08 September 2010

08/09/10


Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!


- Sir Walter Scott

97 comments:

  1. Thought I'd chuck a blank post up while I think of an image and quotation!

    Montana, hope you are not ill again?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Riches is nothing in the face of the Lord, for He can see into the heart."

    Only because I was reading it last night.

    Morning thaum.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Morning all!

    Swifty - ah well, already found something.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Morning all !
    I did manage to refrain from wasting energy on that goddawful superficial juvenile neolib-propagandising francophobic editorial on frog pension reform. So off down the Marché aux Veaux (calf market) to get some veg plants and maybe some fish. XX

    ReplyDelete
  5. morning all!

    spiders are so clever.

    check out this example of coffee not being good for your work rate...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Leni

    Excellent and moving post on Merthyr yesterday

    t is easy to demonise the people from these towns - and many do - but they are abandoned populations. More than jobs go when local industries are closed as 'no longer economically relevant ' - this label is also applied to the people. Simply - they become Not Wanted.

    Makes me angry.

    makes me angry, why is it so many people cannot see that the people in these places are truly not the authors of their fate?

    Saw the pit village my father was born in a few years ago, the pit was long gone, the place nearly a ghost town.

    I wept...

    The people who lived in these towns mined the fuel that powered an Empire. No longer needed they are thrown away like waste.

    This is a crime against humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Morning Philippa

    It's a pity those spiders weren't put on various combinations.I reckon one on hashish laced with caffeine would have produced a work of art.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Philippa's link is not work-safe!

    Luckily I'm working from home today. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. really? sorry...

    was looking for photos that were in the G, many years ago, which were even funnier. the hash one had managed three or four spokes, a couple of joins, and had then just given up...

    ReplyDelete
  10. cannabis.net is not really something you want them to know you've been looking at.... ;-)

    Nice one, though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Philippa/Thauma,

    I have a friend whose boss was involved in some of the spider drug research (although the pics of his spiders on caffeine aren't as dramatic) I'll see if she knows a work safe link....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dot, somehow I think you have a far less boring job than most of us!

    ReplyDelete
  13. thauma,

    quite possibly, although it has its downsides

    (I followed the link from work and I'm not worried: if they actually check up on it I can explain my interest easily from the spider angle ;-))

    ReplyDelete
  14. Philippa

    If anyone asks just say you're doing research for the RSPCS.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Spiderman, Spiderman
    Off his tits
    On Ritalin

    ReplyDelete
  16. Heard back from my friend, she's going to do some digging on the truth behind the spider research. Is anyone interested in me putting up links etc. on UT2 when I get them?

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Dott:

    Like, whatever, ma-a-a-a-n.

    Signed, A Rachnid

    ReplyDelete
  18. @BW

    I always liked the idea of a Jewish superhero called Spiederman.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bootstraps the Barrister: Coo-ee everybodders. Just back from vac in 'La Belle France'. *sighs* LOL. Here's a phot of my fave resto.
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    Scherpiggsie: Your ….what?
    BB: Oh, erm just a worker's cooperative canteen we visited on our fact-finding mission.
    Scherpiggsie: What's that star next to the name then?
    BB: Oh just some kind of Socialist insignia I should imagine...
    Scherpiggsie: Socialist; canteen; fact finding: you've been on holiday, haven't you, you fraud?
    BB: No really Scherpiggsie, marches, readings...
    Scherpiggsie: Do you want me to call in Hank?
    BB: Alright I've been on holiday! And why bloody shouldn't I? I worked hard to get where I am. I spend most of my time helping poor people and when I'm not doing that, I'm fighting the Fash on Comment is Free. Why shouldn't I have the odd fucking holiday you self-righteous twat? Fuck off!!!
    Scherpiggsie: Remember kids: posh fuckers are everywhere. Keep'em peeled.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Spike:

    Or a superhero from desperate shithole Stoke-on-Trent called Spoderman.

    Damn, this is good stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Spike

    I think Spiederstein sounds better.

    ReplyDelete
  22. We're all about the Ss today!

    Stoned spiders, superheroes, and slightly suspect satire.....

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Dott:

    ”…slightly suspect satire…”

    It doesn’t quite skewer the targets, does it? Decent enough stab, I guess, but possibly a little more thought given to verbal ticks and mannerisms would have yielded a slightly wittier result. Scherf’s a very good online mimic as it happens, he might have some pointers for our newly-arrived young Jedi (if he’s around).

