Ched Evans

I've had sex with Mrs duck thousands of times over the years ( poor women) , but can still be convicted of raping her if she's ****ed up and claims she didn't consent that one particularly time. This is clearly less traumatic than a stranger forcing himself on her. Surely there are different degrees of rape as there are with most crimes

What am I defending? Don't try and put words into my mouth you confused child.

Well, you seem to be doing your best to argue Evans innocence. Or that it couldn't be rape if she was drunk. Or just trying to find any holes in the legal process whatsoever.

And dismissing death threats to a woman making a stand as just some "random weirdo". Because threats online have never later been acted upon no?

I'll take being a confused child over being a rape apologist any day thanks.

I've had sex with Mrs duck thousands of times over the years ( poor women) , but can still be convicted of raping her if she's ****ed up and claims she didn't consent that one particularly time. This is clearly less traumatic than a stranger forcing himself on her. Surely there are different degrees of rape as there are with most crimes

Most rape (9 in every 10) is by someone the person knows. And it isn't up to anybody else except the victim to decide how traumatic it was for that individual. I'm not therefore going to compare rape situations because I have no idea what it is like to be raped. All I know is that from talking to victims in the past, it is traumatising in all cases.

And there isn't degree of rape. Either there is consent or there isn't consent, one is consensual sex and the other is rape. And I really don't get what you mean by ''if she is ****ed up and claims she didn't consent''. Either there was consent or there wasn't, and studies have shown that when it comes to reporting false reports make up a minuscule amount of overall reports. Another tragedy is that many individuals don't feel they can come forward at all and instead have to live with it for years and in many cases have to continue to deal with the person who raped them on the daily basis.

I've had sex with Mrs duck thousands of times over the years ( poor women) , but can still be convicted of raping her if she's ****ed up and claims she didn't consent that one particularly time. This is clearly less traumatic than a stranger forcing himself on her. Surely there are different degrees of rape as there are with most crimes

I think in the eyes of the law there are different types of rape but if Mrs duck passes out through drink and you stick your duck penis in her it's still rape.

unless he clears his name, the football career he wants to continue will probably be dead and buried as sheff united are not going to let him stay.

Most rape (9 in every 10) is by someone the person knows. And it isn't up to anybody else except the victim to decide how traumatic it was for that individual. I'm not therefore going to compare rape situations because I have no idea what it is like to be raped. All I know is that from talking to victims in the past, it is traumatising in all cases.

 

And there isn't degree of rape. Either there is consent or there isn't consent, one is consensual sex and the other is rape. And I really don't get what you mean by ''if she is ****ed up and claims she didn't consent''. Either there was consent or there wasn't, and studies have shown that when it comes to reporting false reports make up a minuscule amount of overall reports. Another tragedy is that many individuals don't feel they can come forward at all and instead have to live with it for years and in many cases have to continue to deal with the person who raped them on the daily basis.

What I am saying is you can be convicted of raping a women who has willingly had sex with you over a 20 year period , but was incapable of consenting one time due to drink . Doesn't the thought occur to you that this is perhaps a lesser degree of offense than a stranger jumping out of a bush in the middle of the night. Half my sucsessful pulls involved chucking drink down the birds throat to loosen her inhebitions . Some of them probarely regretted it in the morning , but I doubt they'd consider me a rapist

Well, you seem to be doing your best to argue Evans innocence. Or that it couldn't be rape if she was drunk. Or just trying to find any holes in the legal process whatsoever.

 

And dismissing death threats to a woman making a stand as just some "random weirdo". Because threats online have never later been acted upon no?

 

I'll take being a confused child over being a rape apologist any day thanks.

Wind your neck in kid.

Wind your neck in kid.

Your male tears sustain me

Most rape (9 in every 10) is by someone the person knows. And it isn't up to anybody else except the victim to decide how traumatic it was for that individual. I'm not therefore going to compare rape situations because I have no idea what it is like to be raped. All I know is that from talking to victims in the past, it is traumatising in all cases.

 

And there isn't degree of rape. Either there is consent or there isn't consent, one is consensual sex and the other is rape. And I really don't get what you mean by ''if she is ****ed up and claims she didn't consent''. Either there was consent or there wasn't, and studies have shown that when it comes to reporting false reports make up a minuscule amount of overall reports. Another tragedy is that many individuals don't feel they can come forward at all and instead have to live with it for years and in many cases have to continue to deal with the person who raped them on the daily basis.

