The news. Or lack of it.

[iainjclark]

For the last couple of nights BBC News has been covering the new licensing laws, and I'm very conflicted.

I have nothing of great import to say about the laws themselves: 24 hour opening is strange and unnecessary. The far more common 'extra few hours' aren't going to destroy civilisation as we know it. It'll probably mean slightly more of the same: the people whose sole motivation is to drink continuously while screaming the odd monosyllable into their friend's ear will continue to do so, only for longer. They may get more smashed and do more damage to their bodies, which is sad but ultimately their own decision. More importantly there may be a bit more violence, or there may be the same rate of violence going on for longer, or the pressure point of chucking out time may be alleviated, reducing conflict overall. Who knows? Not me. And certainly not the Government or most of the commentators.

However, since Thursday night reporters have been staking out every major drinking spot in the UK, positively desperate for trouble to break out. When trouble didn't break out on Thursday, they blamed the cold weather and turned their attention to the weekend. Their reports are full of images of the police arresting people - perfectly fine in a general article about drinking problems, but all-but-irrelevant in an article about the problems of extended drinking hours, since these arrests were all before the normal chucking-out time. They have no bearing on the story and only serve, vaguely, to reinforce the "sexy" reason for the journalist being there, which is that extended drinking hours are bad. Maybe.

The news commentators also seem fixated on a couple of ideas that baffle me. One is that normal chucking out time is 11 p.m., when in fact many revelers in my experience simply move on to nightclubs which don't spill out onto the streets until 2 a.m. or thereabouts. The other is that underage access to alcohol is somehow the same story as pubs being open at 3 a.m. It's woolly sensationalist reporting, presented without context, and the pesky lack of evidence is just a minor impediment.

This wasn't limited to the drinking story yesterday. The headline "Rape case collapses as woman admits that she can't remember whether she consented to sex" implies that the stupid woman was wasting police time (especially that word "admits", beloved of journalists as a means of introducing drama while appearing to be impartial.) However the actual substance of the story implies that there are deeply ingrained sexist attitudes about rape in the legal system. The context seems a long way from the headline - a security guard is supposed to escort a paralytic woman home, but instead (at the very least) has sex with a semi-conscious woman and leaves her lying in a corridor. It's deeply ironic therefore that the headline trades off the same sexist attitudes that the story seeks to highlight.

Or how about "a million" calls to Jobcentres going unanswered. Sounds terrible, but... over what period? Out of how many calls? How does that compare to other similar call centres? Without context, what does this tell me except that "a million" is a nice round number?

I know it's a tough job to appear impartial while conveying news in an interesting fashion, but if they must look for the most dramatic angle on their story, they need to be very careful that they're not editorialising instead of reporting.

For the purpose of full disclosure it should be noted that your correspondent is on his third bottle of Leffe...

Comments

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

It tough to know without all the facts, but at the very least someone who is entrusted with a woman's safety, a woman clearly in no state to make rational decisions, and then who has sex with her in a corridor... repugnant. And if she was drunk enough to be left unconscious in a hallway after the event, she was too drunk to consent to anything.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

This is a far more complex situation than sensationalist headlines are interested in conveying. Any man who takes advantage of a drunken woman deserves to be penalised; because it is spectacularly un-gentlemanly behaviour. It's universally wrong. No excuses. But is he a rapist? With all that this (rightly) emotive word conveys?

For example, what if the woman (in her drunken state) had explicitly (or implicitly – by not explicitly opposing) consented to the act; then arguably the man in question cannot be a rapist (though as I have said, he is a scoundrel of the worst order – and depending on the specific circumstances almost certainly deserves some sort of judicial punishment).

Another complication to the case in question, is the issue of whether (as some reports have implied) the woman in question was unconscious at the time that intercourse took place. Genericising the specific case, I think that it's clear that were this to be probatively demonstrated in a court of law; that any person who had so acted, would indeed be guilty of rape. The difference being that an unconscious person is wholly unable to actively consent, or by inaction to passively consent; since they are unable to choose to withhold their dissent.

Another problem with current legislation in this area, is that at present there is no distinction made between man who rapes to exert power, as opposed to a man who rapes for sex. A man who attacks a stranger, with a deadly weapon, and rapes her – or a man who breaks into an old lady's flat and does the same is acting to wield power over his victim – it has little or nothing to do with sex. This kind of crime, is a truly heinous act; second only to murder or child abuse. It is also quite distinct from a situation where two people have some sort of a relationship (even if it very newly entered into) and who go home (or elsewhere) together, whereupon the one party forces themselves on to the the other – and some form of non-consential intercourse (or other penetration) takes place.

Clearly both are crimes, both are gravely wrong; and clearly both require penalty. But they are not the same. One is motivationally close to kidnap, the other to assault. Neither is minor, or trivial, or to be dismissed lightly – but they are not the same: and (in my view) a considered legal distinction between the two (such as the creation of an offence of non-consential intercourse) would increase the conviction rate: as juries may be less averse to returning guilty verdicts for this distinct offence. This offence would that described in the latter of my two examples, whilst the former, would remain rape.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

at present there is no distinction made between man who rapes to exert power, as opposed to a man who rapes for sex.

Well, to be honest, there is no difference. All rape is a crime of violence, and an abuse of power. Even if the man rapes the woman *just* becuase he wants sex, the crime is that of refusing to acknowledge her right to say no. By ignoring her refual, he is exerting his power. Stranger rape, date rape, whatever - it's all about exercising the belief that the victim has no right of refusal, and that the attacker has the right to have sex whenever he chooses.
A man who rapes his partner is also guilty f (one presumes) a betrayal of trust; but he is no less guilty of a crime of violence, even if he commits no other "violence" than non-consensual pentration.

All rape is violence; all rape is enabled by the presumption of "right" - motivation isn't relevant.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

"Even if the man rapes the woman *just* becuase he wants sex, the crime is that of refusing to acknowledge her right to say no."

Agreed...

"All rape is violence; all rape is enabled by the presumption of "right" - motivation isn't relevant."

Well I certainly don't want to suggest any non-consential sexual act is ever okay. It's not, and nor will it ever be, permissible for a man to force himself on a woman in any way, for any act (or indeed for anyone to so do, to any other person). And I don't want to suggest that date rape (or whatever you would like to call it) is anything other than a crime, and an emotionally (if not physically) traumatic (and scaring) assault.

However, I maintain that there is a huge difference between this sort of act (wrong though it is), and leaping out of the bushes with a knife and raping an old lady. Both are very wrong and serious; but one is worse than the other.