    Clearly the Force is strong in you, young Luke, but you must learn how to channel it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Scherf’s a very good online mimic as it happens,

    Is he? All i,ve ever seen him do is criticize everyone here for not being up to scratch,say he's never gonna post here again and then reappear a month later and repeat the process.But hey if that's your idea of online mimicry then fair enough i suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Paul:

    "...But hey if that's your idea of online mimicry then fair enough i suppose..."

    No, trust me on this one, he is.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Spike + Bitters

    I think most of the creators of Super Heroes were Jewish.

    First hero must surely be Super Moses ?

    ReplyDelete
  27. @BW:

    Rex the Wonder God, I reckon.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Onan The Barbarian – what a wanker he was.

    OK, I'll stop.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anne

    Ref your father's village.

    Many people do not understand that many of the mining villages were self contained and self supporting communities. Infrastructure was designed around the movement of coal rather than people. When the mines closed everything else went too. Local shops, cafes . Self employed men dependent on the mines and the income from them lost customers etc. The railways arelong gone.

    Villages were left isolated and abandoned . Many families moved out - threatening viability of schools and other services.

    This 'new approach ' to disability - the psychosocial causes - has some truth in it but is being deliberately peddled in a twisted way to apportion blame - without ever explaining the actual mechanisms.

    When Maggie arranged to put unemployed men on Incap she created an intolerable tension in thousands of proud men.

    Men who prided themselves on the strength and physical endurance were forced - for a few pounds more - to be 'sick'.

    These men had a long tradition of supporting their families and of community cohesion and support - this was taken away. To maintain his family a man had to have a disability - physical or mental. This was completely at odds with his self image and with everything he believed in.

    Women took part time jobs - men became 'househusbands'

    One story will suffice I think - out of thousands possible.

    When we first came here - post mine closure - I was speaking to a neighbour- sunning himself outside his house.

    A great strapping man in his thirties. As we talked he was almost crying - me too. Said he had cleaned the house, and the windows at the back ready for his wife and children coming home. Said he couldn't clean the front windows in case he was seen by a 'snooper '. He was on benefits and had to pretend to be disabled. In truth this man was destroyed and depressed.

    He had to play the game as there were no other jobs. Living in rented property makes moving more difficult.

    We all know what happened to the then teenaged generation - raised in the belief that they would follow fathers and g-fathers into the mine. Poorly educated (instrumentalised) - facing a black, bleak and empty future.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Onan the Barbarian hee hee heeeeee

    ReplyDelete
  31. Leni, that was very eloquent and moving.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thauma

    The thing that really struck home to me was the man's need to explain his 'idleness' to me - a newcomer. He was trying to put things straight - to explain, pleading for understanding and trying to find an explanation for himself as well .

    ReplyDelete
  33. It's horrible, Leni. And hard to know how to fix it.

    If the government did start pushing home working for those whose jobs can accommodate it, then surely many people would choose to move away from cities and - who knows? - perhaps some of these towns could be somewhat revitalised.

    Obviously not a silver bullet, but every little helps.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Leni:

    ”…Said he couldn't clean the front windows in case he was seen by a 'snooper'. He was on benefits and had to pretend to be disabled…”

    Risky strategy that, grassing himself up to an incomer. I imagine you advised him to keep schtumm about it from then on, I would have.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi Leni

    The Sky News prog on Merthyr was hugely disappointing.It clearly had an agenda part of which was that the people of Merthyr need to do more to help themselves.For example why aren't they taking the jobs available and/or why aren't they either relocating or communting to Cardiff where there are supposed to be more job opportunities.(shades of Tebbits 'Get on yer bike' speech in the 80,s).No recognition of the fact that the people of Merthyr had become so physically and mentally broken down as a result of 30 years of political failure that many people are now incapable of working, certainly in the short term,even if jobs were offerred to them on a plate.

    Was very sad listening to some older people talking about how Merthyr was in the 60,s/70,s when it was a clealry a settled and reasonably prosperous working class town.However there was mention that in the 30,s when male unemployment was 70% there were plans to demolish Merthyr and resettle the people elsewhere.But the town was saved by the increase in demand for steel in WW2 plus the post war boom which was underpinned by Keynesian economic policies and the welfare state.

    The MP for Merthyr stated that the cost of rebuilding a community like Merthyr would probably be the same as the cost to Merthr of leaving it to the mercy of the ConDems.Crime,social deprivation,poor physical and mental health,alcohol and drug abuse etc all cost in the long term.But then we knew that anyway.