Of course there are degrees of rape!! If a as duck says he gives his long term missus one when she's not really up for it and drunk whilst they are in their bed together after a night on the booze is totally different to a stranger holding a woman at knife point in a park and threatening to slit her throat if she doesn't let him do what he wants. Both could be considered rape in the yes of the law but if you can't tell the difference between the two then you're nuts.

 

Your male tears sustain me

Of course there are degrees of rape!! If a as duck says he gives his long term missus one when she's not really up for it and drunk whilst they are in their bed together after a night on the booze is totally different to a stranger holding a woman at knife point in a park and threatening to slit her throat if she doesn't let him do what he wants. Both could be considered rape in the yes of the law but if you can't tell the difference between the two then you're nuts.

nah, got to disagree with you I'm afraid. A husband forcing himself upon his wife (drunk or not) is still rape. It's still deplorable.

"Both could be considered rape in the eyes of the law" is a pretty dangerous attitude. Being married does not make anyone entitled to sex.

Are you still crying your eyes out over what people write on your Facebook about a Sainsburys advert? Stay strong kid.

Still all you got? I'm a child?

You're a rape apologist. That's a million times worse.

Still all you got? I'm a child?

 

You're a rape apologist. That's a million times worse.

Stop with the rape apologist stuff. It's clearly made up guff from yourself and frankly makes you look a bit of a tit.

Still all you got? I'm a child?

 

You're a rape apologist. That's a million times worse.

Stop with the rape apologist stuff. It's clearly made up guff from yourself and frankly makes you look a bit of a tit.

Ah yes right on queue. Another poster determined to question the verdict of the judge and jury. But yeah, I'm the tit making up guff.

Of course there are degrees of rape!! If a as duck says he gives his long term missus one when she's not really up for it and drunk whilst they are in their bed together after a night on the booze is totally different to a stranger holding a woman at knife point in a park and threatening to slit her throat if she doesn't let him do what he wants. Both could be considered rape in the yes of the law but if you can't tell the difference between the two then you're nuts.

I'm not going to get into an extended argument with you over this, but I will say just once that you can not quantify what you are trying to quantify in terms of the effect upon the victim. There is no 'not really up for it'. If the woman in question 'isn't really up for it', then she isn't giving her consent and it is rape. And the effects of that on an individual you can't quantify unless you are in that particular situation. Rape is rape and it ruins people's lives and that is regardless of whether it is by someone they know and trust (which is by far the most common way) or whether it is by a stranger (which is much rarer).

I'm not going to comment on Duckhunter's comment about 'chucking drink down' throats to 'loosen their inhibitions' other than to say he should read it back.

 

I'm not going to comment on Duckhunter's comment about 'chucking drink down' throats to 'loosen their inhibitions' other than to say he should read it back.

Oh FFS , it's a well known seduction technique . Maybe I'm old fashioned , and I admit I haven't been on the pull for over 20 years , but come on, stop being such an old woman.

Of course there are degrees of rape!! If a as duck says he gives his long term missus one when she's not really up for it and drunk whilst they are in their bed together after a night on the booze is totally different to a stranger holding a woman at knife point in a park and threatening to slit her throat if she doesn't let him do what he wants. Both could be considered rape in the yes of the law but if you can't tell the difference between the two then you're nuts.

There are degrees of violence, from mild coercion or taking advantage of an inebriated state to murder - but not degrees of rape, which is a yes/no answer to the question of consent.

Where have I apologised for anyone being a rapist? I'm sure you can highlight the posts? Not like you to be wrong and confused is it

You really need to consult a dictionary. Being an apologist (which from the tone of your posts you appear to be as close as damn it) does not mean 'apologising'.

I'm not going to get into an extended argument with you over this, but I will say just once that you can not quantify what you are trying to quantify in terms of the effect upon the victim. There is no 'not really up for it'. If the woman in question 'isn't really up for it', then she isn't giving her consent and it is rape. And the effects of that on an individual you can't quantify unless you are in that particular situation. Rape is rape and it ruins people's lives and that is regardless of whether it is by someone they know and trust (which is by far the most common way) or whether it is by a stranger (which is much rarer).

 

I'm not going to comment on Duckhunter's comment about 'chucking drink down' throats to 'loosen their inhibitions' other than to say he should read it back.

You think that a wife getting drunk and having sex with her partner of 20 years when she doesn't really fancy it is going to be as traumatised as a woman who gets grabbed by a stranger in a park at night, her clothes ripped off and held at knife point whilst he forces himself on her, then left in a beaten mess on the floor? okay then.

