The curious nature of political journalism is such that, when you’re down, you can be the subject of a feeding frenzy that feels like it’ll never quit. I do wonder if this is the case around the world or just specific to Scotland but, rightly or wrongly, Bill Walker MSP is on the receiving end of that feeding frenzy right now.
I daresay the story that he is building an extension to his house (are politicians not allowed to perform home maintenance these days?) with recently public funds, i.e. his salary, barely flickered on his subconscious given that numerous newspapers printed the story that he is the subject of a police investigation into alleged rape. And there it is, for ever more, he will not just be Bill Walker MSP, but The Alleged Rapist Bill Walker.
It is concerning how quickly and easily a reputation can be transformed by an unforgiving, relentless media these days. I of course haven’t the faintest idea about the truth behind any of the accusations but if our principles aren’t built around innocent until proven guilty then our society is in big trouble. If we are to assume a person is innocent, don’t we have a responsibility to protect and respect that presumed innocence and keep such investigations private until a guilty verdict is delivered, irrespective of how juicy a story it may be? At the very least for cases of this nature, surely.
Another one for post-Leveson days perhaps but it reminds me of Manchester United footballer Tom Cleverley who was splashed across the front page of The Sun for begging a woman for sex, the paper not considering that some chancer might have just been using the footballer’s identity to get lucky (which was indeed the case). The Sun had to make a humiliating, grovelling but brief apology.
Now, walking into a bar and pretending to be Bill Walker is not the best pick-up technique in the world, particularly in light of recent news stories, but trampling over lives to sell newspapers is a grubby, grubby business and should be done with caution. In fact, it just shouldn’t be done at all.
I could leave it there and some may agree while others may disagree, but this in itself is to cloud an already grim picture and I’d say I’m (admittedly knowingly) more culpable of a greater ill here.
I am sure I am not alone in my first thoughts from the Sunday press being ‘poor man, maybe he didn’t do it’. An alternative thought could have been ‘poor woman, maybe he did do it and he’ll get away with it’. As I say, I have no idea of the truth behind the issue and would rather not even be considering any of this, my preference being that the journalists went with a different story altogether.
It appears to still be the case that only 6.5% of rape claims end in a conviction (in England & Wales), and given that there are countless occasions of indecent assault and rape that don’t even get reported, I suppose one’s sympathies should really not be lying primarily with the odd person who guiltlessly gets caught up in some headlines for a day.
I do wonder if by wanting the names of accused men to be airbrushed out of newspapers I am perhaps guilty by association of the terrible and ongoing crime of helping to sweep the whole issue of rape under the carpet.
With a laddish, sex-obsessed, hard-drinking, fame-hungry, scantily-clad lifestyle constantly being peddled from the newsstands and, I believe, a major contributing factor to England and Wales (and Scotland?) having “one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes”, maybe I wasn’t too far in the wrong laying the blame at journalists’ and tabloids’ doors after all, just for a distantly related, deeper problem.
#1 by Steve on April 16, 2012 - 1:57 pm
Jeff, glad to say you got there in the end, I was worried when I started reading this!
I think there should be an agreed approach to reporting crimes as to what stage in the legal process should allegations make their way into the papers, presumably once formal charges have been brought.
The media handles and reports domestic abuse and rape very badly all round, although I understand there is work being done in Scotland to tackle this, see http://www.zerotolerance.org.uk/projects/MediaGuide.
#2 by Indy on April 16, 2012 - 2:26 pm
The reason for the media frenzy is because he is an MSP, not because he is an alleged rapist.
It’s always tricky when personal and political matters get mixed up.
I don’t particularly like the media frenzy here either. It is up to the police to investigate these allegations not the press.
But on the other hand it would appear that the reason the police are investigating is because of the revelations in the Sunday Herald.
So it is all quite difficult isn’t it?
Possibly we will never know the truth but for his own sake as well as for everyone else’s sake I feel Bill Walker would be wise to resign his seat.
#3 by Alyson Macdonald on April 16, 2012 - 2:49 pm
First of all, is this an attempt to bait feminists? The amount of space you’ve devoted to expressing your sympathy for Bill Walker makes me suspect that it might be, even if you end up questioning your own assumptions.
The rape conviction stats for Scotland are widely available, and they’re considerably lower than the UK average. According to figures provided by the Procurator Fiscal last year, 4.3% of reports led to conviction in 2008-09, which was the most recent year that the full figures were available for (http://www.copfs.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/Conviction-Rates-Rape-Charges-Scotland-Charges-Reported-1-April-2008-31-March-2009). If you’d spent ten minutes with a search engine, you would have found this yourself.
#4 by Jeff on April 16, 2012 - 3:22 pm
Not baiting feminists Alyson but this issue will only benefit if people are free to air their thoughts. Wouldn’t you agree? My thoughts and sympathies, rightly or wrongly, initially lay with Bill Walker (I hasten to add I didn’t really read the articles, so his was the only name I noted); it was then afterwards that I stopped and realised that my reaction was perhaps furthering the ignorance rather than addressing it.
I wanted ths post to reflect that thought process, that’s all, so, as much as I appreciate that this is an emotive issue, please don’t sully matters by suggesting ‘baiting’ was the motive.
As for your second point (in which you again, bizarrely, choose to have a go at me for no good reason). I had put the 4% in my initial draft as I was sure I had read that somewhere. I searched on Google (for longer than 10 minutes), didn’t happen to find that link you’ve kindly provided, so I went with the 6.5% believing it would be close enough to the Scottish number which, lo and behold, it is.
#5 by James on April 16, 2012 - 5:21 pm
Given he’s admitted a significant proportion of the allegations against him, including beating his own daughter with a cooking pan, my first thought was “have the SNP not checked their candidates at all, such that a violent misogynist and homophobe managed to be selected for a constituency seat?”
#6 by Jeff on April 16, 2012 - 10:29 pm
I don’t think ‘have you ever beaten your daughter with a frying pan?’ made it onto the SNP’s vetting procedures.