    Personally i think if ATOS and A4E go mob handed into Merthyr it could lead to their offices being burned down and their staff attacked.I really do believe ATOS and A4E as well as the JobCentres are going to provide some real flashpoints all over the country.In the 30,s there were riots at many of what were called the Labour Exchanges so it wouldn't be without precedent.

    Have never watched a Sky News prog before and if last nights viewing is typical i doubt i will again.The reporter so clearly had an agenda which was hellbent on at least partly blaming the people of Merthyr for their own misfortune.And by the end of the prog i wanted to give the self satisfied smug git a good slap.

    Anyways i hope you're having a good day and may 'see' you later. x

    ReplyDelete
  36. Leni, your story shows exactly why we have to change the way society is organised, it has to be organised around the needs of all people not just the needs of the rich and their destructive economic system.

    When Tower colliery closed they did at least try to provide local jobs on colliery land. When the pits were closed in the 80's the workers were thrown on the stones. Shows how even without changing the system enterprises owned by the workers at least try to serve the needs of the community. Imagine what could be achieved if everything was organised on the basis of common ownership.

    But this can only be achieved by convincing enough people it can be done. There are no short cuts. It takes hard work, talking to people followed by creating leaflets, organising public meetings and above all joining a political party that despite the recent exploits of Nulabour has a tradition for supporting the working class. In a recent Labour party meeting in this area people were asked why they joined the party. To the amazement of some of the Blairites in the party four people stated that had been supporters of Militant and felt the need to support a working class party.

    We need a party that comes from and supports the aspirations of working people. We do not need another left wing sect that simply congratulates itself on being 'prolier' than the others. Socialists need to be where the working class are still to be found in the Labour party and among the Labour voters who are beginning to demand that the party listens to them and not to those who represent the interests of finance capital.

    Only by swelling the ranks of the party and pushing it to the left will not happen overnight. We must not be too easily discouraged by those potential lefts who are still fearful and still believe that left wing policies wont win elections. In fact left wing policies are precisely what people wanted in 1997.

    Increasing numbers of people still want them - thousands have joined/rejoined the party in Wales, even the Blairites who are standing for the leadership are once again using the 'S' word.

    But whoever wins this election will not last long, with enough people pushing from below these people can be swept away.

    But its one step at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hello everyone... just a quick swing-by to say 'hello'. I'll be intermittent as I've been busy preparing for singing at my cousin's wedding and going away next week for 10 days! (can't bloody wait!!) I'll try and catch up, but have about 3 million things to do and I'm shattered and can't really be bothered with it all.... hmpfff ;0)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi LaRit - hope you enjoy your trip! Sounds like you could use one.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thanks Thauma! Yes.... apart from a long weekend away, it'll be the first 'holiday' in 5 YEARS!!!! It's crazy....

    ReplyDelete
  40. enjoy, LaRit! enjoy lots of lounging around.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Paul

    The following from Welsh Assembly info - aimed at attracting investment.
    ----------

    Average wages in Merthyr Tydfil are relatively low at around 95 per cent of the average for Wales as a whole, making the region an attractive one to employers in labour-intensive industries.

    -----------

    This 'low wage economy' sell to business has been part of gvt, strategy here for years. Before the WA we had the WDA using the same strategies.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The mister is just reading his first Bidisha article.

    His comment: My god, what a twat!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Leni

    Of course you had the misfortune of having Tory Tosspot John Redwood as your Welsh Secretary of State at the one time didn't you.He who didn't bother to learn the words of theWelsh Anthem :-)

    ReplyDelete
  44. Good post from mikebach on waddya - needing support.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Leni - very moving post.

    This is very relevant: ''Many people do not understand that many of the mining villages were self contained and self supporting communities. Infrastructure was designed around the movement of coal rather than people. When the mines closed everything else went too. Local shops, cafes . Self employed men dependent on the mines and the income from them lost customers etc. The railways arelong gone.''

    I went on hols to Staithes recently and we went up the A628 - which is a new bypass from Sheffield to Pontefract - it passes by the outskirts of lots of mining towns like Grimthorpe etc. There is nothing on these roads except for empty office buildings. Obviously built for the hoped for call center jobs that have now moved abroad too. It is desolate. I cannot understand how people cannot have more of an understanding of what it must be like to have had your whole community hollowed out and destroyed!