There are degrees of violence, from mild coercion or taking advantage of an inebriated state to murder - but not degrees of rape, which is a yes/no answer to the question of consent.

That's not really true though, is it?

Yes, as you say there are no "degrees of rape". But there are categories of rape, with different categories having different consequences. I think that was the point that was being made.

nah, got to disagree with you I'm afraid. A husband forcing himself upon his wife (drunk or not) is still rape. It's still deplorable.

 

"Both could be considered rape in the eyes of the law" is a pretty dangerous attitude. Being married does not make anyone entitled to sex.

Didn't see myself condoning it anywhere pal so nice try.

If there aren't degrees of rape then why did ched Evans only get 5 years for an offence which carries a life sentence? Surely if rape is rape, there are no grey areas, everything is black and white, like you and other know it alls on here are making out then surely EVERY offence should carry life sentencing, there are no grey areas, it's the same offence in every circumstance so should carry the same penalty in every circumstance.

Oh and by the way, the law says you and the kid Andy are both wrong.

That's not really true though, is it?

 

Yes, as you say there are no "degrees of rape". But there are categories of rape, with different categories having different consequences. I think that was the point that was being made.

But it's still either rape or not rape though. Every single case is different.

But it's still either rape or not rape though. Every single case is different.

He didn't say it wasn't. He said there are different degrees. The law agrees with him, despite what some are posting on here.

There are degrees of violence, from mild coercion or taking advantage of an inebriated state to murder - but not degrees of rape, which is a yes/no answer to the question of consent

Come on, you know better than that.

If all rape was the same then all rapists would get the same sentence. They don't, in the same way as all those convicted of violent offences, and manslaughter, and theft, and robbery, etc, don't all get the same sentence.

All of those offences have different "degrees", "categories", "levels of seriousness" or whatever you want to call it. Whilst rape is rape, like violence is violence, not all offences are the same and cannot be (and in the eyes of the law, are not) dealt with in the same way.

nah, got to disagree with you I'm afraid. A husband forcing himself upon his wife (drunk or not) is still rape. It's still deplorable.

 

"Both could be considered rape in the eyes of the law" is a pretty dangerous attitude. Being married does not make anyone entitled to sex.

Every time I look at my ring I shed a little tear.

Turkish will be alarmed to read that I agree with him - my apologies.

As I take it 'as read' that all reasonable people accept that it is only fit and proper that the ultimate crime of Homicide is separated into the very different offences of Murder or Manslaughter depending on the circumstances, then I'm struggling to see why Rape should be treated so very differently.

In the real world of course our Judges understand that not all 'Rapes' are the same and they set the length of the sentence they hand down to each convicted rapist accordingly. Long may that situation continue I say.

You got a Garry Lucy like story goatboy?

You got a Garry Lucy like story goatboy?

So many stories, so little time Tokes.

Come on, you know better than that.

 

If all rape was the same then all rapists would get the same sentence. They don't, in the same way as all those convicted of violent offences, and manslaughter, and theft, and robbery, etc, don't all get the same sentence.

 

All of those offences have different "degrees", "categories", "levels of seriousness" or whatever you want to call it. Whilst rape is rape, like violence is violence, not all offences are the same and cannot be (and in the eyes of the law, are not) dealt with in the same way.

I believe I'm right in saying Egg that since the law has changed if a woman agrees to have sex with a man wearing a condom and he slips it off without her consent during the act, that too can be considered rape, she could effectively stop consenting whilst having sex. Still in the black and white world our forum judges live n this is exactly the same as being held down by an axe wielding maniac who is going to slice her to bits in an alley way if she tries to stop a stop her.

Had a mate who had a rape case while on jury duty. Bird was staying at some guys house and sleeping in his bed. They got drunk, had sex, she then accused him of rape. The evidence was very weak and one person's word against another. 3 of the jury wanted to send him down, 2 said just in case he is a rapist, the other because they said they couldn't live with themselves if they let him go and he did it again. Best to be on the safe side, the guys life ruined, on the register as a sex offender for life, people like Turks trying to cut you in prison for being a sexcase but best to be on the safe side just in case. I seriously doubt the jury system sometimes.

Myths and realities of rape

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/commonmyths2.php

Might be worth having a read before passing judgement...