Don’t you think it’s petty and tiresome to make this an SNP issue rather than a Bill Walker issue?
#7 by Alyson Macdonald on April 16, 2012 - 11:37 pm
Sorry Jeff, but if the SNP chose Bill Walker to represent them, then this is their problem by association. If a potential candidate has three divorces behind them, then it’s probably something the party should be asking a few questions about, to avoid any embarrassing surprises later. A divorce or three doesn’t make someone unsuitable for office, but it’s the type of closet that it would be wise to inspect for skeletons.
#8 by Indy on April 17, 2012 - 7:37 am
That is simply not the way politics work and nor should it ne. You don’t ask potential candidates about their sex life or personal relationships any more than you would ask them what religion they were. If you want us to end up like America then that’s the way to go but most people don’t want us to ed up like America I think.
#9 by Jeff on April 17, 2012 - 8:21 am
Fair points. I just don’t think any candidate is going to voluntary offer up such information and James’ glib assessment that the SNP could find out through a selection process that a candidate has hit his daughter with a frying pan just seems silly. Goodness knows how long it took Paul Hutcheon to sift through details to find this story; I just don’t think it’s realistic for any party to go to such lengths at each turn.
#10 by Indy on April 17, 2012 - 10:48 am
They are asked to offer up any personal information which could be used against them or to bring the party into disrepute on a voluntary basis.
#11 by Alyson Macdonald on April 16, 2012 - 5:52 pm
“My thoughts and sympathies, rightly or wrongly, initially lay with Bill Walker (I hasten to add I didn’t really read the articles, so his was the only name I noted)”
That’s a pretty awful thing to admit to, essentially that you weren’t terribly interested in the details, but you were more concerned with the welfare of the perpetrator than his victims (note: the initial report on Walker’s history of abuse was well researched, so it wasn’t just idle gossip).
Of course this is an emotive subject, and that’s why you should show a bit more tact in how you deal with it. Rape is an incredibly common crime: 1 in 4 women in this country will experience sexual assault during her lifetime, means that this is an issue which directly affects many of your readers. Women go through our entire lives having to worry about something like this happening to us, and as a man writing on this subject, you need to be very careful about how you approach it. Don’t try to wave off criticism with the “emotional woman” card – I’m emotional about this for a very good reason, because I know women who’ve been raped, and have seen how someone can be affected by dismissive attitudes towards this type of crime.
As for the second point, if you choose not to include statistics which can be easily found (I googled “Scotland rape conviction rate”, and got the stats within a few minutes), then that’s your decision, but it makes it look as if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Four and six percent might appear superficially similar, but what it actually means is that Scotland’s rape conviction rate is 2/3 of that of England and Wales – doesn’t that sound significant.
#12 by Jeff on April 16, 2012 - 10:41 pm
I think 4% and 6% are well within the margin of error and given the 6% is so woolly (I didn’t get a chance to read about the 4%0, I wouldn’t be too quick to be stating who has 2/3s a rate of who. And I wouldn’t want you to conflate not reading the articles on Bill Walker with no being interested and ultimately not caring. I don’t read about Syria or child slavery or, goodness, a whole host of things but that does’t mean that I don’t that such issues are tragic.
And I don’t claim to know what I’m talking about, but I do hold the right to have an opinion and share it and I even hold the right to hold an opinion which I freely admit is a poor one to hold. I don’t think there is any harm, indeed I think it is beneficial, to increase awareness and understanding by sharing such a thought and trying to get under the skin of a particular problem with a view to a small bit of progress. Even if that progress is only my own. For example, Emma’s point that publicising a rape charge might draw out other victims is a very good one that I hadn’t considered.
I enjoy the rough and tumble of blogging, of course, but I think you went in all guns blazing needlessly. Why for example are you quoting me as having called you an “emotional woman”? I am not waving away criticism; I’m trying to establish what the criticism is. Or is my sharing my views, however flawed they may be, not valid?
It’d be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything all the time or, worse, pretended to.
#13 by Alyson Macdonald on April 16, 2012 - 11:28 pm
I’m not trying to deny you the right to free speech; just exercising my right to criticise what you’ve written, and in my opinion, it was poorly-judged and insensitive, and you should have done your research, but I have not at any point tried to claim that you should be prevented from saying it. Say what you like, but if you post something like this, you’re going to get criticism, and in this instance it’s coming from your co-editors as well.
Perhaps I should have offered more explanation of my “emotional woman” point, as you’re obviously not familiar with the feminist blogosphere. I wasn’t quoting you, but referring to a common trope (had we been discussing this in person, I probably would have illustrated the term with air quotes) where a woman’s opinions are dismissed because a man thinks she is being “emotional”. Which is what you were doing when you implied that I shouldn’t criticise you because it is – and here I am actually quoting you – “an emotive issue”.
Your every thought is not necessarily blog-worthy material. So you’ve realised that Bill Walker did something wrong, and that women who report rape and domestic abuse probably aren’t lying about it – well done, would you like a medal for it, or would a pat on the back and a chocolate biscuit do? Your new-found interest in feminism is a good thing, but since you haven’t been on the receiving end of your former prejudices, please try to educate yourself a bit more about these issues before you next write about them.
And for the record, this is not me coming in “all guns blazing”. I can be a lot more forceful when I want to be.
#14 by Doug Daniel on April 17, 2012 - 7:33 pm
“So you’ve realised that Bill Walker did something wrong, and that women who report rape and domestic abuse probably aren’t lying about it – well done, would you like a medal for it, or would a pat on the back and a chocolate biscuit do?”
Being patronising is, of course, a fantastic way of getting people on your side…
#15 by Emma Ritch on April 17, 2012 - 8:38 pm
Something that you might find interesting, Doug: The tone argument.
