![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wishusI subscribe to a few people's blogs, and John Fleming's is a really good one. Sometimes he writes about people I know, which is nice.
Recently, he gave his blog space over to his friend Kate Copstick, who is currently doing charity work in Nairobi, which is very admirable.
However... Kate has been keeping up with recent news in the UK, including the recent Ched Evans case - the footballer who was convicted for raping a girl when she was drunk. The girl has been the subject of some vile internet abuse and has even had her identity revealed on the internet. What she must be going through!
When this blog landed in my inbox, I was shocked. I had of course read about the rape trial in the press – or more accurately the horrors of the reaction to it on the internet. I was indeed aware that many people not privy to the details of the trial were doing all sorts of public speculating about just how watertight this guy's conviction was. But as Rape Crisis say "Only 15% of serious sexual offences against people 16 and over are reported to the police and of the rape offences that are reported, fewer than 6% result in an offender being convicted of this offence" - the jury must have been convinced by the evidence for this guy, even if it wasn't sufficient to convict the other accused person.
Of course, Kate Copstick’s blog landed a few days ago. The world moves on... people get angry about other things (though I'm certain the victim won't move on so quickly).
Or so I thought...
I got an email petition today and amazingly it seems that the Professional Footballers Association have decided to include Ched Evans on their end of season honours list. This was announced a few days after his rape conviction. I agree with many of the other petitioners that this sends out the wrong message to children and young people, many of whom hold footballers in great esteem and may be influenced by them and their behaviour on and off the pitch. Petition organiser Leo Hardt goes so far as to argue that in including Ched Evans on their honours list, the PFA is “tacitly condoning his behaviour.”
There is probably some discussion behind the scenes at the PFA about the best way to manage this, but I presume that Ched Evans will have to get dropped from that list. I can’t see any other result - keeping him on there would be crazy. When that happens, it will be said that the PFA bowed to pressure from the might of the internet, and maybe this e-organizing will indeed have been a major factor in their decision. I signed the petition in case.
But back to Kate Copstick… I re-read her blog post, wondering if she’d had much reaction.
“Back in Britain, some idiot Welsh twat – 19 or 20 depending on which rag’s clichés you read – went out, got absolutely shit-faced, went to a hotel room with some footballers and shagged. Only she says she can’t remember it. And they end up in court charged with rape and now one of them is in jail for five years”.
“Twat” – interesting choice of word. Used as an insult here, it also happens to be what she was reduced to by her abusers.
Apparently having an age is a cliché, too. Or is it that 19 is cuter than 20? Or that Kate Copstick couldn’t find a direct quote that states the victim’s age definitely. I can – she was 19.
“If she had got that drunk and hit someone, then her drunkenness would not be a defence. If she had driven a car and crashed it she would have been committing a crime.” Yes. That is the law as I understand it. What’s it got to do with her being raped?
“But she didn’t. She lay down and got shagged. And suddenly she is the innocent victim.” Well, yeah. She is the one that bad things were done to. She did not do the bad thing.
If I am drunk and murder you, I go to jail. If I am drunk and you murder me, you go to jail. Isn’t this somewhat basic?
Kate Copstick asserts,“I studied law.” Unfortunately, she doesn’t seem able to apply it now.
“Scots Law is based on Principles – like justice, fairness ... It comes from the fine heritage of Roman Law.” Oh yeah, Ancient Rome, where women weren’t considered proper citizens at all.
“In that law there is something called a Res Nullius. It is something which has been abandoned. Deliberately or negligently abandoned. It belongs to no-one. Because its erstwhile owner has – deliberately or negligently – abandoned it. It cannot be ‘stolen’. Because it has been abandoned. It cannot be ‘criminally damaged’. Because its owner has given it up. It cannot be raped.”
It, it, it, it, it. Stop dehumanizing the victim, Copstick! Okay, can anyone not see a problem with this argument? Anyone?
Even in the case of actual ‘things’, if you find them abandoned on the street you can’t claim them without proving lack of ownership. Perhaps the footballers should have taken the abandoned husk of a girl to the local police station, filled in a form, and waited 28 days to see if her consent to sex had been discovered?