Had a mate who had a rape case while on jury duty. Bird was staying at some guys house and sleeping in his bed. They got drunk, had sex, she then accused him of rape. The evidence was very weak and one person's word against another. 3 of the jury wanted to send him down, 2 said just in case he is a rapist, the other because they said they couldn't live with themselves if they let him go and he did it again. Best to be on the safe side, the guys life ruined, on the register as a sex offender for life, people like Turks trying to cut you in prison for being a sexcase but best to be on the safe side just in case. I seriously doubt the jury system sometimes.

This is a rather depressing story.

From personal experience (twice actually) before they started their deliberations the Judge would have carefully explained to this Jury that they can only convict if they are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in fact guilty of the offence he was charged with. If some of this jury were truly incapable of comprehending that eminently simple legal principle then they should have excused themselves from Jury Service on the grounds of mental impairment.

Indeed, they probably shouldn't be left to go outdoors on their own without a responsible adult being on hand to help them cross the road.

Had a mate who had a rape case while on jury duty. Bird was staying at some guys house and sleeping in his bed. They got drunk, had sex, she then accused him of rape. The evidence was very weak and one person's word against another. 3 of the jury wanted to send him down, 2 said just in case he is a rapist, the other because they said they couldn't live with themselves if they let him go and he did it again. Best to be on the safe side, the guys life ruined, on the register as a sex offender for life, people like Turks trying to cut you in prison for being a sexcase but best to be on the safe side just in case. I seriously doubt the jury system sometimes.

I can tell you for definite, that experience was not unique. (The trial, I mean, not the offence.)

Oh FFS , it's a well known seduction technique . Maybe I'm old fashioned , and I admit I haven't been on the pull for over 20 years , but come on, stop being such an old woman.

"Seduction" ??????????????!!! You class getting a girl drunk to coerce her into sex as seduction ????!!! Oh my god. That explains a lot of disappointing evenings.

I can tell you for definite, that experience was not unique. (The trial, I mean, not the offence.)

Just on the off chance that no one has bothered to read the link I've posted above, I'm going to copy and paste the relevant section to that particular point:

Myth Women often make up stories or lie about being raped.

Fact For anyone who has been raped or sexually assaulted, whether or not to report to the police can be a difficult decision. At present, it's estimated that only 15% of the 85,000 women who are raped and over 400,000 who are sexually assaulted in England and Wales every year report. One significant reason many women and girls tell us they don't go to the police is because of their fear of not being believed.

Unfortunately, a disproportionate media focus on the very small number of cases each year that involve a so-called false allegation of sexual violence perpetuates the public perception that malicious false reporting is common. In fact, it is this perception that is entirely false. For many years, studies have suggested that false reporting rates for rape are no different from false reporting rates for any other crime, that is, around 4%. In March 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service published a survey confirming that false rape reports are 'very rare' and suggesting they could make up less than 1% of all reports. Read more here.

Had a mate who had a rape case while on jury duty. Bird was staying at some guys house and sleeping in his bed. They got drunk, had sex, she then accused him of rape. The evidence was very weak and one person's word against another. 3 of the jury wanted to send him down, 2 said just in case he is a rapist, the other because they said they couldn't live with themselves if they let him go and he did it again. Best to be on the safe side, the guys life ruined, on the register as a sex offender for life, people like Turks trying to cut you in prison for being a sexcase but best to be on the safe side just in case. I seriously doubt the jury system sometimes.

This is a rather depressing story.

 

From personal experience (twice actually) before they started their deliberations the Judge would have carefully explained to this Jury that they can only convict if they are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in fact guilty of the offence he was charged with. If some of this jury were truly incapable of comprehending that eminently simple legal principle then they should have excused themselves from Jury Service on the grounds of mental impairment.

 

Indeed, they probably shouldn't be left to go outdoors on their own without a responsible adult being on hand to help them cross the road.

I can tell you for definite, that experience was not unique. (The trial, I mean, not the offence.)

Pretty obvious this thread would end up here, really.

There are degrees of violence, from mild coercion or taking advantage of an inebriated state to murder - but not degrees of rape, which is a yes/no answer to the question of consent.

I believe I'm right in saying Egg that since the law has changed if a woman agrees to have sex with a man wearing a condom and he slips it off without her consent during the act, that too can be considered rape, she could effectively stop consenting whilst having sex. Still in the black and white world our forum judges live n this is exactly the same as being held down by an axe wielding maniac who is going to slice her to bits in an alley way if she tries to stop a stop her.

