National Stalking Awareness Day

Before starting this, I'd like to apologise for not writing anything for a while. I've just moved house and had a lot of family stuff to do recently, and I've not been feeling particularly inspired about anything enough to write about it. I've also been busy because it's the INTERSECT conference in a month's time (yes, this is a hint for you to go buy a ticket).


Today is National Stalking Awareness Day, and so I thought I'd tell my story. I'm hoping that telling it will help show people how easy it is to be stalked, and how horrible and scary it can be. I'm also going to tell you about the reactions I've had when I've told other people, and hope that this will show you how not to respond to people who go through it.

*wavy lines*

It all started at the end of 2010. I had split up with my ex-boyfriend, who I'd been with for 5 (horrible) years, and started going out with friends again. About six weeks after the split, I met J. J lived around the corner from me, and was unemployed, while I was working odd hours at a pub. We started hanging out together almost every day, going out for a few drinks, chilling at mine listening to music, going shopping... you get the idea. I knew he liked me, but I made it very clear that there was no way I was going to start dating anyone so soon after getting out of a half-decade long relationship.

People warned me about him. He was an alcoholic with a history of breakdowns and lots of other problems. He was fucked up. I didn't care, because I was fucked up too. He was nice to me, and when you've been told every day for as long as you can remember that you're the scum of the earth and never shown any appreciation, you cling to that. For a short time, he was genuinely helping me deal with my breakup.

Anyway, after the first couple of weeks, J started to get really clingy and repeatedly asked me to be his girlfriend. I repeatedly told him no, and after about three or four weeks, I told him I didn't want to see him for a while if he couldn't accept that I wouldn't go out with him. He 'accepted' this, and I didn't hear anything from him for a couple of days. I went to a pub we used to go to together, where it turned out he'd told everyone that I was his girlfriend. Needless to say, I was Not Pleased. That night he texted me asking if I wanted to hang out, and I replied telling him I didn't want to see him at all any more, because I couldn't trust him to respect my wishes about the nature of our relationship.

That didn't go down too well.

For the next six weeks, I couldn't escape him. He'd text me between 100 to 300 times a day. He'd call 20 times a day. I'd maybe respond to 1/60 texts, but only to tell him to leave me alone. It was utterly incessant. Every few days he'd start sending messages purporting to be from someone else worried that J was going to kill himself, trying to guilt me into replying. I remember going for a meal for my nana's birthday and all I could concentrate on was my phone vibrating literally every two minutes for the whole time we were there. He turned up at my house repeatedly, demanding to 'talk' (funnily enough, my ex had a habit of doing the exact same thing at the same time. I do not like answering the door now). I can't go into much more detail than that, because it's a period of time I try not to think about too much. It's like your life isn't your own any more. You can't have fun, or do nice things, because the moment you start to enjoy yourself, you get a reminder that they're thinking about you, or watching you. You worry yourself sick wondering what the next thing will be. It seemed to take forever, but his contacts finally dwindled away.

During the whole time, I barely told anyone. How could I? Pretty much everyone I knew had told me not to go near him and that something bad would happen, and now it had. The people I did tell tried to offer help, but it was always with an air of 'I told you so', so I stopped telling them, or only made jokes about it and never let on how scared I was. I didn't tell people who genuinely could have helped, like my family, because I felt stupid for 'getting myself into that situation'.

Eventually, I told the story on a forum I was a member of, and the responses unanimously blamed me for 'leading him on' and basically implied he was just a 'Nice Guy' or a hopeless romantic, and I was a stuck up bitch. But hey - at least he hadn't actually committed a crime, right?

It took me a long time to get over that and to know they were wrong. I mean, a LONG TIME. I still have doubts now.

But fuck that shit. He was not 'entitled' to any of my time, attention or affection. No person is, and to suggest that putting a woman in fear just proves how keen you are on her is fucking disgusting. It's wrong and it's just another example of a pervasive culture where the victim must always be at fault - if the victim is a woman, at least. In a way it's almost like an abusive relationship. You think they will change. You think you must 'deserve' it. You're too scared to tell the people who can help stop it all because you don't want them to think you're stupid or weak. Your whole life and your movements are controlled by the other person and what kind of mood they happen to be in.

This does not need to happen. No one who truly loves you or cares for you will stand by while you are scared and judge you because someone else decided to scare you. If anything like this is happening to you, PLEASE tell someone you trust or get in touch with the National Stalking Helpline (details in link at the top). The thing about behaviour like this is you never know if it's going to escalate until it does. I was lucky. It doesn't matter whether the person has 'broken the law' or whatever - if a person is making you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, tell someone. You are not being over-cautious or stupid, and more importantly, you are not alone.

Remember, other people choosing to do something to you is NEVER your fault.

Who'd believe me?

Trigger warning: rape, sexual violence, victim blaming.

Last night I went to a gig. I had a few pints, and I probably danced like a bit of a tit, as I sometimes am inclined to do. I got talking to some people about bands we like, and accepted an invite to go to theirs for a beer. Upon arrival, they (cis men, for the record) got a bit sleazy with me, so I left. Nothing harmful happened (I was pissed off, but whatever).

