Barrister Wants Age of Consent Lowered to 13 so Child Abusers Can Avoid Prosecution – We Cannot Stand For This

hewson

Leading Barrister, Barbara Hewson has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13 to avoid the prosecution of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall.  She published these comments in Spiked Magazine. Is there a place in the legal profession for a barrister who excuses the rape and sexual assault of minors as ‘low level misdemeanours’?

Taken Out of Context?

Hewson’s comments are not made in the context of ethical debate on what age a person can consent to sex.  She explicitly promotes the age reduction as a means to avoid what she calls the ‘grotesque spectacle’ of household names from 70’s TV, Media and Radio being called to account for sex crimes.

Hewson’s Nonsensical Argument

Stop persecuting these poor old men!

Hewson argues that these old men are being persecuted.  It is important to remember that the only reason these men are facing these charges in old age is because they committed them in an era which manifestly failed to deliver justice for their victims.  The sad fact that a previous generation made it a perk of stardom to molest women, boys and girls without sanction, does not deny a subsequent generation the right or duty to hold them to account.  If someone commits a crime, the possibility of prosecution for that crime should follow them to their grave.  This is not the United States; the Statute of Limitations does not apply here.

Furthermore, any attempt to justify these crimes within the context of ‘the 70’s maaaan’ is entirely without merit.  Not every man and not every media personality behaved this way – it cannot be excused by some sort of moral relativism.

These cases are low level misdemeanours; it’s not in the public interest to prosecute

Hewson argues that it is not in the public interest to prosecute these historic sexual crimes, and that they are ‘low level misdemeanours’.  Discussing the prosecution of Stuart Hall, she argues that

‘Touching a 17 year olds breast, kissing a 13 year old, putting one’s hand up a 16 year olds skirt is not remotely comparable to…gang rape…anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality’.  There are several reasons this argument is factually wrong, but morally wrong.

Firstly, this is complete logical fallacy.  Touching a 17 year olds breast or putting one’s hand up a 16 year olds skirt is perfectly legal – if they consent to it.  Where there is not consent, where there is force or coercion, it is sexual assault.  This is a crime.

Secondly, this is a false characterisation of the abuses by Stuart Hall. Hall has been charged with, and has admitted, committing 14 acts of indecent assault and one of rape over a near 20 year period, including the sexual assault of a nine year old girl.

For Hewson to dismiss the rape and assault of children as young as nine as some sort of slap and tickle is exactly the attitude that made these assaults possible in the first place.  Her belittling of such crimes as trivia is just the prevailing mood of the time in which the crimes occurred, and which meant victims and potential witnesses alike kept their mouths firmly shut.

The Age of Consent Should be Reduced to 13

Hewson argues that the prosecution of sex offenders “poses a far graver threat to society than anything Jimmy Savile ever did.” She completes her masterclass in moral vacuity with the following:

“It’s time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest. Adults and law-enforcement agencies must stop fetishising victimhood. Instead, we should focus on arming today’s youngsters with the savoir-faire and social skills to avoid drifting into compromising situations, and prosecute modern crime. As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are: remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13.”

The legalistic language and grammar somewhat deflect the true horror of these sentiments.  Hewson is arguing:

a)      Holding sex offenders to account is more dangerous than engaging in acts of rape, molestation and sexual abuse.

b)      To seek criminal accountability for sex crimes is ‘fetishising victimhood’

c)       That these children, if educated differently, could have avoided ‘drifting into compromising situations’.  This is victim blaming.  The children didn’t drift anywhere, abuse is a deliberate act on the part of the offender not the offended upon.

d)      That those alleging crimes of a sexual nature, including children, should be forced into the public domain – their most humiliating experience put out there for friends, peers, colleagues and family to read about.

e)      That we should reduce the age of consent to 13 so adults can fondle kids with impunity. A 13 year old cannot currently go to see a sexually explicit movie in the cinema, but Hewson argues they are ready to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult of any age?