#16 by Doug Daniel on April 17, 2012 - 10:48 pm
That wiki is fascinating, and I’m not being sarcastic there. Part of me is impressed that online feminist activists have collated together all the fallacies they repeatedly see being used against them in online debates and makes me wonder why the independence movement hasn’t reached that stage; and another part of me feels that if independence campaigners did have a similar wiki, we’d be accused of paranoia and having a chip on our shoulder. Particularly if we talked about “straw-nationalists”, implying there was a peculiar brand of straw man argument used specifically against nationalists, as if it’s not used in every debate on every web forum in every corner of the internet.
In my case, I’m not a “concern troll” or trying to derail the debate – I was genuinely put off by Alyson’s reactions to Jeff’s comments. He’s not someone with a history of “baiting” people on this blog, so when someone reacts with such derision (particularly making a big deal about the difference between 4.3% and 6.5%), I’m inclined to think someone’s either gotten the wrong end of the stick or perhaps just has a tendency to wade into arguments with all guns blazing.
When you attack someone, you automatically put them onto the defensive. I don’t see how that can be conducive to constructive debate (hence why I said at the bottom that much of these comments just look like attempts to shut down debate).
#17 by Alyson Macdonald on April 18, 2012 - 12:32 am
Doug – the issue with the stats was not simply the difference between the two numbers, but that Jeff hadn’t bothered to look up easily available information, which suggests that he has done little-to-no research. This makes him look lazy and ill-informed.
What Jeff has done is state that rape cases have to be treated with caution, and then trampled all over the issue with a complete lack of sensitivity.
#18 by Alec on April 16, 2012 - 3:02 pm
>> With a laddish, sex-obsessed, hard-drinking, fame-hungry, scantily-clad lifestyle constantly being peddled from the newsstands and, I believe, a major contributing factor to England and Wales (and Scotland?) having “one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes”, maybe I wasn’t too far in the wrong laying the blame at journalists’ and tabloids’ doors after all, just for a distantly related, deeper problem.
Granted it’s fiction, but Steig Larsson’s books dealt with the prevalence of sexual violence against women in Sweden.
~alec
#19 by Jeff on April 16, 2012 - 3:15 pm
I’d say Sweden has a lower tolerance threshold for such issues, hence the scope for a book on the issue that doesn’t mean Sweden is a special case, but I’m not suggesting that other countries have some sort of crime-free nirvana. That Telegraph article does suggest the UK has a specific problem, which wouldn’t surprise me.
#20 by Emma Ritch on April 16, 2012 - 6:03 pm
Sweden has the highest rate of reported rape in Europe. Some of that it attributable to the breadth of their rape statute, but not all of it is.
#21 by Emma Ritch on April 16, 2012 - 5:37 pm
It’s extremely common for domestic abuse to include sexual violence, so an accusation of rape being made against Mr Walker isn’t a surprise to me.
I do wonder if by wanting the names of accused men to be airbrushed out of newspapers I am perhaps guilty by association of the terrible and ongoing crime of helping to sweep the whole issue of rape under the carpet.
There’s a very practical reason for people accused of rape to be published: it’s a hugely under-reported crime, and it often brings forward other victims of the same perpetrator.
Given that every single high-profile (or low-profile) rape case involves accusations of mendacity being levied at the complaining witness (see: Kobe Bryant; Roman Polanski; Dominique Strauss-Kahn), it hardly seems credible that an accusation of rape is a reputation-shattering experience for the alleged perpetrator.
#22 by Craig Kelly on April 16, 2012 - 5:39 pm
I understand your sentiments here, Jeff – and I like the style of allowing us to see into your thought process – but I have to largely disagree. Is it not in the pubic interest to be made aware of an elected representative who has been accused of a crime, particularly one so heinous?
In some ways I agree with Steve when he argues the press should report crimes once formal charges have been brought. But again, it really depends on the individual case. For example, in some situations the crime is so severe that it is – once again – in the public interest for it to be reported as soon as it has occurred.
The rape conviction figures are frankly appalling. It is symptomatic of a deeply inept judicial system; although I do accept that sexual crimes are by their very nature hard to prosecute.
Finally, I think your article drives to the heart of the problem with our judicial approach. Far too much attention is placed upon the accused at the expense of the victims. In some cases, the victim cannot speak for themselves and understandably lurk like shadows over the proceedings. But that does not detract from the fact that we must remember that our sympathies should not lie with the accused or convicted. But rather, in both cases our sympathies should be with the victims.
#23 by Kim on April 16, 2012 - 6:26 pm
“…but if our principles aren’t built around innocent until proven guilty then our society is in big trouble.”
Which works both ways, of course – if he’s innocent, then she’s guilty of wasting police time and perverting the course of justice. Doesn’t the woman get the same ‘innocent until proven guilty’ consideration here? If your first thought is that he maybe didn’t do it, then that isn’t the case.
The context of rape within the legal system and Western culture is that no other crime victims get questioned as to the veracity of their claims to the same extent; I’ve lost count of the number of casual “Oh, she’s probably just making it up” comments I’ve heard regarding reports of rape in the media. This is a doubt that doesn’t exist for people who have reported any other crime.
If a case actually does get to court, and as discussed above these are very much amongst the minority, it is frequently the victim and her lifestyle that is on trial. Does she wear too short a skirt, does she sleep around, does she drink… and this is a trial that happens in both the media and in court. A quick Google found me this, and it’s just one of many examples I could have used: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/04/19/the-new-york-times-puts-another-rape-victim-on-trial/
In this context, it’s easy to see why some may see this as feminist-bait. I think looking at the media wanting to destroy the reputations of men is somewhat missing the bigger picture, due to how rape and rape victims tend to be reported in the media.
As that article states, only around 2-8% of rape accusations are false, which makes the fact that the first reaction of many people is that is must be ‘made up’ very worrying. I would argue that the names of men charged with rape shouldn’t be removed from media coverage, but nearly every other aspect of said coverage needs to change.
#24 by Barbarian on April 16, 2012 - 6:49 pm
No one who is accused of rape should be pubicly named. However, once convicted then full details of the case – within limits and with full regard to the victim – should be published. If innocent, then the complainant should be investigated for false accusation and if guilty, punished accordingly.