But let's imagine something did happen. Suddenly, not only would my life be upside-down, what could I do about it? Would I report it? Honestly, no.

If something had happened, and I said something publicly, people would be queueing up to tell me it was my own damn fault. I was drunk. I went to a strange man's house. I was wearing a minidress and leggings. It was late. What did I damn well think was going to happen? Actually, I thought we were going to go listen to some punk music and talk about it while drinking beer. Notice how that previous sentence does not contain the phrase 'have sex'.

I'm not a man-hating feminazi, primarily because such a thing doesn't exist, but also because I'm mates with a lot of guys. So before anyone jumps in with accusations of 'misandry' (also a thing which does not exist, by the way), consider this - I want to hang out with guys. I want to be friends with guys. I want to have sex with guys. I just also want to be assured that if one of those people rapes or sexually assaults me, I won't be blamed just for being in the same vicinity as him while not being a cis-man. What actually IS misandric is the suggestion that no one should be friends with men in case they rape them.

Did you know one third of the UK's population would have said it was my fault if I'd been raped last night? Thirty fucking percent of people think that if a woman touches alcohol, she's declaring open-season on her genitals.

FUCK THAT SHIT.

Why am I telling you all this anyway? Well, last night, a hashtag got going on Twitter, titled #ididnotreport. This was inspired by the Mumsnet 'We Believe You' campaign, designed to highlight the hidden problem of rape and sexual assault. On it, thousands of people - men and women told their personal stories of why they didn't report their rape or sexual assault. And it's because of this VICTIM BLAMING BULLSHIT. Some trolls got on the tag, including a confessed rapist by the name of @NiceGuyBrianG (SERIOUS TW for that link), who thinks that the law on spousal rape shouldn't just be reverted, but should apply to anyone in any kind of relationship. Presumably only women should be allowed to be raped, because if I took him back to mine and tried to assfuck him with a strap-on, I'm sure he'd have some quite loud opinions.

I REPEAT, FUCK THAT SHIT.

It is NOT your fault if you are raped. No ifs, no buts. It is only a rapist who decides to rape people. It is NEVER A VICTIM'S FAULT. And I want you all to know that and shout it with me.

Rape apologists, I'm going to give you a quick lesson in human interaction, because you sorely need it: YOU ARE NOT OWED SEX. NO ONE OWES YOU ACCESS TO THEIR BODY. PERIOD.

"But Nat, what if [insert convoluted scenario, possibly involving drink, usually espousing just how darned confusing this whole 'consent' thing is]??!?!?!"

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE, ASK THEM. POLITELY. IN FACT, IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE POLITE. "WANNA FUCK?" WILL USUALLY SUFFICE. IN SOME CASES IT WILL NOT.

IF YOU ARE UNSURE WHETHER SOMEONE ACTUALLY WANTS TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, WHETHER IT'S BECAUSE OF DRINK OR YOU PRESSURING THEM OR WHATEVER, DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT PERSON.

THE EASIEST WAY TO AVOID BEING ACCUSED OF RAPE IS TO NOT HAVE SEX THAT MAY BE RAPE.

UNLESS YOU ARE 100% ABSOLUTELY IRON-CLAD CERTAIN A PERSON WANTS TO HAVE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH YOU, DO NOT HAVE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH THEM.

I genuinely can't make that any clearer. If you wish to comment with a wonderful scenario of your concoction about just how gosh-damn tricky it is to not stick your penis in people, I suggest you take your scenario and shove it up your rape-apologising backside. Here's some (long but awesome) posts on consent:

• Rad Trans Fem
• NSWATM
• Washington City Paper
• Pervocracy (1)
• Pervocracy (2)

And if anyone feels the need to talk to someone about something that happened to them, here are the details for Rape Crisis (women and children), Pandora's Project (trans* people) and Survivors UK (men).

A cut-out-and-keep guide to feminism for Louise Mensch

CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY AT FORTY SHADES OF GREY TOWERS!!!


Normally I would roll my eyes at this non-linear procession of time as it would mean I have to put up with more people blathering about fairy lights and bows and other things I generally make it a rule not to give the tiniest atom of a flying fuck about. I mean, I'd welcome the general proliferation of hot booze (an essential part of any balanced diet), but it would also have to be balanced against the chance of snow and ice and hearing a Mariah Carey song and seriously, fuck that shit. Anyway, I digress. There has, to my knowledge, been neither a forwards nor backwards temporal shift. But I have a present! 


Oh... it's the non-festive equivalent of a shit in a box hastily wrapped in the Daily Star - it's Louise Mensch writing about how she totes is a feminist no matter what the mean feminists say.


Now, I generally make it a rule to not posit myself as the Queen Of Feminism and dictate who may, or may not label themselves as what. I mean, there's plenty of feminists I disagree with and who I would quite like to give a quick whisper to in order to steer them in the right path. But in this case I am going to make an exception, channel my inner Inigo Montoya and say:


"Louise - I do not think that word means what you think it means."


I'm going to take out my trusty red pen now and fisk Mensch's article, in order to illustrate why I feel this to be the case.


Until further notice, text in black will be Mensch's piece, text in red mine. All links and wording in Mensch's piece as they appear. Continue at your peril.