    On another note our dog has had his op. He looks terrible - has a huge scar from his chin to top of his chest. The vet who did the surgery says he thinks it is cancer but he cant be sure so we are now on edge until the results from the pathologist in five days. The tumor was widespread and had wrapped around his arterys etc however this does not necessarily mean it is really bad. It could be a sort of tumor that does re-occur but only in the same place and doesn't spread to the lungs etc, in which case we will just need to be observant in case it comes back.

    If it is a more sinister one - e.g. a thyroid tumor - then the scenario won't be as good and it often spreads to other areas. So until we know more we don't really know what we are dealing with.

    Anyway off for tonight. Nite all.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Thanks, Thauma, for putting up a thread. Technical difficulties -- for some inexplicable reason, every once in awhile, my computer/internet will just get slower than a loris on Quaaludes. Frustration and the need to get to bed caused me to give up.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Fingers crossed for the path result, Princess. Give the poor lad an extra treat from me.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Montana - glad to hear it's only tech problems!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Fingers crossed for some good news PCC.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Princesss:

    All the best thoughts for Jake from Joe, Cinnamon & Me.

    @Sheff:

    Thanks for the link to the Michael Moore. Fuck Rahm Emmanuel. Fuck him, fuck him, fuck him.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Paul, Leni, thanks for those posts.

    An old mate of mine, used to work in the mines, came from Merthyr. When I met him in 90 he had just finished a three year stretch for something stupid that he more or less got stitched up over, a very stupid thing he'd done for money after the pits had closed. He came to work with us in the Midlands, and sent as much back as he could without going nuts to his ex (young kid - his ex never wanted him back after jail, natch).

    He sometimes lived in squallor, but he was modest and good natured and one of the most loyal blokes I ever met and worked his ass off, he could also fight like fuck if you overstepped the line.

    What he told me about Merthyr corresponds. We have a "New Wave" of punishing the poor - who live in those trapped, airless communities all over Britain - that's getting tacit support and indeed applause from the elites currently... it's the same mind set that wants to fuck the Romany, it really is.

    It's on the rise. And still we hate the Unions and the left in this country ?

    ReplyDelete
  52. MW - very glad to see you alive and kicking...

    Sheff, read anything decent lately? What was your opinion of Incendiary?

    Thauma - should be some sort of test...except it would be quite hard to determine basic from intermediary... (discuss)

    ReplyDelete
  53. It's on the rise. And still we hate the Unions and the left in this country ?

    Dare I say it BW...?

    The 'left' dosn't really exist anymore, and the Unions have something between none and absolutely no power. Frankly, the sooner people realise that, the better, i.e., more constructive it will be.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Bitterweed,

    If anyone wants to know what happens when the free market is unleashed on communities, while any safety net is removed, one only has to look at the rust belt in the US.

    A couple of years ago I spent a bit of time in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan on business, and was shocked by the dereliction and poverty, particularly in small communities I passed through. It reminded me of Mad Max.

    At least Maggie Thatcher pushed people onto the sick to keep the dole figures down. This time there's going to be none of that - entire communities are just going to be declared surplus to requirements.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I've just left this comment on Waddaya and I'm going to put it here, just in case the mods decide that it shouldn't be on Waddaya, for whatever reason:

    To go back to Spike's original "joke" and the notion that it should be obvious to anyone who reads it that it was making fun of the law and not of rape or the victim in this particular case: (Sorry, Jessica, but my time zone wouldn't allow for a quicker reply)

    You might want to stop and think about the fact that the only people here who seem to think that this connection is "obvious" are all male. I think most women who read that "joke" will also see in it the male-held myth that women falsely accuse men of rape at the drop of the hat when they later regret having had sex with a man.

    Therefore, it is categorically NOT simply a joke about a law. It's a joke about women who supposedly find it easy to charge a man with a crime, just because she regretted sex.

    I have had consensual sex that I later regretted. I have also been raped. I know the difference. Women rarely report the real rapes. Why the hell do you men find it so easy to believe that we would make the shit up just because we'd changed our minds?

    ReplyDelete
  56. exiled.
    I saw a doc on Detroit a good ten years back. An area of deep depravation had its welafare cut off. Completely. No longer of ecomomic use, therefore a wilderness.

    Vari
    What do you recommend ... ?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Well, if we're making sure there's a record...

    @Montana

    Right, since you won't let it go, let me say I think you're totally irrational over certain issues.