As to Walker, he should have resigned, but he want as he is an extremely arrogant individual. That arrogance in itself would easily have been identified and he should never have been selected as a candidate.
#25 by Observer on April 16, 2012 - 7:04 pm
Rape is an extremely difficult crime to prove & convictions are very hard to obtain. That is the reason for the low conviction rate there is no lack of willingness in the Scottish justice system to tackle rape.
I thought that the original story about Bill Walker was competely justified as there were court records which proved that he accepted in divorce proceedings that he had behaved violently.
On the other hand I am not at all happy with trial by media for rape. The fact that many women are victims of rape does not remove the onus on society to treat men who are accused of rape fairly.
#26 by Kirsty on April 16, 2012 - 7:54 pm
I think the idea of special protection for defendants in rape accusations or trials appalling, even more so when the accused is a public figure.
Being wrongly accused of any crime – murder, theft, whatever – is a terrible situation, but when the conviction rates for rape are so horrifically low, the notion that a rape defendant deserves the privilege of anonymity not granted to others is atrocious.
The accusation of any supposed crime perpetrated by an MSP – fraud, fire-raising, rape – should be reported fully in the media. Being a public figure, funded by public money, merits this. The case of Walker isn’t a feeding frenzy, or just someone the press has decided to pick on – court records show otherwise. The idea this is not nice treatment, deserving of some sympathy, is really pretty poor.
#27 by Steve on April 16, 2012 - 8:19 pm
I pretty much agree with this, although in an old job I had correspondence with a man whose life had been completely destroyed by false accusations of child abuse against him. And I mean completely destroyed. When accusations like that make it into the press, it’s game over for friendships, community standing, work, everything, guilty or not.
So we need to be a bit careful – journalists need to be trusted to have done a wee bit of checking rather then simply leap to printing accusations whatever they are just because the accused person is an MSP.
I’m not in favour of giving people accused of rape special anonymity, but I don’t think flimsy allegations should be reported without some safeguards either.
#28 by Jeff on April 16, 2012 - 10:17 pm
I’m not saying anonymity should be a privilege, I’m suggesting that it may already be a right. I just find trial by public objectionable.
How does making accusations of rape public have any impact on conviction rates? Indeed, if it does, surely that is an even worse situation to be in?
I just don’t think this is something we need to know about until it is proven, sympathy doesn’t even really come to it.
#29 by Indy on April 17, 2012 - 7:42 am
I agree on one level but as I said to Jeff the only reason this is a high profile case is because he is an MSP. If he was a bus driver no-one in the media would be interested.
That in itself is part of the problem is it not?
#30 by Steve on April 16, 2012 - 8:39 pm
Jeff, I’m a little miffed that you edited out my original comments that have now been made by James and Emma above and allowed to stand. I’ll get over it!
But what I think it shows is that many men don’t really understand the nature of a lot of domestic abuse.
Domestic abuse is often characterised by patterns of controlling behaviour, which don’t just include hitting, but also include other forms of power abuse such as rape, psychological abuse and belittling, controling behaviour around things like seeing friends and accessing money.
I’m afraid I don’t know what the facts are in terms of abusive men doing this to more than one partner, but I wouldn’t be surprised if people who are used to controlling one partner in this way go on to do it to others.
I am not necessarily talking about Bill Walker here, but I think someone who understands domestic abuse in the way I’ve tried to describe above is unlikely to hear about allegations of rape made about someone they believe to be a serial perpetrator of domestic abuse and think “poor man, maybe he didn’t do it.”
#31 by Jeff on April 16, 2012 - 10:27 pm
Steve, I’m just in just now, and I deleted Emma’s comment as it fell foul of the same rationale that had yours edited. I’m not going to allow suggestions that a person is guilty of x because they are guilty of y on this post. That’s a terrible line of thinking in my book, and part of the feeding frenzy that I believe is at play.
As for the rest of your comment; I have no earthly idea as I’m no expert. I suspect, with respect, that you aren’t either. Maybe we should leave it to the experts in, oh I don’t know, a courtroom behind closed doors to decide and we can find out then?
#32 by Emma Ritch on April 16, 2012 - 10:37 pm
I deleted Emma’s comment as it fell foul of the same rationale that had yours edited.
You deleted my comment because you disagree with my analysis?
That’s very strange, no?
#33 by Jeff on April 16, 2012 - 10:44 pm
I decided before I hit publish that if anyone concluded or even suggested that Bill Walker was guilty of this because of the domestic abuse, then I’d delete the comments. So I’m just sticking to that.
I wouldn’t call it “analysis”, more a brazen generalisation. In short, it’s out of scope for the discussion (rightly or wrongly).
#34 by Emma Ritch on April 16, 2012 - 10:54 pm
I decided before I hit publish that if anyone concluded or even suggested that Bill Walker was guilty of this because of the domestic abuse, then I’d delete the comments. So I’m just sticking to that.
I made no suggestion as to whether I believed Mr Walker was guilty of any crime. What I did say was that domestic abuse commonly includes sexual violence, so that it isn’t surprising when an accusation of domestic abuse also includes an accusation of rape.
I wouldn’t call it “analysis”, more a brazen generalisation. In short, it’s out of scope for the discussion (rightly or wrongly).
It’s not a ‘brazen generalisation’ to say that domestic abuse includes sexual violence. It’s fact, and part of the analytical framework that Steve sets out above, which is called ‘coercive control’.
#35 by Jeff on April 17, 2012 - 8:26 am
“I made no suggestion as to whether I believed Mr Walker was guilty of any crime. ”
Well, you may think that Emma, but either way your comment below was too close to the line for my liking:
“so an accusation of rape being made against Mr Walker isn’t a surprise to me”
Of course domestic abuse can include sexual violence. Does that alone make this specific person guilty of this specific accusation? Of course not. And neither I nor you should speculate on that, in my view. Mixing the theoretical with specific cases is pretty dangerous in my own rather judicious view.
If the discussion had stayed theoretical then I wouldn’t have edited comments.