Tory women bring feminism out of the ghetto

WOAH HOLD ON. The fucking ghetto?! I'm not sure if Mensch wrote this or if it was one of those pesky subs, but misappropriation of oppression much? This does not bode well.

The latest ICM poll is good news for the blues. David Cameron enjoys a five-point lead over Labour at a time when it should be miles ahead, opposing a coalition government that has to make drastic spending cuts and keep our heads above water as Europe threatens financial implosion. Faced with these conditions, Mr (red rosette) Potato Head ought to manage a substantial lead in mid-term polling. That's... lovely Louise. I'm really glad you got a party brag into this piece (although I suspect maaaany more to come from the woman who hailed the deposition of Colonel Gaddafi as a 'genuine triumph for David Cameron'). There's a part of me concerned about how she refuses to even name the Leader of the (Bloody Joke of an) Opposition - instead dehumanising him and making fun of his appearance. I would think that a self-styled superfeminist such as Mensch would realise that judging people based on their physical appearance is actually a really nasty thing to do and that patriarchal expectations of female beauty are one of the main things used to keep women down - just look at the way the BBC have gotten rid of talented female presenters because they are considered 'too old' and 'not attractive' enough to be taken seriously. NOT COOL MENSCH. WE DO NOT USE SYSTEMS OF OPPRESSION TO SNEER AT OTHERS. IT JUST CONTINUES THEM BEING USED AGAINST US.

Details of the poll will be particularly concerning to the two Eds: Labour is nine points behind in the Midlands (good for me, in Corby). The Tories are also nine points clear with men and have a two-point lead among women. Translation: More women hate Tories than men do but it's not as bad as Labour so yah boo sucks! 

This last number is particularly cheering. For some time now the Labour party, led by Yvette Cooper, has made a sustained pitch to British women that the government is not on their side. They draw out selective research on the cuts and say it will particularly hurt women. They take Cameron's joking remark – "calm down dear", which ripped off a Michael Winner TV ad – and offer it as an example of sexism. They drop gender into every intervention and speech and have tried to claim feminism as their own, a thing of the left. This marks the first point where I lose my shit. Right. First up: the cuts FUCKING DO HURT WOMEN. Cutting corporation tax redistributes money from women to men. Cutting public sector jobs and freezing their pay hurts women. In-work conditionality hurts women. Stopping victims of intimate partner violence being eligible for legal aid hurts women. YOUR GOVERNMENT NOT JUST HURTS, BUT FUCKING KILLS WOMEN. Second up: patronising women and implying that they are too 'hysterical' to do their damn job is sexist. When I see Cameron smirking around men and making the same implications as he does to women, I will believe that he's actually just a giant scumfuck and not a giant misogynist scumfuck. Thirdly up: when you're oppressed in every part of society, you tend to see it in every part of society. Mainly because... well it's there. No, it might not be for Mensch, but it fucking is for the rest of us. If she had any idea what it was like to not be an over-privileged rich person, she might realise this, but no. She's toeing the party line as per usual and sticking her head, ostrich-like, in whatever stuff it is rich people would use instead of sand. Fourthly up: I'm not saying feminism is a thing of the left, solely, but I am saying there is no damn such thing as a feminism where you only help yourself - which is all Tory 'feminism' is.

Tory women aren't having it. A grassroots backbench movement of women MPs (with several sound male feminists who have our backs) determined that we would not give Labour the monopoly on women's issues. We sit behind a frontbench that we know to be relentlessly focused on social justice and women's issues. Who ARE these Tory grassroots backbench women? Who ARE these Tory male feminists? What do they DO? How is your front bench in ANY FUCKING WAY committed to social justice or women's issues? I mean REALLY. FUCK THIS. Look at the damn links above to see how damn committed this bunch are to 'women's issues'. Unless they actually think that what women are concerned about is "Oh, I just DON'T KNOW HOW I WILL GET BEATEN TO DEATH OR STARVE TODAY". I demand to see evidence of this 'movement'.

Tory feminism is holistic, not the ghetto feminism of the impact equalities assessment; it looks at women as a whole. Case in point: 80% of the lowest paid public sector workers exempt from the pay freeze are women. Changes to the state pension that will end penalties for women who take career breaks to care for their families are being put forward. Sustainable funding cycles for rape crisis centres and victim support have been proposed. Theresa May broke ground on flexible parental leave, thus helping to ensure that employers would no longer look askance at women of childbearing age (remember Labour peer Lord Sugar's remarks on pregnant employees?). The list goes on. Fucking 'ghetto feminism'? Does Mensch seriously think that we should be focusing less attention on women who are the most oppressed and more attention on women who are the least? Another thing - pointing out that 80% of the lowest paid public sector workers are women is a) admitting the need for feminism in the first damn place, b) admitting that there's a huge problem with women being underpaid, c) showing us which gender is seen as the more 'disposable' employee. Also, 'sustainable funding...for rape crisis centres'? Damn, if I wasn't so sure Mensch had private healthcare I'd ask for the number of her GP so I could get whatever she has. Because it ain't looking so damn rosy from where I'm sat. Also, when you read the part about women of childbearing age I'd like you to imagine the 'wrong answer' klaxon from Family Fortunes. It sounds like this. Because this became illegal way back in 1975 under the Labour government. Sorry Louise, you won't win the speedboat at this rate. (I will concede that Alan Sugar is a sexist arsehole, but would like to point out that he doesn't represent the whole party and even a clock as stopped as Mensch may be right once in a while. DAMMIT. This makes it sound like I'm defending Labour. Just to make it clear: I would never do that. I just dislike lies.)