But if Kate is right and Scots Law is that different, I’m never camping in Edinburgh again! ”Yeah, Officer, we found it abandoned in a tent. The owner didn’t seem to be there so we shagged it. Yeah it might have just been asleep, but we thought it might have had a couple of nightcaps as well.”
“OK, I have had some pretty indiscriminating sex with some pretty indiscriminating people.” That’s your call, and you can’t make it for anyone else.
“There is not much fun to be had from shagging a girl who is off her face on something plentiful and probably vodka-based.” Vodka and Sambuca if you want to know, and there but for the grace of God go I. Actually when I was nineteen, it was the three pints of pound-a-pint Worthingtons I had at the Christmas party that did me in. Not nice on top of the Thunderbirds. Got to the party, almost immediately lost my friends and like this girl gravitated to the nearest fast food bar. All of my instincts were shouting CHIPS!!! Fortunately, I bumped into a mate who could see what state I was in and he took me to my boyfriend’s flat to make sure I was safe. The next morning, I had some gentle tellings off, but my boyfriend said it was something of a ‘rite of passage’ for everyone to learn how much is too much to drink when they’re young. Finding yourself in harm’s way, however, really shouldn’t be.
“But surely it does not amount to one of the worst crimes on the statute book?” Er – I think you’ll find it was rape, so yes, it is.
“The women I work with have plenty to complain about. But they don’t. And no-one (sic) speaks for them. Maybe some of those who shout so loudly about the rights of stupid girls, well over the age of consent, to incapacitate themselves, make their way into what is blindingly obviously a sexual situation and then be treated like a priceless Dresden china doll should consider that they are not the ones in need of help, rights-wise.”
I’m sure Kate Copstick sees some terrible situations where she is, and yes I agree things are worse for women in Nairobi. Genocide is worse than murder. We don’t ignore the odd one or two murders as comparatively petty. We have to speak out about things like this because if we don’t, we make things worse for ourselves…and they’re hardly perfect right now.
If a woman smiles at you, that’s not consent to sex. If she is wearing a mini-skirt, that’s not consent to sex. If she agrees to go on a date with you, that’s not consent to sex. If she goes back to a hotel with you and sex is implied, she has a right to change her mind. If she’s too drunk to give consent, you can’t take it as given. If she consents to sex with you, that’s not a go-ahead for your mate. Rape is rape, and we don’t want it.
Some women go through life and nothing like this ever happens to them. We grow up thinking we are safe, and only experience shows us that sometimes this is not the case. I can tell you that I have had some minor scary experiences myself. I can also tell you that I didn’t tell anyone at the time, or make any complaint because I was afraid of the consequences. Hell, I’m not the same woman! And yes, for that I thank comedy for giving me the confidence to deal with that shit.
I hate joining bandwagons, and if I had seen anyone else argue with Kate Copstick’s assertion I wouldn’t have said anything, but no one seems to have done so. Maybe this is because John Fleming hasn’t made such comments visible. Maybe it is because Kate Copstick is greatly admired (and feared) as a comedy critic. Most people who read John Fleming’s blog will be involved with comedy, and maybe no one wants to upset her?
But I also know a bit about how it feels to have the internet talking about you, and in this girl’s case it’s not just unpleasant. It’s downright vicious and awful abuse. Those people want to put this girl in her place, so they pile on the bullying remarks. That Kate Copstick has taken a break from her charity work to send a blog post shows that she is keen for the world to know what she thinks. Kate Copstick is a strong, forthright woman, a television personality and she has influence. This is why I think it is important to take a stand and say oi, Copstick, no! You work in an industry fraught with laddism, where I keep hearing phrases like “a little bit rapey”, or punchlines that conclude “so I raped her” get laughs. You don’t even have half the facts about this case, which should make you perhaps hold back, but you don’t because it’s more important to get what Kate Copstick thinks out into the world than about the potential consequences about what you say… for the woman in the case… for comedy fans.