 

No Place in the Courtroom for a Rape Apologist

Barbara Hewson has repeatedly been placed in Legal 500’s Leading Junior’s list.  She operates out of the Hardwicke Chambers in London.  People with such a disgraceful respect for the law and sexual morality shouldn’t be operating out of a McDonald’s bathroom, let alone one of the leading legal institutions of the land.  No doubt, Hewson will hide behind the Freedom of Speech defense, and critics calling for her to be held to account will be denounced as pitch fork wielding thought police.  The thing with Freedom of Speech: it works both ways.  If Hewson is free to call for the age of consent to be reduced to 13 to help child abusers avoid legal accountability, then others are free to denounce her views and call for her to be held to account for them.  No one stopped Hewson speaking, but we do have a right to question the platform she is granted from which to spew such noxious views.

Take Action

If you would like Hewson to be held responsible, you can do the following:

Get in touch with Hardwicke Chambers and tell them what you think.

Make a complaint to the Bar Standards Board

Another Angry Woman wrote a powerful blog today on how it feels to be a rape survivor and read Hewson’s comments.

41 thoughts on “Barrister Wants Age of Consent Lowered to 13 so Child Abusers Can Avoid Prosecution – We Cannot Stand For This

  1. I agree with the Barrister if there is reasonable doubt about the girls behaviour and for me this comes from parents who have brought them up with no morals. Every case must be looked at separately and should not be a one sided affair which does appear to be the case these days. The police/cps should be held responsible for not proving all the evidence especially if they have withheld it for their own purposes of prosecution which I know to be true in a particular case where evidence of this was found out afterwards. The process of appeal needs to be looked at because it is far too long winded and why a lot of family’s/prisoners do not pursue it. In the appeal declaration there is a part that expresses that if the judge see’s that the prisoner appeal is wasting courts time he could send the prisoner to serve his full time rather than currently having timed halved for confessions etc. If the police/cps were interested in justice to the letter a lot of cases I know of would not even go to court including this one I have seen evidence of police’s deception of the alleged offender. Not everyone is what they are labelled as just because the police/cps want their figures to look good. Anyone who has not been involved with the police will not realise how bad they can really be if it means getting figures to look favourable to the government who are probably the instigators of the police’s mind set to sexual offenders. Wake up and open up your eyes and up date an out of source justice system still in the dark days in a lot of respects. Teenagers are exactly that not adults by far. 21 should be the cut off point for an adult as it was in my day unless there is extreme circumstances i.e. forced rape.

  2. What a cold, childless, menopausal witch. Obviously has no idea what it’s like to have that overwhelming feeling to protect your child from any harm. This is basically sending out the message to all sickos that it’s acceptable to abuse another human being. I am disgusted with her attitude.

    I can remember being 13/14 and signing up to Skype, where a number of men age 30 and over would try to add me and communicate sending messages such as ‘hi sexy’. Once I reached 16, all the strange comments lessened significantly. People like that are clearly not wired properly in the head, and should be locked up in a mental institution – or, if they have acted upon their sick thoughts, locked away in a small confined space in prison, and the key should be thrown away for good.

    Any parent out there will despair at this news. How she can excuse the likes of Saville for his abuse of children in the 1970’s and 80’s is disgusting. Abusers are evil, manipulative and capable of anything. They are freaks who are dangerous and should be kept away from our children.

  3. In my opinion I think she must have been victimised at some point in her own past, it must have been significantly painful for her, that she hasn’t ever come to terms with it, she keeps it locked away from herself, as if it didn’t happen.
    It is quite natural for people who have been victimised to blame themselves, or try to justify their abusers actions, but there should be people in Barbara’s position to fight for them, and for justice, and not use them as a platform for their own broken psyche.
    I hope Barbara gets the help that she so obviously needs.

  4. To me this is a clear case of a person with severe problems, (probably stemming from her own past) to advocate putting the blame on a child rather than an adult, screams to me that she has been victimised herself in the past.
    She obviously hasn’t dealt with her own issues, as they must have been significantly unpleasant to confront, and in not doing so has made herself blind to the suffering of the children, teenagers, and young women, so she can cope with pretending she is fine.
    I feel sexual abuse/rape, is something that cannot be tolerated in any society, I also feel if you try to normalise it, you make it easier for abusers to abuse.
    Barbara, you are not fine, you need help, if you do not wish to face your own problems, that is one thing, but to actively discourage other women from speaking out, well that’s where a line has to be drawn.
    I hope you get the help you so obviously need.