Last week, Ed Balls capitulated and accepted the need for Tory cuts. The Conservatives' growing lead on economic credibility resonates with women, too. As mortgage holders – 70% of all women work outside the home – they benefit from George Osborne's low interest rates. They relate to restraint on council tax, a regressive tax that hits pensioners and those on fixed incomes hardest. Well hot-damn, this is an interesting use of statistics. Now, I do not work outside 'the home'. This is mainly because I don't have a 'home', per se. Or a 'job', per se. I am one of those poor unfortunate ONE MILLION young people who are on the dole. Anyway, I used to work outside 'the home'. However, I did not have a mortgage. My sister works outside 'the home'. She does not have a mortgage. In fact, of all my friends who have jobs, I can count a teeny-tiny number (one, off the top of my head) who have mortgages. So that's not 70% of women benefitting. That's 70% of women have jobs and if they happen to have been in a fortunate position and single quite a few years ago now they might have a mortgage. Also, since when did only women benefit from cheap interest rates caused by the fact that everyone is fucking skint instituted by our beloved Gideon? And, if I must say this again I will damn well scream it from the rooftops: WOMEN SUFFER MORE WHEN SERVICES ARE CUT WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU REDUCE THINGS LIKE COUNCIL TAX AND ONE WAY TO STOP THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE TO TAX RICH PEOPLE MORE NOT FUCK POOR PEOPLE OVER. 

When speaking of the deficit, in magazines or on the airwaves, Tory feminists use the language of other women – the debt we pass on to our children, and our duty to lift that burden off their backs. The more we shift away from the bad old days of economic dependence on a wage-earning man, the more women notice the tax-and-spend policies that affect all wage earners. Well, not my language. I don't have children. In fact, around 20% of women choose to remain child-free - which is around 5.8 million women the Tories aren't speaking for. And, forgive my mistake, but surely having children isn't just something women spontaneously do? MEN ARE PARENTS TOO. See, this shit is Feminism 101 - PARENTHOOD IS NOT JUST FOR THE BEARER OF THE UTERUS. Also, I'm sure children would prefer to have an alive mother and more 'deficit' when they grow up rather than a mother who got beaten to death in front of them because she couldn't get a restraining order because she couldn't get legal aid. Just saying, like.

Most Conservatives would define feminism as supporting equal rights and opportunities for women. In that sense it is a movement of women, not of right or left. But I like to think that, somewhere at the margins of all this, the noisy reclamation of the feminist label from the left is having an impact. The problem is though, as I am nearly bashing my head against the keyboard while I am saying this a-fucking-gain - Tories do NOT support equal rights and opportunities for women. What they support is 'well us women are fine, I really don't know what the rest of you are fussing about!'. LOOK AT THE GODDAMN LINKS ABOVE. So, by her own definition, Mensch IS NOT a feminist.

Conservative women are having a moment: Gaby Hinsliff's wonderful Observer cover story was the culmination of months of Tory feminists advancing our case whenever a media opportunity arose. Last December, Jane Ellison launched an all-party parliamentary group on female genital mutilation. Claire Perry works on opt-in options for internet porn. Amber Rudd MP, who is pro-choice, looks at alternate ways to combat teenage pregnancy. I stood up on anonymity for rape suspects and wound up debating with a feminist hero of mine, Naomi Wolf, on Newsnight. I also debated Tory feminism with Labour's Stella Creasy MP on Radio 4's Woman's Hour – a chance to explode the myth that "Tory" and "feminist" are oxymoronic to millions of women. And I just chopped my own damn arm off, but it's totally cool because I have this sticking plaster I had to make myself out of reused gaffer tape and an old tissue BECAUSE OF TORY CUTS AFFECTING WOMEN SO BADLY.

As a Tory feminist, you want to play in front of Labour's goal, advancing the case for social justice, welfare reform and Iain Duncan Smith's universal credit (which should lift a million people and 350,000 children out of poverty). Yes, we anticipate the colourful comments under our articles, but that doesn't matter. Tory feminists are looking for your support, looking to convert you. I am an MP today only because in his very first speech as leader, David Cameron – the most feminist leader the Conservative party has ever had – made it his business to challenge dinosaur attitudes that led us to a 91% white male parliamentary party. His work in opposition continues in government. I'm actually bored of dissecting this horseshit now, so, here we go. 1. Party pointscoring. 2. Child poverty is predicted to increase under the universal credit scheme. 3. David Cameron is also the most 'likely to have grown up in the 70's' leader the Tories ever had. That does not make him John Travolta. 4. I couldn't give two glittery unicorn shits if the Tory party was 100% female, because it would mean 306 Louise Mensches and my poor laptop could not cope with the stress of debunking this tripe that many times.