    My ironic remark (if you think it's a joke, you've got a weird sense of humour) was clearly aimed at the law - not rape in general, not a particular person, but simply the idea that there can be any such thing as "rape by deception", a concept that belittles and banalises the terrible crime of rape.

    Anyway, if you and your mate Kizbot want to go looking for something you can get offended over, something that exists only in your fevered imaginations, I suppose I can't stop you. Rant away.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I am still finding it difficult to believe that whole towns and all the people in them can just be cast aside - left to rot - despite all the evidence that proves it can and does happen.

    How have we allowed these inhuman attitudes to take hold ?

    As I write this ITV are reporting - with great sadness - the death of Cameron's father. Total hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Leni

    Found this on the Radar disability network website:

    "Disability Benefits Consortium Survey
    We are doing a survey to find out more about your experiences of the benefits system. We are going to use the information we get from the survey to help the Government better understand the impact changes to benefits like Incapacity Benefit, Disability Living Allowance and Local Housing Allowance will have on disabled people. We will also use the information to make people more aware of how important benefits are.

    The survey is open to all disabled people. You can either fill it in yourself or ask someone else to fill it in for you. The survey will run until 20th October 2010. However, the sooner you reply the better. If we get a lot of responses very quickly we can pass some of this early information onto Government as we try and safeguard key disability benefits".

    Can you please post on ATL (& anywhere else it may be useful) for me - apologies, but access to t'internet has been erratic so this is a flying visit.

    Montana

    I agree. I too have a fevered imagination in this regard - I just don't find some things funny at all.
    x

    Night folks.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Montana

    I've added a post on Whaddya.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Evening Nightshifters

    Before i sign off i'd like to play this track. Can't get it out of my head.

    Nite

    ReplyDelete
  62. No, you really didn't. "I'm sorry if you were offended" is no apology -- it takes no responsibility whatsoever for what was said. Makes no concession that perhaps you were, in the very least, a bit insensitive.

    What "I'm sorry if you were offended" does is shove it all back at me. I'm a humourless bitch. I'm too easily offended. I'm unreasonable. I'm making too much of nothing.

    Well, take your "I'm sorry if you were offended" and shove it up your arse so far that it comes back out your mouth as the ugly shit that it is.

    You contemptible, misogynist bag of pus.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Montana

    Go and calm down or sober up or whatever it takes. I'm not going to trade baseless insults with you.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Spike, take five dude. Can anyone link me to the joke in queston ?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Montana ( Mom) Wildhack - you are really giving out the ' tough love ' tonight !
    Honestly, can anyone remember the original attempted joke to which you are refering ? If it was about the married woman , who said she wasn't, etc, I found it funny . Too. Just a passing witticism no more .

    ReplyDelete
  66. @BW

    It wasn't a joke. I was ironising about the Israelli law on "rape by deception". Further up the thread.

    Here it is.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Irony OK, jokingly too of course .

    ReplyDelete
  68. No, Dave. I'm not making too much of it.

    Does the fact that the only people who seem to think that it was just a harmless "witticism" or "ironising" are men not tweek some little part of any of your brains that maybe, just maybe, you're not really considering the remark from the viewpoint of a woman who's been sexually assaulted?

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Dave

    If you like. I was trying to point out how ridiculous and dangerous such a law is. It banalises rape and there'll be plenty of people who'll say, "Oh yeah, but there's rape and rape. Look at that Israeli Arab bloke." And we don't need that. Rape really is rape, it's an appalling crime and shouldn't be watered down.

    Telling someone you're not married to get them into bed is being a bastard, not rape.

    ReplyDelete
  70. And I don't drink, Spike. And I don't need to calm down. And your patronising attitude is yet another think that you can ram up that misogynist arse of yours.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Montana, yes, I was being deliberately patronising. I apologise. But you're not the only one who can be offended and lash out. I've explained all I can and I'm not about to apologise for something that I don't think was wrong at all.

    All I can say is that I'm sorry you were upset. That's not shoving it all back at you, it's just all I can say. I don't do insincere.

    Frankly, Montana, I don't want to fight with you, not because there's any chance of us being bosom buddies - we obviously don't much like each other - but because people I respect here and elsewhere respect you, so I don't want a flame war. Can we agree to a truce at least?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Sarah Silverman:

    "I was raped by a doctor. Which is so bittersweet for a Jewish girl"

    ReplyDelete
  73. That's not funny either, Bitterweed. Even if it was a (Jewish) woman who said it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Right, I've finished a job and I'm off to bed to read another chapter or two of The Lollipop Shoes. Joanne Harris is a brilliant writer, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  75. But what if she were a Jewish man like David Lee Roth or Bidisha ?

