David T.C. Davies is so unremarkable a person that he cannot even manage the distinction of being the Member of Parliament whose status as such was the greatest national embarrassment.
That accolade goes to Jess Phillips.
She is at it again today, cantering her hobbyhorse that the acquittal of Ched Evans proves that the law itself is wrong.
Phillips and Evans richly deserve each other. They would make a lovely couple.
Of course sexual history is pertinent to whether or not a person may or may not have consented to sex at all. Never mind consented to exactly the same startling variation on the theme, as was the case here.
If anything, the ban on the admission of such basic testimony under almost all circumstances raises serious questions about a great many convictions in the last 13 years.
Had the whole truth been given in evidence, then how different might the verdicts have been?
But Phillips is backed in this, with truly jaw-dropping shamelessness, by Harriet Harman.
Harman wrote the current law, and she railroaded it through a Parliament as supine on this in 2003 as it was on the Iraq War in the same year.
Of course, what she really wanted, and what she will not rest until she gets, were "trials" without juries. Heard only by "specialist" judges who would be bound to convict, due to having had "the training".
Thus, with a little bit of decoration, mere accusation would become conviction. Especially since the burden of proof would also have been reversed.
Phillips's class war position in this is the same as Harman's.
Phillips grew up between two houses, one of them in France, and her mother ran both the local NHS Trust and an events company that that Trust engaged. That company employed young Jess.
Harman is fairly unlikely to contest the 2020 General Election. But Phillips intends to be in Parliament for 30 or 40 years yet. Her removal at the ballot box is now absolutely imperative.
She owes her elevation to another of Harman's pet projects, the system of all-women shortlists.
Similarly, the application of that device to this constituency is certain to produce one or the other of two kinds of Labour candidate.
Most probably, an upper-middle-class girl out of the typing pool who had never previously set foot here.
Or, as an outside chance, an ageing 1970s feminist caricature who perfectly embodied that most abiding legacy of Thatcherism, the transfer of power to such types from and over working-class men.
Of course, Neil Fleming, who will by then be back from London with his tail between his legs (a work in progress, so to speak), could always declare himself to be a woman for this purpose.
No one would find that remotely difficult to believe. There really ought to be one woman in his relationship, and he is the only credible candidate for the position.
To put matters at their mildest, beating any of those would hold no terrors for me.
How is sexual history pertinent in a rape case? Take another crime, like burglary. Is it pertinent to whether my house was burgled that I have invited friends in on previous occasions? Nobody would think so. The only issue that matters is consent. Otherwise the victim becomes the person on trial.
ReplyDeleteBurglary is always illegal. Sex isn't. Sex under particular circumstances isn't. Sex in a particular position isn't.
DeleteIt is obviously preposterous to suggest that the woman in the Evans case was no more or less likely to consent than would have been Sister Wendy Beckett.
And there is legally no victim unless and until there has been a conviction.
Why is one woman's consent worth more than another's? For all you know Sister Wendy might have been as rampant as a bunny in private.
DeleteI know burglary is always illegal. So is rape. Consent cannot be implied just because someone has consented once before.
In the Evans case, it was heard in court that she quite habitually behaved in the precise manner under discussion.
DeleteThat did not itself prove that she had done so again. But it cut the ground from under the attempt to present her as "not that kind of girl".
Evans and his accuser are both morally repugnant to me. But that does not make him a rapist.
The law does not convict on the basis of whether someone is 'that kind of girl', thank God. If consent is absent then rape has occurred. It's really very simple. Whether you consider him a rapist is up to you, but his lovemaking certainly leaves something to be desired when the girl he sleeps with runs to the police the next morning.
ReplyDeleteEverything about this post is perfect. But if there were anything beyond perfection, it would be this:
ReplyDelete"Of course, Neil Fleming, who will by then be back from London with his tail between his legs (a work in progress, so to speak), could always declare himself to be a woman for this purpose. No one would find that remotely difficult to believe. There really ought to be one woman in his relationship, and he is the only credible candidate for the position."
You are much too kind.
Delete