While we all expect that this poll lead won't last, the fact that we have recovered our ground with women is immensely comforting this far out from a general election. After all, the Tories have never won without women – and never will. 

Fucking feminism, how does it work?

Back to me in black text now.

OH MY HOLY MOTHER OF AVIMIMUS, WHY DID I DO THAT TO MYSELF? 

I shouldn't be surprised, ever. I've spoken to Louise Mensch once or twice on Twitter, and every damn time she's insisted she absolutely is a feminist, but when challenged on what she actually does to stop women being oppressed, or told how her party is oppressing women, she clams up. Funny that. So now, for her benefit - as I'm sure she actually would like to be a feminist, she's just not sure of the first things about it, I am going to put my Queen Feminist crown on (it's red leopard-print and decorated with the bollocks of men I have emasculated) and write up a quick cut-out-and-keep one do and five don'ts of being a feminist.

DO

1. Commit to fostering equality for all women

   

DON'T

1. Insist that because you're not oppressed, no woman ever is
2. Think that all women are (or are even capable of being) mothers, and this is all they want/are good for
3. Shut down services essential to women's livelihood, safety, economic power or wellbeing
4. Insist that other women are too stupid to know what to do with their own bodies
5. Write facile articles that purport to be about feminism that are actually just party-political broadcasts, cheap jibes about the opposition and actually fuck-all to do with any feminism ever

I hope this helps.

Shocking News! Rapists live in the same society as we do!

This week, the internet has been abuzz with a press release from Middlesex University and the University of Surrey which posits the question "Are sex offenders and lads' mags using the same language?". The study seems to show that:

1. Lads' mags use the same way to describe women and female sexuality as convicted sex offenders do in interviews.
2. This is to the extent that participants in the study could not accurately tell where the quotes originated from.
3. A lot of men who took part identified with the statements expressed by the convicted sex offenders.

In other news, the sky is blue, grass is green and we live in a goddamn rape culture.

Jezebel got a list of some of the quotes used by the researchers - see if you can tell the difference (answers at the bottom):

1. There's a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.

2. Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?

3. A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy.

4. Mascara running down the cheeks means they've just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.

5. What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.

6. Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl . . . no one wants to be shagged by a mouse . . . A few compliments won't do any harm either . . . ‘I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore' . . .

7. You know girls in general are all right. But some of them are bitches . . . The bitches are the type that . . . need to have it stuffed to them hard and heavy.

8. Escorts . . . they know exactly how to turn a man on. I've given up on girlfriends. They don't know how to satisfy me, but escorts do.

9. You'll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they'll do it willingly.

10. There's nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom.

11. Girls ask for it by wearing these mini-skirts and hotpants . . . they're just displaying their body . . . Whether they realise it or not they're saying, ‘Hey, I've got a beautiful body, and it's yours if you want it.'

12. You do not want to be caught red-handed . . . go and smash her on a park bench. That used to be my trick.

13. Some women are domineering, but I think it's more or less the man who should put his foot down. The man is supposed to be the man. If he acts the man, the woman won't be domineering.

14. I think if a law is passed, there should be a dress code . . . When girls dress in those short skirts and things like that, they're just asking for it.

15. Girls love being tied up . . . it gives them the chance to be the helpless victim.

16. I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.

Right, now that I have got the formalities out of the way, time for a small rant about bad science...

I have seen a number of people, including some prominent feminists telling us that this study 'proves' that lads' mags 'cause' rape. It does not. It shows us the depressing reality that we live in a society where talking like this about women and female sexuality is normal, and is used by some people to 'justify' rape. While it may lend credence to other arguments that rape jokes and victim blaming 'normalise' rape in some people's minds, this study doesn't 'prove' it.

We don't full know the methodology used yet, and we don't really know what the samples were like (although this very good article in the Guardian explores the research and the results in the most detail I could find). As I scream at the TV whenever a right-winger appears, correlation does not imply causation! As @SciencePunk said yesterday, 

"How can you possibly infer lads' mags normalise rape unless you show that how rapists talk about women is different from general discourse?... Couldn't I just as easily say "people couldn't differentiate pictures of schoolteachers from those of rapists ergo teachers = rapists"?"

The only thing this study reliably shows (and is bloody useful to point to, please don't think I'm knocking it) is that rapists talk the same way about women and female sexuality in the same way that most other people talk about women and female sexuality. It shows us that rapists are not the slavering beasts of myth who grab virgins in broad daylight and drag them down dark alleys, and any other rapist isn't really a rapist because those sluts knew what they were doing. It shows us that there's no point in telling women not to walk alone after dark to escape the clutches of a rapey-bogeyman when most victims of sexual violence know their attacker. It shows us that we live in a world where 'non-rape-rape' (i.e. fair maiden dragged off by hairy-knuckled dribbling stereotype) is so bloody prevalent that women in the US military are more likely to be raped by their 'brothers in arms' than killed by enemy fire. It shows us that a startling number of people believe the same victim-blaming, rape-justifying excuses of convicted sex offenders - as the infamous Amnesty International survey of 2005 showed us all too clearly. It shows us rapists don't have a big fucking neon sign above their head saying 'Watch out! Rapist about!', but instead look and act like most other people. 