#36 by Emma Ritch on April 17, 2012 - 9:14 am
Of course domestic abuse can include sexual violence. Does that alone make this specific person guilty of this specific accusation?
No one suggested that it did. The quote of mine that you have excerpted seems, without the context of the preceding clause, more speculative about Mr Walker than the sentence you deleted. To reiterate, I have no view about the specific alleged crime(s) in question, and know nothing about them.
Mixing the theoretical with specific cases is pretty dangerous in my own rather judicious view.
This is the basis for specialist prosecution of rape, as in South Africa, and expert witnesses, as in many other jurisdictions. One of the things that makes rape such a difficult crime to prosecute is the fact that juries are composed of people who believe rape myths.
#37 by mhuzzell on April 17, 2012 - 12:09 am
“I do wonder if by wanting the names of accused men to be airbrushed out of newspapers I am perhaps guilty by association of the terrible and ongoing crime of helping to sweep the whole issue of rape under the carpet.”
Yep.
#38 by Aidan on April 17, 2012 - 1:06 am
Right, so. I realise this is a stream of consciousness post and you admit to not really having fully developed your thinking. However.
Firstly, the 6.5% statistic you quote is pointed out as being misleading in the article you link to.
Secondly, there are fundamental issues with the way that rape is investigated and prosecuted which do make it different from other crimes.
Finally, I think you’re heading towards a good point: the last few paragraphs hint at accepting that there is a rape culture as part of a generally misogynistic society.
#39 by Jeff on April 17, 2012 - 8:18 am
I think “stream of consciousness” is unfair, and thinking can always be developed further.
As for 6.5% being misleading, it depends which way it is being used! Did you read the link or just the headline? A statistic on its own isn’t misleading, only when used in the wrong context. My take on the article (not that it was easy to follow) was that 6.5% is appropriate for more serious cases whereas if you take the whole gamut of sexual assault reports, the conviction rate is a good bit higher.
#40 by Doug Daniel on April 17, 2012 - 8:30 pm
I wonder if the sort of reaction Jeff has gotten here for making an honest blog post is part of the reason why rape continues to be such an issue? If men aren’t even allowed to pontificate upon their own failings in the matter without having their heads bitten off, what hope is there for honest discourse? How can those of us who will never be rapists figure out whether we hold back progress in other ways if we’re not even allowed to express ourselves freely?
When I read these comments, I see people trying to shut down debate. That may not be their intention, but it’s the end result. We’re often told that it’s wrong for politicians to try to appeal to “female issues” because there should be no “male” and “female” issues, just issues; yet when men try to take part in discussion in matters that are widely seen as female issues, they are cut down, unless they stick to the script set down by others. So these issues do indeed become the preserve of women, because men are scared of going near them for fear of being branded sexist, misogynistic or worse.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see why rape should be treated any different from other serious crimes. I’m sure most people would agree that there’s something wrong with someone being judged by the media in a murder case – Chris Jefferies being a particularly obvious case in point – and yet it seems it’s wrong to suggest that people accused of rape shouldn’t be judged guilty by the media before they’ve even been charged of such a crime. In a way, it’s maybe worse in the case of rape – whereas people no longer think Jefferies had anything to do with Joanna Yeats’ murder, there is still a prevailing mood that “there’s no smoke without fire” in cases such as John Leslie, and Michael Jackson went to his grave with many (most?) people assuming he really was a kiddy-fiddler. In fact, John Leslie’s case shows what can happen to men accused of rape – as he was accused of rape again several years after the charges were dropped the first time around. Neither came to anything, but the seed of doubt is sewn in people’s minds.
The idea seems to be that it’s worth possibly ruining a few reputations in the name of getting more rape convictions; but as far as I can see, all it does is make men who will never be rapists become paranoid. In the meantime, the men who do commit rape remain completely unfazed. I don’t see how naming rape suspects helps stop rapes occurring in the first place, and the way it’s talked about, sometimes it seems like people are more concerned about increasing the percentages by getting more and more convictions, rather than by having fewer and fewer incidents in the first place. I know that’s not how it is, but it can come across like that at times.
(And no, this isn’t feminist-baiting either…)
#41 by Indy on April 17, 2012 - 10:28 pm
Rape is different to other crimes though. There are rarely any witnesses unless it is a gang rape and the evidence will usually only show that sexual contact took place – unless it has been a particularly violent attack the evidence won’t necessarily “prove” whether the sex was consensual or not. And of course people can have rough consensual sex. It’s really a minefield.
For jurors it could come down to who do you believe? But here’s the thing – it is quite possible for a man to believe that he did not commit rape and the woman to believe that she was raped and they could both be completely genuine in that belief. And it’s tough for the jury to form a judgement. If anyone has been on a jury you will know that it is not easy to take a decision that will result in someone being sent to jail.
So rape cases are more difficult for juries to begin with – and are made more difficult by free floating sexism.
It is really difficult to think of ways round it because how can you get a “fair” jury as it were? For example I would say that men who use a lot porn shouldn’t be allowed to be on a rape jury. They can’t be fair because they have accustomed their own brains to regarding women as pieces of meat. But how could you eliminate people like that from a jury? You can’t really. Even if you asked them do you use a lot of porn they could just say no.
I don’t know what the answer is.
#42 by Iain Menzies on April 18, 2012 - 3:31 pm
Doesnt that all depend on what kind of porn they are looking at?
If its gay porn does that mean that they would be ok, even if they spent 10 hours a day looking at said gay porn?
What if it was straight porn, but the kind where a man is being abused in said porn. Does that mean that he sees women as figures of power? Or would that suggest that he would assume that a woman is by default in charge of sexual relations?
#43 by Catriona Grant on April 17, 2012 - 11:36 pm
I came across this blog by accident a wee while ago, some of it has been interesting however this blog is quite breath taking, more out of niavety that any thing else.
The “feeding frenzy” on Bill Walker MSP, is not necessary in regards to the rape allegation which the police are following up. Perhaps it is best not to comment on that just now (I will be coming back to rape in a minute, though), but on the allegations by his former wives and step daughter that he was violent to them, these facts were made in court at the time of his several divorces. The information Paul Hutcheon uncovered (and with confirmation from his ex-partners) was about his emotional and physical abuse of them.