Dont Sweden have three 'levels' of rape in law, with differences in handling for cases ranging from the stranger abduction to the kind of condom incident? I vaguely remember reading about it during the Julian Assange extradition hearings.

Pretty obvious this thread would end up here, really.

CB Fry, you are my new favourite poster, based on this thread. I shall view your usual cantankerous responses in a whole different light.

I've had sex with Mrs duck thousands of times over the years ( poor women) , but can still be convicted of raping her if she's ****ed up and claims she didn't consent that one particularly time. This is clearly less traumatic than a stranger forcing himself on her. Surely there are different degrees of rape as there are with most crimes

Rape is rape but there are degrees of sentencing that should reflect the severity of the rape. Consent is key. No consent, leave well alone no matter what has gone on before. We have had a successful rape prosecution involving a prostitute. Things are changing gradually but as this thread shows, there are still people who think that it is okay to f*ck someone even if they are not in control.

Had a mate who had a rape case while on jury duty. Bird was staying at some guys house and sleeping in his bed. They got drunk, had sex, she then accused him of rape. The evidence was very weak and one person's word against another. 3 of the jury wanted to send him down, 2 said just in case he is a rapist, the other because they said they couldn't live with themselves if they let him go and he did it again. Best to be on the safe side, the guys life ruined, on the register as a sex offender for life, people like Turks trying to cut you in prison for being a sexcase but best to be on the safe side just in case. I seriously doubt the jury system sometimes.

They got drunk. Just how drunk was she?

One of which is clearly not rape.

Technically it is.

Pretty obvious this thread would end up here, really.

Exactly - and utterly, utterly depressing. The Lounge at its insinuating, weasel-worded worst. Luckily for the 'birds' (Tokyo Saint TM), verdicts are not delivered on football forums.

Exactly - and utterly, utterly depressing. The Lounge at its insinuating, weasel-worded worst. Luckily for the 'birds' (Tokyo Saint TM), verdicts are not delivered on football forums.

But what's not depressing is responses by Saintandy666, sadoldgit, kelvinsrighthandglove, CB Fry, as well as a few others. And by the debate being had, as depressing as it is, at least their points have been made.

I also think it's a tough topic for people who haven't been through it, or who don't have experience working with people who have been through it, to really appreciate. Plus I think some men do feel vulnerable by the notion that they could easily be accused of something similar without having done anything intentionally wrong. Whereas, I think if they were to watch first hand an incident like this, they would realise there's no way they would be in that position in the first place. Personally, I can't under any circumstance imagine inflicting that kind of control on another human being.

The trouble with Chad Evans is he genuinely doesn't believe he did anything wrong, and that's not because he's innocent, that's because he doesn't think there's anything wrong with what he did, which is a whole different ball game. Luckily, the law courts and jury are more sophisticated than he is.

Ah yes right on queue. Another poster determined to question the verdict of the judge and jury. But yeah, I'm the tit making up guff.

I think ALL verdicts should be robustly questioned to make sure they stand up in the face of appeals. What I don't do is assume that because someone has been found guilty by a jury that automatically means their judgement is totally infallible. Ever heard of the West Memphis three?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three

Now again for those hard of thinking, I'm not saying that in this case the judgement is wrong, simply that a jury handing down a guilty verdict is not absolute proof of guilt.

But what's not depressing is responses by Saintandy666, sadoldgit, kelvinsrighthandglove, CB Fry, as well as a few others. And by the debate being had, as depressing as it is, at least their points have been made.

 

I also think it's a tough topic for people who haven't been through it, or who don't have experience working with people who have been through it, to really appreciate. Plus I think some men do feel vulnerable by the notion that they could easily be accused of something similar without having done anything intentionally wrong. Whereas, I think if they were to watch first hand an incident like this, they would realise there's no way they would be in that position in the first place. Personally, I can't under any circumstance imagine inflicting that kind of control on another human being.

 

The trouble with Chad Evans is he genuinely doesn't believe he did anything wrong, and that's not because he's innocent, that's because he doesn't think there's anything wrong with what he did, which is a whole different ball game. Luckily, the law courts and jury are more sophisticated than he is.

I agree 100% with this and that is the problem we face because many others would think the same way as Evans. Despite it being 2014 there still seems a perception in some quarters that women are fair game if they are incapacitated by drink/drugs.