  5. Does she really believe that children of 13 are emotionally mature enough to start a sexual relationship?
    Does she really believe that children of 13 are physically muture enough to start a sexual relationship?
    Does she really believe that abused children who are already traumatised by a sexual assualt will be able to cope with the public scrutiny if they are named as the accuser?

    Who is this woman protecting? The innocent victims or someone sinnister?

  6. Pingback: What The Future Holds: Sex Offender In The City [Updated] | The Camp Of The Saints

    • To whom it may concern.
      Tampering with the rules of procedure to disqualify complaint in my view overlooks the devastation abuse causes in people’s live and displays a cavaliar indifference to the Rule of Law.

      My son completed suicide according to ‘goodbye’ letters he sent family and friends, as a direct result of sexual abuse by the son of a childminder. The perpetrator was an adolescent boy and my son was 3. At the pre-trial review the judge stated that the case brought by police was an abuse of process because it was 8 years between the last offence committed and my sons report to the Police. The judge also granted the offender of 14 years old ‘Doli incappax’. This means that even if the offender did commit the offences he could not have known what he was doing was wrong, by reason of his age or mental incapacity. The offender was 14 years of age and was privately educated. In an attempt to have our sons letters used as a death bed statement, we sought to have the case re-opened. We have just been informed that the CPS (can’t prosecute service) have stated in the Public Interest the case would not be re-opened.. Whilst I acknowledge Law cannot be applied retrospectively in this country, the Law has changed and I feel that because neither my son nor the perpetrator were ‘celebrities’, my sons death does not matter. This barrister’s comments are offensive and clearly only said to serve perpetrators.

      I respectfully suggest that Ms Hewson is called to account as an officer of the court and reminded she is NOT a lobbyist. Furthermore, ABUSE is not a misdemeanour and cost lives.

  7. This is disgusting it doesn’t matter how old the perverts are there is an age restriction for a reason it’s just wrong and for a barrister to say we shoul Lower it,, that’s just disgusting how would she like it if it happend to her daughter or granddaughter what a joke she should be out on trial with the other scumbags out there

  8. It does not matter WHO you are, WHERE you come from either fame or even the gutter, if you touch a child then you should face the severe consequencies that punishes the crime, that child will be emotionally scarred for life, the damage caused may take years to heal and even then the scarring will still be there, Mrs Hewson for her comments should be disbard from the legal profession, to stand up for a paedaphile is as bad as bieng one. I for one would not let her near any kids I know

  9. Sounds like Judges maybe the next ones being accused of all of this reading from this.. It’s like she is covering future actions made by people inside that line of work.. Truly sick in the head!

  10. Hiya! Just FYI, as I said at the top I didn’t write the blog, I merely published it as the woman who wrote it wanted to stay anonymous!

  11. Would seem her bosses are not too happy!!!

    The Hardwicke chambers, where Ms Hewson works in London, said it dissociated itself from her comments.

    In a statement, Hardwicke said: “We are shocked by the views expressed in Barbara Hewson’s article in Spiked.
    “We did not see or approve the article pre-publication and we completely dissociate ourselves from its content and any related views she may have expressed via social media or any other media outlets.”

    via http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

  12. To defend child molesters and rapists is to subconsciously admit that you have been involved with such acts in your life. I suggest that her life is looked into thoroughly and that she has any licenses to practice law revoked and a ban placed on her to speak in the general public. Even if she herself has committed no crimes, to support the individuals who have is just as bad as if she had committed these atrocities herself.

    • A ‘ban placed on her to speak in the general public’?!
      Taliban much?

      ‘to support the individuals who have is just as bad as if she had committed these atrocities herself.’
      And what of those who campaign to free convicts who, like the Birmingham 6, are regarded as monsters until they’re set free?

      Actually what am I doing? Actually responding to this kind of ill-conceived opinion is worse than ignoring it.

      • How is the suggestion to ban someone from talking and voicing the support of child molesters and rapist like the Taliban?
        Yes she is as bad as those who have done the crime if she supports what they have done.
        Oh and who do you think you are to call my opinion “ill-conceived” you pretentious jackass, ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away like you seem to think it does.

        • Ok – how is it like the taliban? It is the kind of thing they get up to, punishing people for thinking and saying things that don’t fit their code. But perhaps I’ve jumped the gun calling it ill-conceived (and I’ll forgive you the one ad-hominem insult, but I’d advise you avoid those in future if you want to discuss things with strangers – it is plain rude).