One day, our paths may cross, but I will look you in the eye and say on this, Kate Copstick, you were wrong.
Recently, he gave his blog space over to his friend Kate Copstick, who is currently doing charity work in Nairobi, which is very admirable.
However... Kate has been keeping up with recent news in the UK, including the recent Ched Evans case - the footballer who was convicted for raping a girl when she was drunk. The girl has been the subject of some vile internet abuse and has even had her identity revealed on the internet. What she must be going through!
When this blog landed in my inbox, I was shocked. I had of course read about the rape trial in the press – or more accurately the horrors of the reaction to it on the internet. I was indeed aware that many people not privy to the details of the trial were doing all sorts of public speculating about just how watertight this guy's conviction was. But as Rape Crisis say "Only 15% of serious sexual offences against people 16 and over are reported to the police and of the rape offences that are reported, fewer than 6% result in an offender being convicted of this offence" - the jury must have been convinced by the evidence for this guy, even if it wasn't sufficient to convict the other accused person.
Of course, Kate Copstick’s blog landed a few days ago. The world moves on... people get angry about other things (though I'm certain the victim won't move on so quickly).
Or so I thought...
I got an email petition today and amazingly it seems that the Professional Footballers Association have decided to include Ched Evans on their end of season honours list. This was announced a few days after his rape conviction. I agree with many of the other petitioners that this sends out the wrong message to children and young people, many of whom hold footballers in great esteem and may be influenced by them and their behaviour on and off the pitch. Petition organiser Leo Hardt goes so far as to argue that in including Ched Evans on their honours list, the PFA is “tacitly condoning his behaviour.”
There is probably some discussion behind the scenes at the PFA about the best way to manage this, but I presume that Ched Evans will have to get dropped from that list. I can’t see any other result - keeping him on there would be crazy. When that happens, it will be said that the PFA bowed to pressure from the might of the internet, and maybe this e-organizing will indeed have been a major factor in their decision. I signed the petition in case.
But back to Kate Copstick… I re-read her blog post, wondering if she’d had much reaction.
“Back in Britain, some idiot Welsh twat – 19 or 20 depending on which rag’s clichés you read – went out, got absolutely shit-faced, went to a hotel room with some footballers and shagged. Only she says she can’t remember it. And they end up in court charged with rape and now one of them is in jail for five years”.
“Twat” – interesting choice of word. Used as an insult here, it also happens to be what she was reduced to by her abusers.
Apparently having an age is a cliché, too. Or is it that 19 is cuter than 20? Or that Kate Copstick couldn’t find a direct quote that states the victim’s age definitely. I can – she was 19.
“If she had got that drunk and hit someone, then her drunkenness would not be a defence. If she had driven a car and crashed it she would have been committing a crime.” Yes. That is the law as I understand it. What’s it got to do with her being raped?
“But she didn’t. She lay down and got shagged. And suddenly she is the innocent victim.” Well, yeah. She is the one that bad things were done to. She did not do the bad thing.
If I am drunk and murder you, I go to jail. If I am drunk and you murder me, you go to jail. Isn’t this somewhat basic?
Kate Copstick asserts,“I studied law.” Unfortunately, she doesn’t seem able to apply it now.
“Scots Law is based on Principles – like justice, fairness ... It comes from the fine heritage of Roman Law.” Oh yeah, Ancient Rome, where women weren’t considered proper citizens at all.
“In that law there is something called a Res Nullius. It is something which has been abandoned. Deliberately or negligently abandoned. It belongs to no-one. Because its erstwhile owner has – deliberately or negligently – abandoned it. It cannot be ‘stolen’. Because it has been abandoned. It cannot be ‘criminally damaged’. Because its owner has given it up. It cannot be raped.”
It, it, it, it, it. Stop dehumanizing the victim, Copstick! Okay, can anyone not see a problem with this argument? Anyone?
Even in the case of actual ‘things’, if you find them abandoned on the street you can’t claim them without proving lack of ownership. Perhaps the footballers should have taken the abandoned husk of a girl to the local police station, filled in a form, and waited 28 days to see if her consent to sex had been discovered?
