilot whales basking in the sun just a few metres away from me. The lowlight was at the show on Sunday night...

The compere's onstage, doing well, asks a guy at the front what he does for a living. He says "rapist". Now honestly I'm not that phased by this. People get nervous when a comedian speaks to them from the stage and it's not uncommon for them to wrongly think that saying something outrageous or unbelievable might be the best way to avoid embarrassment. [Hint: in general it's not - you're much better off to just tell the truth. Or if you really don't want to get picked on - say you work for a children's hospital charity, most comics don't want to make jokes about terminally ill children.] Anyway I figure he is trying (and failing) to impress his mates although I notice when the compere repeats it, he does a "power salute" to another guy in the room who returns it - I assume this is his "mate" who thinks his answer is "hilarious". The compere makes a joke along the lines of - that's not a job, you can't do that for a living... The show continues and I'm the first act on.

I tell this guy it is really weird that he seemed "proud" about the rapist remark. I say most guys would want to play that down. I say in fact even most rapists wouldn't really want to draw attention to it. And I make a joke suggesting the women at his table might want to move elsewhere. Then I figure he's been made an example of enough for saying something stupid and inappropriate in a bit of a panic. I get on with my set. Later he reveals he's Scottish and I refer to him as the McRapist. I finish my set, get a beer and go to sit at the back of the show and watch the next act. During the second act the guy comes up to me at the back of the room and grabs my hand to shake it. I'm expecting him to apologise or (people do this a lot) say "Ah, you got me, you did well" (to which "no, I got you, and it was incredibly easy, if I'd done well you'd be crying..."). Instead while still holding my hand firmly he looks me right in the eye and says "It's all true - I was convicted and all".

He is definitely not joking.

And he walks off.

And I can't really scream because it's the middle of the show and another act is performing and that would be incredibly unprofessional of me (though in retrospect I think unprofessionalism might have been more than justified at that point).

I find myself sitting there looking at my hand where he's just been touching me. I go in the kitchen and wash it several times. Eeeeew.

Now I understand the policy of once people have been convicted and (one hopes) served their time, needing to rehabilitate them into society. And given how low the conviction rate for rape is there's no doubt I've shaken hands with unconvicted rapists many times. But what the hell is going on when this guy is overtly publicly proud of having committed rape? Ick ick ick.

Chilling News

When John Worboys was arrested for raping a passenger in his black cab his name was printed in the papers and dozens of other victims came forward. Without them a conviction might never have been secured, and women who had been drugged by Worboys and awoken confused and worried might never have found out the truth about what had happened to them. The full Lib-Con (Con-Dem, etc) coalition document has in it a promise to provide anonymity for defendants in rape cases.

The evidence suggests that false rape claims represent around 2-8% of cases (much lower than the false claim level for crimes relating to car insurance claims). And the notion that guys who are not convicted of rape are stigmatised is simply not true (consider the dozens of acquitted footballers still pursuing grossly overpaid professional careers) and when they are it's usually because the evidence against them was so overwhelming (like the "I might have raped her in my sleep" guy).

The law giving rape victims anonymity is there to encourage women to come forward despite the stigma felt by rape victims in many cases. This change will cut the rape conviction rate to even lower than it's current appalling level and leave women at even greater risk.

Thank You Shakesville

Melissa says it so well...

Reading List For Today

I don't really have a unified theory of what's wrong with masculinity today. I will say that the answer seems to me to be clearly something - last week I saw a stag do in King's Cross in the matching T-shirts with nicknames on the back and those nicknames included "Kiddiefiddler Ken" and "Rohypnol Rob". However I do worry we have reached some sort of turning point when the supposedly science and nature channel Discovery is showing men cutting down old growth forrest while suspended from a helicopter. Witness: Extreme Loggers. Presumably they have to keep it away from the climate change documentaries in the schedules...

There was a very very moving show on the BBC today (yes, one I wasn't in ... I know!). Women, Weddings, War and Me follows a young woman who arrived in the UK at the age of five returning to Afghanistan to see how her extended family and other Afghanis are now living. It's available on iPlayer for seven days.