          Accordingly, could you please conceive of your ban and explain how you’d define such a ban, police such a ban and what the appropriate coercion would be to enforce it, the threat of which would presumably be the punishment for transgression? Would your ban extend to cover other people reporting what she’s said? Would ‘general public’ cover the supermarket? Or being overheard at a bus stop? What about the internet? Or in a private letter?

          Side-note: having read her original piece she’s expressing a far more nuanced point of view than what she’s been credited with, so I’d assert that she isn’t ‘voicing the support of child molesters and rapist[s]’ at all. But even if she was, if we are free to say she’s wrong, then she must be free to say wrong things – otherwise we are simply asserting our might over hers and forcing her into silence simply for the act of speech. How would she ever be able to respond to her critics if she were silent? Such a position also rather asserts that we on the side that thinks she’s wrong are in fact 100% right, and will always be so, which given the reality of human experience and history would be a foolish claim to make. If morality were deemed to be that simple we’d be erm, well, probably living under a tyranny somewhere.

          People voice support for all kinds of things that you or I wouldn’t agree with, but I would find it very difficult to claim that speaking about an act, or trying to defend with speech an act is the very same as committing the act. I would have thought that were obvious but perhaps I’m wrong. If it were the case that voicing support were the same as doing something, then every lawyer that defended a criminal would be as guilty as their client; that every internet commenter that recommends someone be sacked and then filled with lead (I’ve seen one such comment today already, from someone who would probably come across as very pleasant the rest of the time) would be charged with attempted murder.

          As for ‘who do I think I am to call your opinion “ill-conceived”’ – it doesn’t matter, if your argument is in fact ill-conceived (it’s nothing personal, what matters is getting to the truth of things) – which is why I’ve invited you to explain your ban idea instead of dismissing you with an insult.

  13. I think you’re bang on about the rape culture aspect of this. She’s clearly never endured abuse, not does she understant the psychological consquences of being frced by someone who has power.

  14. Or you could just ignore the stupid comments of one single stupid person safe in the knowledge that they’ll never take hold anywhere and the more they’re ignored the sooner they’ll go away.

    One concern I do have though. I note you don’t specify when ‘call[ing] for her to be held to account’ exactly what ‘being held to account’ might entail, especially as it looks like she’s put her point across and that’s that: accounted for and we all (unsurprisingly) disagree. I hope you’re not asking for her to somehow be dragged before a tribunal simply for holding and/or expressing an opinion that you don’t like.

    Anyway, as she wrote her opinion in Spiked! magazine she’d have known in advance that everybody would be offended: provoking the kind of bloggerstorm you’re whipping up is rather the raison d’etre of that particular publication.

    Onto the next distraction – I wonder who’ll next say something related to sex and celebrity that will get us talking furiously about something other than the IMF visiting this week and bollocking Gideon for robbing us blind?

    • @ M Hampson:

      …A response of sorts I suppose, and there will be those few that will agree with your opinion. But what if it were YOUR 13-year-old daughter, and Hewson was the miscreant’s defence barrister..? What THEN would be your opinion..?

      We are all well aware of the other financial and governance issues that affect us day-by-day thanks to the Coalition, but THIS one is about the protection of our children in – and out – of the Courts. Or don’t you have any children..?

        • @tobias true, ignoring a problem won’t make it go away.
          Unless the problem is attention-seeking barristers whose provocative comments would otherwise evaporate in their own impotent meaninglessness if they were ignored.
          It’s an odd strategy she’s chosen though, as the last 3 lines of her long and otherwise straightforward article have probably delivered more hits for Spiked than anything recently. It’s an odd strategy though because it means those 3 lines of Daily Mail bait are the only part of her piece being discussed. And I use the word ‘discussed’ very loosely – the response here and elsewhere seems to resemble a 2-minute hate more than an adult discussion.