I think ALL verdicts should be robustly questioned to make sure they stand up in the face of appeals. What I don't do is assume that because someone has been found guilty by a jury that automatically means their judgement is totally infallible. Ever heard of the West Memphis three?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three

 

Now again for those hard of thinking, I'm not saying that in this case the judgement is wrong, simply that a jury handing down a guilty verdict is not absolute proof of guilt.

So are you saying that we must treat everyone who is found guilty as possibly innocent. If people are innocent there are appeal systems. If a guilty verdict is not proof of guilt why have a system like ours anyway because according to your argument, if they keep saying they are innocent then we cant accept they are guilty.

So are you saying that we must treat everyone who is found guilty as possibly innocent. If people are innocent there are appeal systems. If a guilty verdict is not proof of guilt why have a system like ours anyway because according to your argument, if they keep saying they are innocent then we cant accept they are guilty.

I think we need to do everything we can to minimise the chance of wrongful conviction and as you rightly point out that is why the appeals process exists. You would hope that in this case that those who sit in judgement over the appeal will consider what has already been outlined and Ched's argument which is clearly at odds with the verdict.

It's an imperfect world and it's very difficult to get many cases with one hundred percent certainty. I have a second cousin who was wrongfully convicted (thankfully not a major crime) and imo it's just as bad as the crime being committed in the first place. I just hope that in this case the decision after the appeal is the correct one.

This is a rather depressing story.

 

From personal experience (twice actually) before they started their deliberations the Judge would have carefully explained to this Jury that they can only convict if they are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in fact guilty of the offence he was charged with.

And here lies the problem with rape convictions. The women's lib lobby try to point to low conviction rates as proof of some sort of institutionalised sexism, that victims aren't taken seriously and police officers are some sort of Sid James types . The reality of the figures is that by its very nature a lot of rapes are going to be hard to prove " beyond a reasonable doubt" . Consent will be one persons word against another. Whether people like it or not there is always going to be grey areas. Consent is very often implied and a testosterone filled male could easily misread signals. I believe schools now do a bit of education around this, which is a good thing. There must be situations where the bird is convinced she was raped and the fella convinced she wasn't. I'm sure that some are not even sure whether they were raped or not ,and there must be plenty of women who blame themselves for a misjudgement rather than see themselves as a victim. Alcohol will play a part in many situations , which again muddy the waters.It must also be very difficult to prove rape were a chick has been up for certain things,ie oral, but draws the line at penetration , as any witness to her earlier behaviour in public could say she was kissing , holding hands , willingly went home with him ,etc . All these factors added together make it the difficult crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt except in the most violent of cases and the prosecution and conviction rates prove this. It is not because of any failings with society, just the high burden of proof required.

He didn't say it wasn't. He said there are different degrees. The law agrees with him, despite what some are posting on here.

The law agrees with him as reflected in the punishment, not in the offence. Personally I disagree with this and think it would be better to have a murder/manslaughter equivalent but being neither a lawyer, nor a woman, I am sure there are reasons why things are as they are.

The point isn't about the crime though - no one except those who were in the court for the trial can have a reasoned and informed opinion (not that that stops people) - it's about the principle of whether you can return to work after completing your punishment.

That is the case where a differential offence would help make a judgement (I.e. It feels like it would be easier to accept back to the team who was guilty of manslaughter than murder).

And here lies the problem with rape convictions. The women's lib lobby try to point to low conviction rates as proof of some sort of institutionalised sexism, that victims aren't taken seriously and police officers are some sort of Sid James types . The reality of the figures is that by its very nature a lot of rapes are going to be hard to prove " beyond a reasonable doubt" . Consent will be one persons word against another. Whether people like it or not there is always going to be grey areas. Consent is very often implied and a testosterone filled male could easily misread signals. I believe schools now do a bit of education around this, which is a good thing. There must be situations where the bird is convinced she was raped and the fella convinced she wasn't. I'm sure that some are not even sure whether they were raped or not ,and there must be plenty of women who blame themselves for a misjudgement rather than see themselves as a victim. Alcohol will play a part in many situations , which again muddy the waters.It must also be very difficult to prove rape were a chick has been up for certain things,ie oral, but draws the line at penetration , as any witness to her earlier behaviour in public could say she was kissing , holding hands , willingly went home with him ,etc . All these factors added together make it the difficult crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt except in the most violent of cases and the prosecution and conviction rates prove this. It is not because of any failings with society, just the high burden of proof required.

Just because it is hard to prove doesn't mean there is a grey area as to what the crime is - two separate issues.