    ReplyDelete
  76. I've never claimed to be the only one who can be offended and lash out.

    The woman in that case has been sexually assaulted by several men throughout her life, including her father -- who began sexually abusing her when she was 6 years old. She is a former drug addict. She has obvious mental health issues. According to her original statement, it was forceable rape -- not consensual sex. Yes, he lied to her about being Jewish and single. He lured her into a building that he claimed was his workplace, ostensibly to show her where he worked, and he raped her in the building.

    The case is far more complex than just a matter of a woman changing her mind.

    JackofDiamonds had presented this information and linked to a more detailed report.

    And then you made your remark -- either ignorant of this information or shrugging it off as unreliable.

    Yes, I'm aware that he's an Arab in an Israeli court. But she is a "bad" victim -- easily shaken. Easily discredited. Not necessarily because she was lying, but because of her past.

    Part of what is so disturbing to me is how easily men believe that a woman -- any woman -- would consent to sex with someone she'd only been chatting to for no more than a half-hour and then go to the police to have him charged with rape just because she regretted it or found out he'd lied to her.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Rape isn't funny to people who have experienced it. No matter who it is who's making the jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Got that. Apols where appropriate...

    ReplyDelete
  79. Shit, I just came back to see if I'd had an email receipt and I just had to refresh...

    Montana, I was not saying anything about that particular case. It was the law I was attacking. If he raped her, he should be charged with that and convicted. If he's innocent, he shouldn't. Yes, it's not easy to get a conviction. And since it's Israel and he's an Israeli Arab, there's a whole lot of extraneous baggage. But plea bargaining for "rape by deception"? That's an insult to anyone who's ever been raped and anyone else who cares.

    Either a conviction for rape or nothing at all. You can't just invent a ridiculous, dangerous sub-charge. What does deception mean? Saying you're not married? Saying you'll take them home to meet mother and not doing it? Saying you're a manager when you're an office junior?

    It's not only insane, it's a blurring of the lines, which is what I've been saying all along. With rape, you have to have a firm boundary line, clear as fuck, beyond which you do not pass. They're messing with the definition and that's really fucked up.

    Look, I'm truly sorry about what happened to you. I've known people close to me who've been raped, assaulted, abused as children. It's hard to get over. Some never do. I'm affected by one particular case on a virtually daily basis, with all the concomitant problems of self-harm, depression and pathologically low self-esteem.

    So it's important to try and make sure it happens as little as possible to others, which means having society onside and not confusing issues. I think we can agree on that at least.

    Let's stop pushing buttons and bandying insults. If you've read my posts in general, you should see I'm a humanist. I want a just, free society where people don't suffer. So question my logic, but please don't question my motives.

    ReplyDelete
  80. But plea bargaining for "rape by deception"? That's an insult to anyone who's ever been raped and anyone else who cares.

    Unless you've been raped, you have no right to say what's insulting to people who have been raped. I think that there are quite a few rape victims who wouldn't care what the charge was -- just lock the bastard away.

    Either a conviction for rape or nothing at all.

    So -- either a conviction for murder or nothing at all? No manslaughter? No degrees? Only first degree murder?

    With rape, you have to have a firm boundary line, clear as fuck, beyond which you do not pass. They're messing with the definition and that's really fucked up.

    No, Spike. There is no firm boundary line. Rape has very blurry boundary lines -- possibly some of the blurriest of any crime there is. He said, she said. He may genuinely believe that all of the "nos" and "please stops" and crying are nothing more than playing hard to get. Maybe she's to drunk or scared to say anything or fight. Meanwhile, she's feeling raped. Who's right? Who's wrong? Is it rape because she feels raped or is it not rape because he truly believes that she somehow consented to it?

    It just isn't nearly as easy as you want it to be.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hi Montana

    I might live to regret getting involved, but I really need to say something about the reports about the Israeli case.

    The woman in that case has been sexually assaulted by several men throughout her life, including her father -- who began sexually abusing her when she was 6 years old. She is a former drug addict. She has obvious mental health issues.

    That's what the prosecution have said, yes. What's more they say that she was forced into prosecution by her father - it's an appalling history.