The BBC One show Can You Train Your Brain? before it comes, for me, under the heading of I Can't Believe It's Not Science. The news that expensive "train your brain" computer packages don't work is hardly news. If there were any evidence to support them the manufacturers would probably by now have convinced the government to hand them out in schools with lunch vouchers. The problem for me though came when it was announced that [insert name of generic messy haired white male presenter here] was to attempt to drive a London Taxi using "only the power of his brain". Now this I would watch, in fact I would happily devote years of my life to studying the art of moving vehicles using psychic power only so that watching Top Gear would become a weekly pleasure. [Me drifts off into blissful dream of Clarkson frantically running round the test track pursued by an array of vehicles...]. But of course in fact the vehicle was moved not using "only" the power of his brain but also the power of petrol and a complicated mechanical and electronic system that caused the vehicle to react to changes in brain activity.

On to more serious matters. For the benefit of anyone who follows the hardline anti-choice position on abortion - take a moment to read about the Mexican ten-year-old who is being forced to carry to term and give birth to the foetus created when she was raped. And Mexico isn't actually one of the countries where abortion is totally outlawed. It's just illegal in some regions and after 14 weeks.

Vile, Vile, Vile: Compare and Contrast

BBC Online coverage of the jailing of Gail Sherwood on charges of making false rape allegations.

The full story from Women Against Rape.

One Line

Sometimes the headline is enough: Rape victim given 101 lashes for becoming pregnant.

Festive Victim Blaming

'Tis the season to be ... raped apparently. The police have really outdone themselves this time with a series of adverts in which they effectively tell women (and potential rapists) that it is women who are to blame for being raped if they dare to have a few drinks at the Christmas party. The police of course claim they are alerting both men and women to the fact "a large proportion of reported rape cases feature alcohol as a factor - whether it is consumed by the victim or the offender" but that in itself completely misses the point - it implies there is no distinction to be made in terms of blame between the "victim" and the "offender".

Here are other things that increase a woman's likelihood of being raped:

1) Leaving her specially installed "safe room".

2) Having a vagina.

3) Saying "no".

Where is the police's advertising campaign to get women to stop doing these things?

On top of this the police claim their campaign aims to encourage rape victims to come forward. But with a 5.3% conviction rate and horror stories everywhere you turn, you have to think that what's stopping women coming forward it the fact that they have a genuine understanding of the treatment they really are likely to receive. No mention is made of the women being prosecuted for daring to accuse someone of rape without first collecting irrefutable evidence.

No doubt the police would point to the fact that a second part of the same campaign focusses on telling men that they could end up in prison if they rape someone. But that should really be the only point of the police advertising and of course where the story has been picked up in the press the headlines are all based on "warning" women not to drink too much. Sky News went with "Women Urged Not To Be Rapists' Prey This Xmas", the Metro preferred "Rape warning over festive drinks" with a subtitle that made it clear it was women on the receiving end of the warning.

And how are we supposed to believe that the attitude of the police towards rape victims is improving when even their advertising says the exact opposite?

Proper Nightmares

I am not an expert on sleep disorders. I have no idea what sort of strange mental disorder - if any - would cause a man to dream there was an intruder in the house and sleep-walk his way to murdering his own wife. What I do know is this: if you can convince a court that you have such a mental disorder and as a result are cleared of murder then since I am not aware of any wonder-drugs that instantly cure sleep-uxoricidality I can only conclude that you should remain in a secure mental health facility for the rest of your life for the safety of others.

Seems like sentencing those who commit violence against women is having a bad week in general. In Scotland a man was given 18 months probabtion for "having sex with" a 13-year-old (and when the BBC says "having sex" you will realise that what they mean is "raping" since 13-year-olds are not considered old enough to give meaningful consent under British law). Still no doubt being on probation for a few months will make him think twice about doing it again..?

By way of comparison if you accuse someone of rape but then turn out to be an "escort" (and check the double-speak here because aren't escorts supposed to be "high-class" prostitutes who are at liberty to pick and choose which of their clients they have sex with?) and therefore are presumed to have consented to any and all sex ... you get two years in prison.

My advice if you're planning on getting sexually assaulted this weekend (because of course it is women asking for it - not men perpetrating it, remember!) try to get your case heard in front of (a) Judge Paul Downes or (b) whoever sits at Preston Crown Court who seem to have a better grasp of how to deal with rapists.