It is very common that sexual abuse is part of domestic abuse, though this was not stated in the divorce papers. Jeff, you didn’t really mention domestic abuse in your original post, which is quite baffling considering it is these very allegations Mr Walker finds himself expelled from his party and not rape allegations.
The Scottish Government has a clear position on domestic abuse and indeed all violence and abuse against women and children and it clear that they believe it is abhorrent. It would be expected that MSPs part of the government would also believe that too.
I don’t think it is the SNPs responsibility to delve into people’s past, Bill Walker had a responsibility to his party and his constituents, sadly he did not take this responsibility seriously and he finds himself being disciplined and expelled, the party have held him responsible because he had not been.
Why does Bill Walker not publicly apologise to his wives, step daughter and family that he hurt and abused? Why does he not publicly say that violence against women was wrong then and wrong now and there is no excuse for violence. Why does he not state publicly that he agrees with the Scottish Government’s position of violence against women? Why does he not be accountable? He might be a changed man, I do not know, I hope so however he would best being up front rather than carrying out minimising.
Enough on Bill Walker but lets take up the issues about rape. Jeff, when Scotland has one of the worst conviction rates of rape in the world, it really does matter what stats you quote. It really is not splitting hairs, if Scotland had a 6.5% conviction rate that would be a 50% increase in conviction rates. It would still be scandalous and low but the crown and the police would be doing cartwheels and think they were doing well. Jeff, can you see why it matters?
I agree with Alyson and Emma, they are angry about your flippant position on rape and your editing policy seems to be upsetting people too, when discussing such a matter – why would you do that? You might not see it as flippant but I think it is. On the issue of naming people accused of rape, that happens in all cases of offending, rightly or wrongly. The media have a responsibility in how they report when people are accused of crimes. There are massive issues about salacious reporting of the media on all types of allegations.
And just to finish, many, many men are guilty of sexually abusing, harassing and raping women and they are never ever reported, there are many rapes and sexual assaults the police investigate but due to the complications of proving rape and the attitudes about women being liars, whores, money grabbers, accusers, slags etc then putting a case to the crown for prosecution is almost impossible as juries often do not find rapists guilty. (Just for interest the conviction rate for those accused of sexually abusing children is 10%).
The majority of domestic abuse is never reported. IF the only way we hold men who are violent and abusive to women is through a court then we will never ever address violence against women. All of us need to hold the perpetrators responsibile for their behaviour and it really is not a lot to ask that men are NOT violent and abusive to women and perhaps being a wee bit more considered when talking and writing about such matters and spend an extra wee bit on google to get your stats.
#44 by Doug Daniel on April 18, 2012 - 1:00 pm
“due to the complications of proving rape and the attitudes about women being liars, whores, money grabbers, accusers, slags etc then putting a case to the crown for prosecution is almost impossible as juries often do not find rapists guilty. (Just for interest the conviction rate for those accused of sexually abusing children is 10%).”
I had no idea the rate of conviction for sexual abuse against children was so low. But does that not indicate a slight flaw in the argument that the attitude towards women is one of the main reasons for the low rape conviction rates? I’m assuming we’re not saying that the low conviction rates in child abuse is down to attitudes of children being “liars, whores, money grabbers, accusers, slags etc”, so clearly the 90% that are getting found innocent or acquitted or whatever, is down mainly to the fact that rape is indeed such a difficult crime to prove.
(Although one would assume there are also problems related to getting children to give evidence in court etc, so I’m not about to say that the difference caused by sexist attitudes is solely the difference between the two rates.)
That’s not to excuse sexist attitudes in society (and believe me, I wince when I hear the way one or two of my friends – convinced they are “alpha males” – sometimes talk to their wives/girlfriends… My heart also sinks at the way their partners just accept it), but I do wonder if it’s a bit misleading to speak as if this is the main reason juries don’t find men guilty of rape, rather than it simply being down to the difficulty of providing evidence for what is usually a “your word against mine” scenario. Perhaps it’s more down to the fact that people quite simply prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to finding someone guilty of a crime that will doubtless go on to make life very difficult for them.
Perhaps class attitudes play a part too – would blind trials help? Do people see a middle class young man and think “oh, he couldn’t possibly be guilty of such a horrible crime”? Although obviously that then comes back to why they think it’s more likely for the man to be wrongly accused than for the woman to be telling the truth… Perhaps in this situation, there really is a part for the media to play in not making such a big deal about a high-profile rape case before charges have even been formally made, because if the charges are subsequently dropped or not even made in the first place, that’s another high-profile case that sticks in people’s minds to prop up the false idea that a substantial number of rape allegations end up being false.
“All of us need to hold the perpetrators responsibile for their behaviour and it really is not a lot to ask that men are NOT violent and abusive to women and perhaps being a wee bit more considered when talking and writing about such matters and spend an extra wee bit on google to get your stats.”
See, I’m a man who isn’t violent or abusive towards women, but reading that sentence, I feel like I’m being lectured not to be violent and abusive towards women. It’s generalised statements like this which can give feminism a bad name, particularly since you almost seem to be putting the writing of a blog post in the same category as hitting a woman. That might be the case if the blog post in question is saying “wummin r sluts, get in teh kichen were u belong, LOL” where there are blatant signs of misogynistic attitudes, but not when it’s someone who is merely trying to examine his own thought processes and be honest about it.
#45 by Alyson Macdonald on April 18, 2012 - 2:23 pm
Doug, when your male friends have behave in a sexist manner towards their wives or girlfriends, do you challenge them about it? If you don’t, then you are tolerating sexist attitudes, and essentially telling your friends that you think their behaviour is acceptable. Now, if these “alpha males” are prepared to say nasty, sexist things to their partners in public, can you be sure that they’re not doing the same or worse at home, safe in the knowledge that other men think it’s okay. Your friends may not be abusers (although belittling their partners in public could be seen a form of emotional abuse), but if they are, your acceptance is making it easier for them to justify their actions to themselves, because men who do abuse women tend to think that it’s normal, acceptable, and the kind of thing that most men do.