    According to her original statement, it was forceable rape -- not consensual sex.

    Yes.

    Yes, he lied to her about being Jewish and single. He lured her into a building that he claimed was his workplace, ostensibly to show her where he worked, and he raped her in the building.

    This is where we part company - I'm simply not willing to accept that uniquely, rape is a crime that requires no legal process.

    You say he "raped her in the building" - on what basis do you assert his guilt? The prosecuter told a journalist, the journalist told his readers, and one of his readers told you? It is simply not possible to make that assertion on the evidence.

    The case is far more complex than just a matter of a woman changing her mind.

    I agree, but it's also a damn sight more complicated than "he raped her in the building".

    The prosecution took the decision to not allow her to be cross-examined, because they were concerned about her history being examined. You might say that it's a shame that her terrible history should call into question her veracity as a witness (and I would agree with you), but it inevitably will - not because the system is unfair to her, but because it must be fair to the defendent.

    JackofDiamonds had presented this information and linked to a more detailed report.

    He did, and it has cleared up a lot of misconceptions about the case. What it hasn't done is given us a balanced picture of the case - the journalist spoke to the public prosecutor.

    This isn't about believing that women who allege rape are lying - this is about applying the same basic standard of innocent until proven guilty to rape, as to any other crime.

    here is no firm boundary line. Rape has very blurry boundary lines -- possibly some of the blurriest of any crime there is. He said, she said.

    Yes, in many rape cases the problem is one of a lack of physical evidence - it's the conflicting word of two people.

    He may genuinely believe that all of the "nos" and "please stops" and crying are nothing more than playing hard to get. Maybe she's to drunk or scared to say anything or fight. Meanwhile, she's feeling raped. Who's right? Who's wrong? Is it rape because she feels raped or is it not rape because he truly believes that she somehow consented to it?

    Sorry, but this is pure invention. You don't know what she said. You don't know what either of them feel. You don't know what actually happened.

    It was rape if she was raped. He's a rapist if he raped her. No arguement there, but at the moment that's not something that any of us can say with any degree of certainty. You saying that he raped her is no different from someone saying that she lied - it's nothing but conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hi Montana

    I might live to regret getting involved, but I really need to say something about the reports about the Israeli case.

    The woman in that case has been sexually assaulted by several men throughout her life, including her father -- who began sexually abusing her when she was 6 years old. She is a former drug addict. She has obvious mental health issues.

    That's what the prosecution have said, yes. What's more they say that she was forced into prosecution by her father - it's an appalling history.

    According to her original statement, it was forceable rape -- not consensual sex.

    Yes.

    Yes, he lied to her about being Jewish and single. He lured her into a building that he claimed was his workplace, ostensibly to show her where he worked, and he raped her in the building.

    This is where we part company - I'm simply not willing to accept that uniquely, rape is a crime that requires no legal process.

    You say he "raped her in the building" - on what basis do you assert his guilt? The prosecuter told a journalist, the journalist told his readers, and one of his readers told you? It is simply not possible to make that assertion on the evidence.

    The case is far more complex than just a matter of a woman changing her mind.

    I agree, but it's also a damn sight more complicated than "he raped her in the building".

    The prosecution took the decision to not allow her to be cross-examined, because they were concerned about her history being examined. You might say that it's a shame that her terrible history should call into question her veracity as a witness (and I would agree with you), but it inevitably will - not because the system is unfair to her, but because it must be fair to the defendent.

    JackofDiamonds had presented this information and linked to a more detailed report.

    He did, and it has cleared up a lot of misconceptions about the case. What it hasn't done is given us a balanced picture of the case - the journalist spoke to the public prosecutor.

    This isn't about believing that women who allege rape are lying - this is about applying the same basic standard of innocent until proven guilty to rape, as to any other crime.

    here is no firm boundary line. Rape has very blurry boundary lines -- possibly some of the blurriest of any crime there is. He said, she said.

    Yes, in many rape cases the problem is one of a lack of physical evidence - it's the conflicting word of two people.

    He may genuinely believe that all of the "nos" and "please stops" and crying are nothing more than playing hard to get. Maybe she's to drunk or scared to say anything or fight. Meanwhile, she's feeling raped. Who's right? Who's wrong? Is it rape because she feels raped or is it not rape because he truly believes that she somehow consented to it?

    Sorry, but this is pure invention. You don't know what she said. You don't know what either of them feel. You don't know what actually happened.