But if Kate is right and Scots Law is that different, I’m never camping in Edinburgh again! ”Yeah, Officer, we found it abandoned in a tent. The owner didn’t seem to be there so we shagged it. Yeah it might have just been asleep, but we thought it might have had a couple of nightcaps as well.”
“OK, I have had some pretty indiscriminating sex with some pretty indiscriminating people.” That’s your call, and you can’t make it for anyone else.
“There is not much fun to be had from shagging a girl who is off her face on something plentiful and probably vodka-based.” Vodka and Sambuca if you want to know, and there but for the grace of God go I. Actually when I was nineteen, it was the three pints of pound-a-pint Worthingtons I had at the Christmas party that did me in. Not nice on top of the Thunderbirds. Got to the party, almost immediately lost my friends and like this girl gravitated to the nearest fast food bar. All of my instincts were shouting CHIPS!!! Fortunately, I bumped into a mate who could see what state I was in and he took me to my boyfriend’s flat to make sure I was safe. The next morning, I had some gentle tellings off, but my boyfriend said it was something of a ‘rite of passage’ for everyone to learn how much is too much to drink when they’re young. Finding yourself in harm’s way, however, really shouldn’t be.
“But surely it does not amount to one of the worst crimes on the statute book?” Er – I think you’ll find it was rape, so yes, it is.
“The women I work with have plenty to complain about. But they don’t. And no-one (sic) speaks for them. Maybe some of those who shout so loudly about the rights of stupid girls, well over the age of consent, to incapacitate themselves, make their way into what is blindingly obviously a sexual situation and then be treated like a priceless Dresden china doll should consider that they are not the ones in need of help, rights-wise.”
I’m sure Kate Copstick sees some terrible situations where she is, and yes I agree things are worse for women in Nairobi. Genocide is worse than murder. We don’t ignore the odd one or two murders as comparatively petty. We have to speak out about things like this because if we don’t, we make things worse for ourselves…and they’re hardly perfect right now.
If a woman smiles at you, that’s not consent to sex. If she is wearing a mini-skirt, that’s not consent to sex. If she agrees to go on a date with you, that’s not consent to sex. If she goes back to a hotel with you and sex is implied, she has a right to change her mind. If she’s too drunk to give consent, you can’t take it as given. If she consents to sex with you, that’s not a go-ahead for your mate. Rape is rape, and we don’t want it.
Some women go through life and nothing like this ever happens to them. We grow up thinking we are safe, and only experience shows us that sometimes this is not the case. I can tell you that I have had some minor scary experiences myself. I can also tell you that I didn’t tell anyone at the time, or make any complaint because I was afraid of the consequences. Hell, I’m not the same woman! And yes, for that I thank comedy for giving me the confidence to deal with that shit.
I hate joining bandwagons, and if I had seen anyone else argue with Kate Copstick’s assertion I wouldn’t have said anything, but no one seems to have done so. Maybe this is because John Fleming hasn’t made such comments visible. Maybe it is because Kate Copstick is greatly admired (and feared) as a comedy critic. Most people who read John Fleming’s blog will be involved with comedy, and maybe no one wants to upset her?
But I also know a bit about how it feels to have the internet talking about you, and in this girl’s case it’s not just unpleasant. It’s downright vicious and awful abuse. Those people want to put this girl in her place, so they pile on the bullying remarks. That Kate Copstick has taken a break from her charity work to send a blog post shows that she is keen for the world to know what she thinks. Kate Copstick is a strong, forthright woman, a television personality and she has influence. This is why I think it is important to take a stand and say oi, Copstick, no! You work in an industry fraught with laddism, where I keep hearing phrases like “a little bit rapey”, or punchlines that conclude “so I raped her” get laughs. You don’t even have half the facts about this case, which should make you perhaps hold back, but you don’t because it’s more important to get what Kate Copstick thinks out into the world than about the potential consequences about what you say… for the woman in the case… for comedy fans.
One day, our paths may cross, but I will look you in the eye and say on this, Kate Copstick, you were wrong.