Asshole of the Week: Nick Ferrari

Did one of the most infuriating radio spots of my life this morning. LBC rang me up and asked if I would go on Nick Ferrari's breakfast show and talk about the group of female MPs who are complaining that the new expenses regime will mean they have to sometimes take late night trains home and that this could put them at risk of sexual assault.

Now I agree, travelling late at night alone is dangerous. I have to do it all the time so I should know how frightening and intimidating it can be, and of course we all know the statistics on how rape is dealt with by the police which are even more frightening. But at the same time I don't think the solution to that problem is to give MPs more expenses money - the solution needs to protect not just MPs but all women in the UK and involve a major overhaul of the law and policing policy.

Now first of all I've had problems with LBC before - a very misogynist station in general, they often have "debates" along the lines of "should women be allowed to do XYZ?" or "have women's rights gone too far?" which I just conceptually don't understand. Plus one time before I was on there and the presenter (one N. Ferrari) started screaming at me towards the end of the interview and kept changing the subject, so we went from "Should the current maternity pay scheme be extended?" to "Why should women get maternity pay at all?" to "Why should single Mums get benefits, why do we let them sponge of the state?" in less than a minute without my getting a real chance to answer any of those stupid questions.

But this morning really took the biscuit. Before I got to say a word he did a huge intorduction in which he criticised these MPs in the harshest possible terms for even raising the issue. He said things like "Women say they want equality but as soon as the going gets tough..." and "I'm not going to hold back, I'm going to name and shame the women who are doing this right now, right here on air..." and finished up with a tirade about how if they have this kind of attitude the country is better off without them.

I started to explain why I think that we do need real answers to the issues of rape and sexual violence against women but that the connection to MPs expenses was something of a red herring. Clearly unhappy he interrupts to say that I might not think so but other feminists support these MPs... Effectively by this stage he's arguing with himself and screaming at me that this shows that women in general are - well - generally wrong about everything (I'm paraphrasing here). I actually had to threaten to hang up just to get him to listen to me for a few seconds.

So I said "hold on this is only four MPs...". Now bearing in mind I only found out about the interview ten minutes before I was live on air, it came as little supririse to me to be informed that in fact it's five MPs in the group who have made this statement. I am happy to be corrected. Instead I get screamed at "GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT", "IF YOU'RE GOING TO COME ON HERE..."

And the stupid thing is this guy is the presenter! If it was me and some uber-right wing nutter with a presenter refereeing things to make sure we all got our say it would be a bit much but I would probably put up with it. What is the point of having a guest on so you can ignore what they say and harangue them about what you assume other people, not on your show, think? Seriously the whole interview was like "here's a feminist - I'm going to shout at her".

LBC call themselves "London's Biggest Conversation" but a conversation is where two of more people exchange opinions. When one person expressly invites another person to "discuss" something and then fabricates their opinion and screams over every word they say I think we're out of the realm of "conversation" and closer to the realm of "psychopath".

I may stop doing LBC interviews, they are fairly poorly paid and one of the researchers told me one time - you're the only feminist who ever agrees to go on air with us... so maybe it will leave them in the lurch.

Roman Roads

Horrifying to read the newspaper coverage of the arrest of Roman Polanski. Now if people want to claim he was innocent, they are welcome to do so. Instead several papers have pieces claiming that while he was guilty he should not be brought to justice because (1) he makes great films, (2) he has experienced other suffering in his life or (3) because he has paid for his crimes by living overseas for many years to avoid prison.

If any of these are to hold any weight someone needs to clarify exactly what the exchange rate is:

(1) Can I punch someone of my choosing without punishment given that my Edinburgh show got a five-star review?

(2) Can I punch someone of my choosing without punishment given that I had an eating disorder in my teens?

(3) Can I punch someone of my choosing without punishment as long as I take two weeks holiday in the south of France straight afterwards?

Worse still some people are claiming that he shouldn't be brought to justice because the crime was somehow "not that bad". Points raised include (1) the fact that the victim has said she doesn't want to go to court, (2) the allegation that she was "sexually experienced" and (3) the implication that the rape committed was only "statutory rape", i.e. that she consented to sex and that therefore the rape was only a rape on "technical grounds" because of the age of consent. Well:

(1) The victim gave statements immediately after the event and Polanski pleaded guilty so it would be easy for the judge to rule that she needn't go to court, there is no reason they couldn't sentence him in her absence. The point of the law is not to make victims feel better, although it may be hoped that in some cases it does. The point of the law is to punish those who commit crimes.