          • M Hampson – this is a mischaracterisation of her piece. I have quoted directly from the piece at length in the post above. Her conclusion is quoted in full. As we know, and as Hewson knows, the introduction and conclusions to our pieces are the essence of the message. Her message here is a clear call for reducing the age of consent to 13, withdrawing the right to anonymity for complainants (no stated exemption for children), and placing a statute of limitations on abuse cases, meaning historic cases would no longer be punishable in a court of law. This is her thesis. I have no problem with people defending her right to have made such a claim (although I disagree vehemently). However, it does mean that those opposing her thesis have the right of reply, they have the right to speak freely about their doubts for her suitability in her profession. Also, those defending her have the onus to accurately portray her piece. To suggest that the arguments herein are somehow NOT the main thrust of her piece is just plain untrue.

            • @scriptonite
              I don’t disagree with anything you say.
              My comments refer to the discussion that’s followed (less here but elsewhere), which has mainly been characterised by ranting and lynchmobbing. It’s meant that the other talking points in her piece regarding what a legal system is for, which given the snowball’s chance in hell that any of the points she made in the last 3 lines will ever make it into the real world as policy, are worth more lines of copy but aren’t being considered. I especially dislike the tone of some who’ve conflated matters into an horrendous ‘she said it’s okay to rape 13 year olds’, which she hasn’t.

              One question though.
              We all agree the freedom of speech goes both ways. Ms. Hewson used hers to write the article in Spiked, and you along with others have exercised theirs in blogs and newspapers, and I along with others still have all commented publicly.
              So far, so free.
              But does our freedom of speech extend to writing to her place of work, or by a similar other, more personal communication? It’s one thing to reply to a mass-medium message with another mass-medium message, but I have grave doubts about making a direct, personal reply to what was a public article – in particular would that not amount to harassment (besides all the doubtless many poison pen letters which are already illegal)?

              Given the tone of Spiked I’ve always accepted their approach of being profoundly contrarian on the principle that only through a direct contrarian dialectic will progress ever be made. I don’t agree with that notion, but we would I think be all the poorer if every time a contrarian view were aired, personal hate mail flew at the voice raising them, sufficient to reduce the voices that lie outside what we understand as a consensus. Do you agree?

              • @M Hampson. Thank you. You raise an important question which I’m grateful to respond to.

                In this case, Hewson has cited her role as a barrister for Hardwicke so she is speaking in that role. Therefore yes, it is acceptable that people might wish to let the chambers know what they feel about her arguments.

                I have an email, twitter and Facebook account associated with this blog and often receive positive and negative feedback. I accept that. My golden rule is, if I don’t want to or can’t defend my thesis, then I shouldn’t publish it. I can choose to debate critics or ignore them. I also don’t invoke my credentials, professional positions or associations to add to my credibility. Just reference sources and put the case. Hewson has used her role & employment in her piece.

                I have made efforts to avoid personal insults in the piece but vigorously criticised her theories. I prefer to play the ball rather than the man in these scenarios. I do however appreciate that on such a contentious issue, people may well take a personal dislike to her and wish to express that.

                Given the potential distress and damage her article could cause, criticism is legitimate. She is a senior member of our legal system and an opinion former. She also has a track record, having argued FOR EDF suing protesters. So there is a double standard applied too – happy to criminalise protest, unhappy to criminalise child abuse.

                Given the high profile of both Hewson and Operation Yewtree, I’d be stunned if she wrote this piece expecting no reaction.

                Hope that clarifies my position for you. We might not agree an all elements but I appreciate your courtesy of tone in disagreement :)

                • Thank you for your reply, we agree on practically everything and I’m a regular reader of your excellent blog :-)

                  Ever since I first logged on to discussion group in 1997 it’s been a wish of mine that online conversations be more like enhanced face-to-face conversations: with all the courtesy that comes from a convivial conversation but with the enhancements of hyperlinks and asynchronous responses the internet affords and which allow for considered replies that the heat of a noisy pub might not allow. I try hard to find the right balance, I’m still wishing!

                  Thanks for the info regarding her previous form, I did wonder what she was doing on Spiked as they come across as perhaps the hardest noses and thickest skins on the internet, with a razor-sharp ability to find the most contentious, contrarian opinion in any given situation and make a stink out of it. I guess she’s seeking to make a name for herself at the bar for speaking in a similar contrarian way to the rest of the Spiked gang. I suppose there’s more money to be made representing EDF and rich sex offenders than other clients – but wow, that’s some special grubby niche, I wouldn’t have the thick skin required for that kind of brief!