To reiterate: this is a bloody useful tool to make people remember that the public's attitude to victims of rape totally fucking sucks, and that 'othering' rapists is pointless and futile.


But it does not "show us that lad's mags cause rape". So please don't say it does. Misusing science in this way just leads to getting bogged down in arguments about what a study 'might' show rather than giving us the fuel to tackle what it does show.






Answers. 1. Rapist, 2. Rapist, 3. Lad mag, 4. Lad mag, 5. Rapist, 6. Lad mag, 7. Rapist, 8. Lad mag, 9. Rapist, 10. Lad mag, 11. Rapist, 12. Lad mag, 13. Rapist, 14. Rapist, 15. Lad mag, 16. Lad mag

Dick Privilege

Another week, another furore surrounds Richard Dawkins. The latest one, swiftly dubbed ‘Elevator-gate’ by those incapable of feeling revulsion at someone’s actions unless the word ‘gate’ is included in a sentence, really struck a chord with me, and a lot of other women.

Here’s what happened. Rebecca Watson, who writes Skepchick, delivered a talk in Dublin about sexism in the skeptic and atheist communities. After the talk, she was in the lift going to her hotel room, and an attendee of the talk cornered her and tried to chat her up. Later, she uploaded a vlog, where she said 

“Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.” 

That’s all she said. She didn’t call for the bloke to be hung by the nether-regions or an end to all sexual activity between humans ever, she just asked for a little bit of common courtesy. Then Dick got involved.

Commenting on Pharyngula, his first comment was:

 

When he was called up by people asking whether he was arguing that because worse things happen in other areas of the world, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with bad things that happen, he replied with:

Then, he decided to make a third comment, saying:

Well, Dick, here’s what you don’t ‘get’. 

You don’t get obscenities shouted at you in public because you dare to be out of the house while in possession of a vagina. You don’t get men refusing to move out of your way at work so you have to rub up against them to get somewhere you need to be immediately. You don’t get forced to not wear a top you like because it’s a bit low cut and the last time you did a customer literally stared at your tits for two hours solid. You don’t get patronised because your reproductive organs are on the inside. You don’t get seen as a being that is only good for sex one minute and reviled the next if you dare to reveal yourself as a sexual being. You don’t get forced into choosing between a career and a family. You don’t get told that you won’t succeed because of those pockets of fat and muscle on your chest. You don’t get treated as a member of a minority group when you in fact, form the majority of the population. You don’t get accused of being a hysterical, over-emotional, boring bitch when you don’t want to fuck someone and you don’t want to be propositioned for sex at 4 in the morning in a hotel after you JUST SPOKE about how uncomfortable this made you feel. You also, and I can not make this clear enough, do NOT FUCKING GET to tell people who this stuff actually happens to on a daily basis how to feel.

It really is as simple as that. Dick, when you get all these things, or even engage your humongous brain to, for once, empathise with someone who’s not a rich white straight cis-gender bloke, you might realise why the culture we’re brought up in means that if we’re cornered by men, it makes us uncomfortable.


The thing about this is that Dawkins is the one that turned this into a huge shit-storm. He took one woman saying that a man who ignored her personal feelings and did the very thing she’d just publicly spoken about feeling uncomfortable about so he could try get his dick wet was insensitive and rude and turned it into “Oh, these awful women are so fucking touchy that we can’t even chat them up! It’s so unfair!” And do you know what? I could have happily have denounced Dawkins for being the out-of touch old git that he so clearly is, and moved on. But then other commenters got involved and twisted Watson’s statement into something it clearly wasn’t intended as. 


So for everyone who is whining “Well how are we supposed to chat women up if we can’t go near them?”, just put yourself in her shoes, and see if it could make her uncomfortable. If you even think that there’s a chance it might, don’t do it. If you can’t see any way to get a woman without creeping her out, I would prescribe a brief period of taking a good look at oneself to see why you think that’s the case.


I’ll tell you what I don’t get. Why do these men defending Dawkins think that their ‘right’ to tell us that they want a woman’s body trumps the woman’s right to feel safe or comfortable? Why do they think that ignoring women’s wishes will ever get them the shag they desire? Here’s the deal: Yes, you might not be a rapist, but we don’t know that. It’s like Russian Roulette. You might be the one that looks normal then feeds us to chinchillas from the feet up. This is how we are conditioned to feel by a society where rape and assault does happen, and they happen disproportionately to women. You can’t simply say that no western woman should ever feel uncomfortable because of what a man might do until he actually does it. I’m not saying all women are, or should, be scared when they’re in an enclosed space with a strange man who wants to fuck her, but some do, and saying “Well you shouldn’t be, and if you are, you’re a hysterical, overreacting bitch” is emphatically NOT a solution.

To end this, I’m going to quote PZ Meyers’ take on the whole thing, because he sums it up beautifully:

"Imagine that Richard Dawkins meets a particularly persistent fan who insists on standing uncomfortably close to him, and Richard asks him to stand back a little bit; when he continues, he says to the rest of the crowd that that is rather rude behavior, and could everyone give him a little breathing space? Which then leads to many members of the crowd loudly defending the rudeness by declaring that since the guy wasn't assaulting him, he should be allowed to keep doing that, and hey, how dare Richard Dawkins accuse everyone present of trying to mug him! That's exactly analogous to Rebecca Watson's situation. She did not make these hysterical accusations everyone is claiming, she did not compare herself to the oppressed women of the third world, she did not demonize the clumsy sap in the elevator — she asked for some simple common courtesy, and for that she gets pilloried.
Sorry, people, but that sends a very clear signal to women that calm requests for respect will be met with jeers by a significant subset of the atheist community, and that's not right."