(2) Are we really still in the 21st century believeing that a woman who has previously had sex cannot be raped? Of course not. And since she was 13 at the time she hadn't previously had sex - she'd previously been raped.

(3) Firstly this is not someone a few weeks away from being legally old enough to consent. She was thirteen. The law has an age of consent for a reason. If people feel the law is wrong they should campaign to change the law, not ignore it. But secondly, and most importantly of all I think. This was much more than statutory rape.

There is a good piece in the Independent by (dare I say it) Dominic Lawson pointing out that he drugged her with the drug quaalude mixed into champagne and also that the claims of consent from the victim are very flimsy...

Here's the transcript of victim's original statement (warning: not for the sensitive reader):

"Q. What did you do when he said, 'Let's go into the other room'?
A. I was going 'No, I think I better go home', because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. Him.... He sat down beside me and asked if I was OK. I said 'No'.
Q. What did he say?
A. He goes 'Well, you'll be better'. And I go, 'No I won't. I have to go home. He said 'I'll take you home soon'.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then he went down and he started performing cuddliness... I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination... I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go."
Q. Did he ask you about being on the pill?
A. He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?' and I went, 'No' and he goes 'When did you have your period?' and I said, 'I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure'... He goes, 'Come on. You have to remember'. And I told him I didn't.... and right after I said I was not on the pill... and he goes... and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.
Q. Did you resist at that time?
A. A little bit, but not really, because...
Q. Because what?
A. Because I was afraid of him."

That is not consent.

Chilling Read

Computer problems here which mean myself and Mr Cru are currently sharing a computer - hence why I've hardly blogged for ages. Anyway to keep you radicalised until it gets sorted out try this piece from The Curvature for size...

Rape and the Police

This story from yesterday's London Paper is shocking and horrifying. One element of it that I am still spitting about is the time line. Police were "today" (i.e. yesterday) hunting for a rapist who attacked a woman on 3rd July last year.

This guy hid in a roof above a toilet and leaped down to rape a teenage. He doesn't sound to me like the kind of guy who should be left to roam the streets for a year before being apprehended. How many other women have been attacked while the police did nothing? And how hard would it have been for the rapist to leave the country in the space of a year thus ensuring he never faces charges for his crimes.

Only a few months ago we were horrified to discover John Worboys had been left by police to roam the streets searching for new victims while outstanding cases against him were left to fester. When are police going to start taking rape seriously?

But of course The London Paper doesn't bother asking questions to chase up that angle (like when was the crime reported and why has it taken so long to chase up on it?), instead it focuses on the fact that Bono and Prince Harry sometimes went to the nightclub in question. Well whoopee - I wonder what they usually have to drink and what they think of the music... oh hold on didn't someone mention rape a minute ago? So question two: When is The London Paper - and other media - going to take rape seriously?

Boris's Big Plans

Re-posted from The F-Word, where I am currently resident guest blogger!

Well I figured it was about time I went online and filled in the survey on the Mayor of London's "consultation" on his violence against women strategy. I was just trundling through, ticking boxes and adding comments when I realised I was experiencing a growing sense of unease over the whole thing.

I mean for instance I'm ticking a box to say that I agree that a priority should be to:

"4. Respond to the needs of at risk and marginalised women."

or

"3.Respond to the needs of children and young people experiencing violence."

or

"2. Clamping down on traffickers"

They are seriously asking me whether or not these issues should be a priority. Did anyone log on and tick "no - don't bother to help children", "no - leave the traffickers alone"?

And here's the thing - no-one would ever EVER do a survey asking Londoners what types of terrorism the Metropolitan police should be focusing on. Tick this box if you think we should try to prevent bombs on the tube, and this box if you're opposed to terrorists spreading anthrax. The strategy has always quite rightly been to do everything possible to prevent all types of terrorism.

Domestic violence kills two women in the UK every week. Rape is so poorly dealt with by police and in courts that it might as well be legal most of the time. What Boris Johnson's violence against women strategy should do is every single thing in its power to end violence against women. Obviously and immediately. A three month long "consultation" consisting of an online survey to find out whether or not Londoners think "at risk and marginalised women" should be protected is a waste of time and an insult to both the intelligence of people of London and more importantly the women suffering rape, violence, intimidation and harassment.