                  Looking forward to your next post, thank you for the excellent work.
                  M

      • I think that was the main hypothesis of her article, which questioned the use of the legal system as therapy for victims and all the philosophical consequences that would follow (not least of which is the reality that therapeutic aims could well be different from judicial aims, and that therapeutic aims could be better served by other means).

        I don’t think making the matter personal to me or my children is particularly helpful in the context of an entire legal system. In direct answer to your question, I’d be upset by Ms. Hewson’s comment regarding the age of consent, but not as upset as I’d be about my daughter’s experience. Any parent who got those two mixed up (the crime and a speaker about general matters thematically relevant the crime) would be giving a bad example I think. I suppose there are a lot of messengers out there with bullet wounds.

        On a related note I think there is a good reason why victims aren’t in charge of the sentences given to offenders and that personal aspect is one of them: can you honestly imagine anyone ever getting less than 20 years hard labour under such circumstances? Or worse, can you imagine the pressure felt by a victim to behave like a victim while at the same time having to decide what’s just? I’m not sure I’d be happy living in such a society, but you’re welcome to describe otherwise of course although this last paragraph is a long way from the topic, so feel free to ignore: I didn’t intend to construct a straw man.

      • Sorry – this comment is for @John D Jones

        “I think that was the main hypothesis of her article, which questioned the use of the legal system as therapy for victims and all the philosophical consequences that would follow (not least of which is the reality that therapeutic aims could well be different from judicial aims, and that therapeutic aims could be better served by other means).

        I don’t think making the matter personal to me or my children is particularly helpful in the context of an entire legal system. In direct answer to your question, I’d be upset by Ms. Hewson’s comment regarding the age of consent, but not as upset as I’d be about my daughter’s experience. Any parent who got those two mixed up (the crime and a speaker about general matters thematically relevant the crime) would be giving a bad example I think. I suppose there are a lot of messengers out there with bullet wounds.

        On a related note I think there is a good reason why victims aren’t in charge of the sentences given to offenders and that personal aspect is one of them: can you honestly imagine anyone ever getting less than 20 years hard labour under such circumstances? Or worse, can you imagine the pressure felt by a victim to behave like a victim while at the same time having to decide what’s just? I’m not sure I’d be happy living in such a society, but you’re welcome to describe otherwise of course although this last paragraph is a long way from the topic, so feel free to ignore: I didn’t intend to construct a straw man.”

        • My “making the matter personal to (you) and your children” IS apparently, however, what most people would choose to have happen. In the eyes of the legal system, the laws and judiciary it is apparently NOT considered important enough to BE considered, which is why so many victims, their families and friends – and members of the public outraged by the poor and uneven quality of sentencing – opine that the legal process often ultimately defends the criminal rather than redressing the effect of the crime committed! Juries often do request sitting judges to set a gaol-time tariff at a certain level and are more often than not rebuffed for some often obscure legal reason or otherwise, and it is of course the jury that finds the defendant to be guilty of said crime, NOT the judge or the prosecution team. I’m sure that were we to have trials conducted solely by the judiciary in this country, the sentences would be even more lenient than they are now!

          Ms Hewson’s stance in this matter, denied as it undoubtedly will be by her, and disavowed by her employers, WILL ring true to those of her ilk in the legal profession whose job it is to defend the often indefensible. Peruse the newspaper columns and the Internet blogs and comment columns during the period just after the Saville posthumous indictment hit the newsstands and you would have read: “Good old Jimmy, he wouldn’t have done THAT!” “Pillar of the community – and he made so much money for this hospital!” “He used to have children sit right next to him on his big, old chair. I would have noticed it on TV if he touched them in any funny way!” I’m sure that those “voices of reason” still can be heard, and that Ms. Hewson and her ilk will play on them – and the respondents being guilty-of-the-crime or innocent-until-proven-guilty, it gives her NO right to do so!

  15. If you are a sex pest,then best to have her represent you in court.Luckily her views are not the views of right minded people,I hope.

    • Unfortunately many ‘rightminded’ people do have the same view as this barrister, especially when it comes to victim blaming. Victim blaming is the default setting of our society; when we hear of a case of rape most people automatically think ‘why didn’t he/she run away/fight/scream/stay sober/dress modestly/refuse to accompany the offender to their hotel room?’

Leave a Reply