This has also been covered by Watson herself, Amanda Marcotte, Jen McCreight, Discover and Almost Diamonds, to name but a few, and all are well worth a read.(PROTIP: Do not go beneath the line)

Why I Am So Angry

Yesterday someone linked me to this, a poster that they thought I'd like. I do like it.  (Click to make BIG - also, as I understand, it's free to print and reproduce it, and you are encouraged to do so)

 But I'd like to add a few things to that, because it doesn't cover nearly half the things I feel angry about on a daily basis. So, here goes:

"Fuck patriarchy. Fuck rape culture. Fuck victim blaming, fuck slut shaming, fuck any bastard that would choose a clump of fucking cells over the life of the woman that hosts it. Fuck body fascism. Fuck lads mags. Fuck womens mags. Fuck objectification. Fuck saying a woman is empowered because you give her money to conform to your misogynistic ideals. Fuck binary gender norms. Fuck not citing your sources and churnalising some bullshit pseudoscience that landed on your desk. Fuck all pseudoscience. Fuck homeopathy, fuck acupuncture, acupressure, acu-whatthefuckingever. Fuck anything not proven by re-testable science. That includes God, you small-minded fucks. Fuck anyone who would use an imaginary sky pixie to push their bigoted, money-grasping agenda. Fuck economic libertarians, the selfish cuntpricks. Fuck EU sceptics, fuck climate change sceptics. Fuck James fucking Delingpole and every lie he's ever published. Fuck Littlejohn, the fat prick, railing against how bad it is in the UK from his mansion in fucking Florida. Fuck Melanie Philips, the delusional bitch. Fuck Philip Davies, the rent-a-gobshite. And fuck Nadine fucking Dorries, the evidence-denying, lying fucking shitwhore. And Frank Fields. Who thinks women are too stupid to choose but bright enough to raise kids. Fuck Eric Pickles. Fuck Theresa May. Fuck the police, fuck the riot squad, fuck the TSG, the violent twathounds. Fuck the CPS. Fuck the courts. Fuck the prison system. You think it works? Meet evidence. Fuck ATOS. Fuck anyone who would punish the worthy sick for the greedy well. Fuck racists, the fucking chodes. Fuck war for oil. Fuck the war on terror, fuck the war on drugs. Fuck The Big Questions. Fuck Question Time. Fuck Prime Ministers cocking Questions. Fuck giving my time to right-wing reactionary fucknuts. Fuck Moral Maze. There ain't nothing moral. Either you're a weeping dickshit or you're not. Fuck those who piss about the 'nanny state' because they're too fucking thick to have grasped metric in over 40 fucking years. Fuck those who think the ECHR is part of the EU. Fuck those who think that having your bins collected once a week is more important than foreign aid. Fuck people who want to take away minimum wage. Fuck the bastards exploiting the situation the banks gave us and calling the unemployed lazy when there's five unemployed to every job vacancy. Fuck unpaid internships. Fuck gap years. Fuck mummy and daddy paying for you to climb the corporate ladder. Fuck you bastarding fuckers who make my head want to explode every time I remember every shitty thing you've ever done."

Stay angry people xx

Daily Mail Opportunism

Well, the Daily Mail strike again. Reading like something I would have written at Daily Mail Death Articles, today the Mail decided to smear the names of the family and friends of a dead child, along with that child herself, with a healthy dose of OMG INTERNETZ and OOH LOOK AT THESE CELEBRITIES thrown in to boot. The whole slice of hideousness reads like a scene from Paul Dacre's most enthusiastic wank-fantasy. Titled Ecstacy death girl, 15, 'idolised drug taking musicians and was hooked on the internet' [istyosty link], this piece shows Arthur Martin and Tamara Cohen up for the subhuman smut-peddling scum that they are. It's red pen time here at Forty Shades of Grey Towers...

She was a promising schoolgirl from a stable family background. But Isobel Jones-Reilly had become sucked in by the drug-taking exploits of the celebrities she idolised. Lots of teenagers 'idolise' celebrities. Lots of celebrities take drugs. Ipso facto, it's celebrity's fault that this happened. Probably.

In the early hours of Saturday, the 15-year-old died after taking a cocktail of illegal drugs at a party at an academic’s house.

Isobel, described as a ‘member of the Myspace Generation’, used at least seven social networking sites and would spend hours posting comments about drugs and celebrities. She also posted pictures of herself with famous faces, including one of comedian Russell Brand, a self-confessed former drug addict. Social networking sites are ubiquitous nowadays. I myself have profiles on at least six social networking sites that I can immediately think of. That doesn't mean I'm an internet addict, it means that I'm a member of this generation. Young people talk about celebrities because, well, it's pretty much all they get shoved down their throat. Is it any wonder when all mainstream media, especially a certain rag (who's name might rhyme with Faily Heil) insist on stuffing them on a diet of prattle and gossip about 'stars' like it's actually important? Also, I really can't stand Russell Brand, but to link the fact that he used to take drugs (as I understand it, he has been clean for some time and now talks about how meditation is his get-out-of-consciousness method of choice) to the death of a 15 year old girl from drug-taking really is low. Could this be to do with the fact that he has a film out soon and this might get them Google hits? I'd put money on that.