Misogyny can be a lot more subtle than telling a woman to get back in the kitchen, although the way that you’ve been telling women – some of whom are obviously more knowledgeable on the subjects of rape and domestic abuse than you are – that their criticisms aren’t valid because you don’t like the way they’ve been expressed (“I feel like I’m being lectured… It’s generalised statements like this that give feminism a bad name”) is on the same spectrum. Isn’t the fact that you’d rather take Jeff’s rambling opinions as truth, rather than listen to the evidence that has been presented by a number of women.
The earlier comments about “concern trolling” and the “tone argument” still apply here. You don’t want to listen to women unless we follow your instructions on how to behave.
#46 by Indy on April 18, 2012 - 5:12 pm
There is a lot of truth in that but it also needs to be recognised that it can be quite intimidating for men to speak out at times – I had a friend who ended up with a “chelsea smile” after he remonstrated with a guy in a taxi queue about the way he was treating his girlfriend. That’s an extreme example but it’s part of the mix.
#47 by Doug Daniel on April 19, 2012 - 10:11 am
I’ll be honest, I don’t challenge them on it in the sense that I say “hey, don’t speak to her like that”, although that’s generally because when I see this behaviour, it’s in the privacy of their own home, it’s never anything so bad that I feel I have the right to speak out, and to be perfectly honest I’ve just learnt not to interfere in other people’s relationships. I suppose I can be accused of facilitating such attitudes, but I suppose I was brought up not to stick my nose into other people’s business. If I’m asked to get involved, however, I’ll take the side of the person in the right, which is almost always the female.
Incidentally, these things rarely happen in public – they’re not that bad. It’s generally just a tone or a word that makes me raise my eyebrow a bit. But then, seeing themselves as self-styled “alpha males”, they talk like this to other men as well.
I’ll ignore the possible accusation that I’m misogynistic (given the vast majority of my family is female, it’d be a bit weird to hate women) – if anything I’m a misanthrope. See, you’re reading my comments as if I only speak like this to feminists, but the simple fact is I am extremely condescending to anyone who I feel is not being constructive. My first sarcastic foray into this argument was exactly the same kind of comment I have made on Better Nation and other blogs hundreds of times, on all sorts of subjects. So actually, it would have been sexist of me not to make the remark.
If this was a post about independence and you were a unionist, I’d be letting you continue to make a rod for your own back, happy to see you damaging your own argument. But although I disagree with your conduct, I agree with your cause, so I’m telling you why I’m put off by what you’re saying. Just like if a fellow nationalist was on here spouting anti-English rhetoric, I would tell them they were giving nationalism a bad name.
Of course, if I did that, I’d then be accused of being a secret unionist, just like you’re calling me a misogynist. I am neither.
#48 by Alyson Macdonald on April 19, 2012 - 4:30 pm
So you’re allowed to be misanthropic, sarcastic, or condescending, but I’m not? How does that work? Has that perhaps got something to do with the fact that you hold women to a different standard?
#49 by Emma Ritch on April 18, 2012 - 2:39 pm
I’m assuming we’re not saying that the low conviction rates in child abuse is down to attitudes of children being “liars, whores, money grabbers, accusers, slags etc”
Sadly, this is an incorrect assumption.
Across the world, exactly these attitudes prevail with regards to children.
A small list of examples:
1. New York Times blames 11 year old rape victim [Salon]
2. Sacked: The councillor who asked if nine year old ‘rape victim’ wanted it [STV]
3. British Judges free child rapists, say 12 year old girls ‘wanted sex’ [Ms magazine]
These are the tip of a very ugly iceberg.
#50 by Doug Daniel on April 19, 2012 - 9:41 am
Well, quite frankly that’s just disgusting. Particularly the judge. That should be a debarring offence.
#51 by Indy on April 18, 2012 - 1:03 pm
Most people are naive about things they don’t know very much about though, aren’t they? Though it doesn’t stop us having opinions.
This is not an academic blog – it’s just people saying stuff they think is interesting and other people discussing that. No-one claims to be an expert and in that respect it reflects real life pretty well.
If someone gets their facts wrong then it’s fine to point that out but to require people to become expert in whatever strikes them as interesting before they can express an opinion would result in very little discussion of anything when you think about it.
#52 by Alyson Macdonald on April 18, 2012 - 5:55 pm
This is not an academic blog
And none of the women commenting on Jeff’s post are academics. We are just ordinary people who happen to have an interest in the subject, and a bit of information to back us up. Have any of us said that Jeff shouldn’t be *allowed* to give his opinion? No. We just want an opportunity to respond and explain why we think he’s got a lot of this wrong.
#53 by Indy on April 19, 2012 - 7:25 am
That’s not what I meant – you clearly do have an interest and some expertise and I don’t think there is anything wrong with correcting people when they are in error or pointing out something they may not have realised.
And of course everyone is allowed an opinion. Where I think I differ from you is that I think they are allowed an opinion even if they don’t really know what they are talking about!
#54 by Eddie Truman on April 18, 2012 - 12:03 am
In the context of this thread, “not feminist baiting” is much the same as “I’m not a racist but”.
#55 by BaffieBox on April 18, 2012 - 10:08 am
Jings… seen the Sunday Herald and wondered how on earth they get away with reporting something in that way while it was still an investigation, rather than charges being brought forward. So I had some initial sympathy with what I think Jeff was trying to get across.
I’m sure with hindsight, he’d like to have taken more care when writing this blog piece, but given Jeff’s other contributions to this site and his general reputation, I find the intensity and tone of the criticisms of the piece “uncomfortable” and only detracts further from the issues that should be debated.
Finally, and Ive said this before, I really wish the blog would review their moderation policy. It’s an excellent blog but I find censorship uncomfortable – unless it could bring legal challenges, there should be minimal moderation. Unacceptable comments and attitudes should be challenged and debated – concerns about the moderation policy of a forum only starts to undermine the freedom of debate and the impartiality of the administrators.