    It was rape if she was raped. He's a rapist if he raped her. No arguement there, but at the moment that's not something that any of us can say with any degree of certainty. You saying that he raped her is no different from someone saying that she lied - it's nothing but conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Hi Montana

    I might live to regret getting involved, but I really need to say something about the reports about the Israeli case.

    The woman in that case has been sexually assaulted by several men throughout her life, including her father -- who began sexually abusing her when she was 6 years old. She is a former drug addict. She has obvious mental health issues.

    That's what the prosecution have said, yes. What's more they say that she was forced into prosecution by her father - it's an appalling history.

    According to her original statement, it was forceable rape -- not consensual sex.

    Yes.

    Yes, he lied to her about being Jewish and single. He lured her into a building that he claimed was his workplace, ostensibly to show her where he worked, and he raped her in the building.

    This is where we part company - I'm simply not willing to accept that uniquely, rape is a crime that requires no legal process.

    You say he "raped her in the building" - on what basis do you assert his guilt? The prosecuter told a journalist, the journalist told his readers, and one of his readers told you? It is simply not possible to make that assertion on the evidence.

    The case is far more complex than just a matter of a woman changing her mind.

    I agree, but it's also a damn sight more complicated than "he raped her in the building".

    The prosecution took the decision to not allow her to be cross-examined, because they were concerned about her history being examined. You might say that it's a shame that her terrible history should call into question her veracity as a witness (and I would agree with you), but it inevitably will - not because the system is unfair to her, but because it must be fair to the defendent.

    JackofDiamonds had presented this information and linked to a more detailed report.

    He did, and it has cleared up a lot of misconceptions about the case. What it hasn't done is given us a balanced picture of the case - the journalist spoke to the public prosecutor.

    This isn't about believing that women who allege rape are lying - this is about applying the same basic standard of innocent until proven guilty to rape, as to any other crime.

    ReplyDelete
  84. WRT the Israeli rape victim case of the Israeli woman, and which now has brought to light the fact that the victim suffered from sexual abuse from childhood onwards, It can be seen that the initial information released to the media seemed to strongly suggest that the rape claim was based solely on the fact that the man did not reveal that he was neither Jewish nor Israeli (not even that he claimed to be Jewish and Israeli) and that they had had sex on a first date.

    Indeed, the fact that a small number of (but not all) pro-Israelis supported the Judge's decision, lead to comments that could be fairly classed as somewhat ironic and not so inappropriate.

    In that context, and without the new information, I think BTTP's comments were obviously not meant to be offensive, nor comic, nor misogynist, but simply ironic.

    In my humble opinion, and as far as the intellectually impaired victim is concerned, it appears that she has been instrumentalised not only be perpetrators of sex crimes, but, also by part of the Israeli Judiciary, the media and a small band of individuals who have no qualms in using the case in a political way or arbitrary way, regardless of the needs, feelings and rights of the victim in question.

    The other issue is this. Has anyone read the new information released to the press without contemplating even a small degree of nagging cynicism? i.e. Apart from the criminally obvious, what's wrong with this picture? Why, for example, is any type of bargaining allowed in these types of criminal cases?

    ReplyDelete
  85. But it's not just the menz (although if I had a euro for every time I heard that irritating bleating of "what about the menz", I'd have enough money to buy a years supply of industrial strength ear plugs), but the selectively misogynist group of wiminz as well.

    How many times have we had to read comments such as "I am for women's rights, but" or "I used to think I was a feminist, but" or "I am a feminist, but" or "I am a feminist, sort of, but not a radical feminist" or "I am not a feminist, whatever that means, but" .... from women?

    It's not that identity politics is the primary problem either, IMO, it's the reactionary, self-centred and self-interested "identity politics", that gives valid identity politics a bad name. The small-minded expediency that makes politics yet another consumer sport of "me, me, me, look at me!"

    ReplyDelete
  86. Martyn - identity politics is the problem because it tends to create a sense of victimhood in the group concerned and it divides when we should be united.

    Example: in a discussion of DV the statement 'men shouldn't hit women' will inevitably bring the responses 'I'm a man and I don't' (fair enough) and 'What about the menz' followed by endless (usually unlinked) statistics proving that its women who are more violent.

    What is wrong with people should not be violent to other people?. That covers preety much everything including the violence of poverty and starvation.

    In a sane world that should unite us not divide us, because in the end the only identity that really matters is human

    ReplyDelete