#56 by Scotto Voce on April 18, 2012 - 1:54 pm
I didn’t really just read the phrase “kiddy fiddler” in a comment on a supposeduly progressive blog, did I? Doug? Any idea how trivialising of child sexual abuse that is? And how offensive? It’s also terribly frustrating that feminists cannot raise the wider issues of why violence against women and childen – by men – is still prevalent in this society, without being shouted down by “I’m not like that, please don’t judge me” men. Know what, guys? It’s about power. Who has it? who wields it? And, crucially, who benefits!
#57 by Iain Menzies on April 18, 2012 - 3:37 pm
I cannot for the life of me remember when i have ever heard someone say, or write, the term kiddy fiddler and mean it in a positive sense. Generally it seems to be used in the sense of ‘and he should have his balls cut off….prefereablly with a rusty razor’.
#58 by Indy on April 18, 2012 - 5:02 pm
The problem here is that people are arguing at different levels and therefore at cross purposes to a certain extent, maybe calling pedophiles kiddy fiddlers is not progressive but that’s the kind of language that a lot of people use in real life and therefore on this kind of blog.
I appreciate that language is actually important – but it is of secondary importance compared to the substance of what people are saying and shouldn’t become a barrier to debate.
#59 by Doug Daniel on April 19, 2012 - 9:04 am
“It’s also terribly frustrating that feminists cannot raise the wider issues of why violence against women and childen – by men – is still prevalent in this society, without being shouted down by “I’m not like that, please don’t judge me” men.”
But I’m not saying that women can’t bring up these issues. I’m also not saying “don’t judge me”, I’m just saying that the tone used in some of these comments makes me feel like they’re being targeted at all men, not just the ones that are guilty of treating women like something on their shoe. It’s counter-productive. We won’t remove sexism and misogyny from society if men feel threatened by the language and tone used. It puts us on the defensive, so that instead of joining in the criticism of those who are perpetrators, we end up (as has happened here) with men who have no problem with women feeling like they have to defend themselves.
#60 by Catriona Grant on April 18, 2012 - 9:30 pm
“All of us need to hold the perpetrators responsibile for their behaviour and it really is not a lot to ask that men are NOT violent and abusive to women and perhaps being a wee bit more considered when talking and writing about such matters and spend an extra wee bit on google to get your stats.”
How in the goddess’ name is this being lectured at. ALL OF US, means all of us – men and women and Doug, if you are not violent and abusive to women then that is a good thing. I don’t want to appear too annoying but if Better Nation is “The Most Scottish Blog” then you have to have Scottish stats.
Emma Rich is right about the attitudes prevailing against children, that are sexist and well, disgusting and awful. Children are not believed much more than women, the difference when there are convictions against a sex offender who has abused children, is exactly that – there has been a group of children being abused either together or serially, they can offer corroboration. In most rape cases of adult women this does not happen, hence the gap in conviction rates.
There are so many complicated issues about rape of adult women, the majority of rapes and sexual assaults happen by a man who knows the woman and usually in a situation that has been constructed rather than walking through the Meadows and a bad man with a mask attacks you.
So if you are married or in a relationship or have been, then its hard to prove rape with someone you have or have had regular sex with. If you are raped by someone you took home after a club, who will believe you. Or raped by your best friend;s brother who picked you up while you were walking home from the pub after falling out with your boyfriend, you’ll be asked “did you want to have sex with him” particularly when you were seen kissing (he kissed you when you were crying). At a training course when you are staying in a hotel with colleagues you voluntarily go to your bosses bedroom for a “nightcap”.
The above situations are common situations where rape happens, imagine reporting it to the police, telling your friend or boyfriend. Then imagine how the hell do the police collate evidence and then be the Procurator Fiscal and try and put a case together that would get a conviction? The new Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 is clear that lack of consent rather than force but proving lack of consent is very difficult.
#61 by Doug Daniel on April 19, 2012 - 9:40 am
It was specifically the line “it really is not a lot to ask that men are NOT violent and abusive to women” which bothered me. Change that to “these men” or similar and you have me on board. I’m the sort of person who gets pedantic about things like that and then finds it difficult to ignore it and focus on the message as a whole. But then that’s also sort of my point – Jeff’s being accused of using insensitive language, yet a phrase like that feels a bit clunky, so surely the same applies both ways?
I’m not trying to pick holes incidentally, if that’s how it seems. I’m just trying to highlight things that I don’t feel help, because I want to see Scotland being as equal a place as somewhere like Iceland, but I don’t think we’ll get there if men as a whole feel like they’re being tarred with the same brush.
As for the situations you mention, it’s easy to see why the conviction rate is so low and why many go unreported. It does seem like there’s little women can do except go around with a hidden camera at all times so they can have solid proof, or learn something like tai chi so even the biggest brute can be put flat on his back. But then that’s obviously putting the onus on women to make themselves responsible for not being raped. So men’s behaviour needs to be changed somehow. As someone who generally requires a woman to make it unmistakeably obvious what’s going down before carnal activity ensues, I have no idea what possesses a man to force himself onto a woman. Part of my reason for being like that is the fear of misreading signs and suddenly finding myself being accused of being a rapist, rather than just being hopeless with body language. I wonder what percentage of failed rape convictions are down to men finding themselves in that position? Probably nowhere near as high as men think, but as long as that idea is in people’s minds, there’ll always be a suspicion that men accused of rape might just be the victim of a misunderstanding.
#62 by Indy on April 19, 2012 - 12:21 pm
But the point is really that all men should be like you. The misreading signals thing is crap and I reckon we all know that really. If a woman said to you no actually sorry I don’t want to do this you would back off straight away. Doesn’t matter what signals she has been sending out before – she could have initiated the whole thing but as soon as she says no, I’m actually not into this then that is that. If someone keeps pushing they’re a rapist. I really think that’s very clear, it’s not confusing at all.