But one of her teachers blamed her downward spiral on an addiction to the internet. Jaye Williamson, who was Isobel’s English teacher at Chiswick Community College, in West London, said: ‘She was into the kind of things that teenagers get into, but she got hooked on the worldwide web. She was part of the Myspace generation. She got caught and we are devastated.’ Firstly, what in the name of holy fuckery is this girl's English teacher doing giving soundbites to the gutter press? In what way is it any of her business? I would very much hope that she is disciplined over this. Being a teacher does not mean that you are placed to comment on any part of a student's private life. How does Williamson know what Isobel did with her spare time? But now we see where the Mail have got their conjecture that makes up their appalling headline.

Isobel, known as Issy, had been at a party on Good Friday at the home of Brian Dodgeon, an academic in children’s development. Paramedics tried to revive her, but she died in hospital.

Last night Mr Dodgeon’s daughter Beatrice Hadjipateras, 14, and two of Isobel’s classmates Jamal Clarke and Harry Barton, both 14, who also took drugs that night were still in hospital under observation. So we decided to hound him and smear his name in public.

The 60-year-old academic was arrested on suspicion of possessing drugs and child abandonment and later released on police bail. Yesterday, his partner Angela Hadjipateras, 54, was interviewed under caution by detectives. If these parents had these drugs in the house and the teenagers found them and randomly decided to take them, I will eat my hat. I've been a teenager.

Parents of Isobel’s friends told how the promising student failed to realise the dangers of taking Class A drugs.

Diane Bardon, 50, whose son David was at school with Isobel, said: ‘Like many teenagers she idolised musicians who took drugs and it was hard to tell them the pitfalls of copying such behaviour.

‘These bands seem to have it all and the kids just want to copy them. It’s just desperately sad that it’s ended in the death of such a beautiful and lovely girl.’ Mrs Williamson said her son was also at the party but left early because his parents asked him to be home by midnight. ‘He was picked up by a friend of mine. Otherwise, God knows what might have happened,’ she said.

'I would see Issy in the corridors and I used to pull her into the classroom to make sure she did well at school.’ Who the hell is this woman? I'm also willing to bet that the Mail phoned all the parents of people who were friends with Isobel until they found one that was daft and insensitive enough to give them a quote that accorded with their narrative. This is where they got the second assertion for their headline, by the way.

Isobel and about 15 of her friends were at the party in Ladbroke Grove. Mr Dodgeon and his partner had left for the night, leaving the children unsupervised. It is understood that some of the teenagers started taking a mixture of drugs – thought to include Ecstasy, amphetamines, LSD and ketamine – at about 2am.

Police are investigating whether the drugs were brought into the house or if they were found in the house at the time of the party.

Two hours later, Isobel suffered a cardiac arrest and collapsed. Neighbours were woken by screams – and within minutes, paramedics arrived and took Isobel and her three friends to St Mary’s hospital, in Paddington.

Jeremie Mbiola, 15, a classmate who was at the party, said watching his friend collapse had changed his life forever. ‘I can’t believe what I saw with my own eyes and I now keep getting flashbacks,’ he wrote on Facebook. Mail journalism at it's finest. Stalking the Facebook profiles of children connected to a tragedy to picture and quote-mine (In the article, there are five pictures of Isobel - all of them obtained from social networking sites).

Yesterday, more than 150 classmates and relatives attended an impromptu memorial on Chiswick Common, near Isobel’s home in Acton. As friends sang songs in tribute, parents questioned why there were drugs at the party. I'm guessing - and bear with me here - that there were drugs at the party because the kids decided that they wanted to take drugs and bought some. It's horrible, and it's stupid, but it happens.

One father said: ‘My boy was at the party but he shouldn’t have even been there. When I found out, I went to pick him up at 11.30pm. He didn’t take anything. They hadn’t gone looking for stuff by then. It was about 2am they found them and by 4am Issy was dead. I heard she died in her friend’s arms.’

Mr Dodgeon’s boss at the University of London’s Institute of Education, Professor Chris Husbands, said: ‘The Institute was deeply sorry to hear of the tragic events.

‘My senior team and I will be meeting...to make appropriate decisions on the way we will proceed.’

[SUB ARTICLE] Academic who left children to party alone

As a respected academic and former social worker, Brian Dodgeon is exactly the sort of parent you’d trust with children.

He and his partner, charity manager Angela Hadjipateras, are high-fliers who doubtless want the same for their daughter.

Their £1million terrace home in Notting Hill in West London is a testament to Mr Dodgeon’s success, after a modest upbringing in Blackpool with his parents and elder brother. There, he excelled at school and won a place to study maths at Bristol University, graduating with a first-class degree. Property porn. Colour me surprised.

His partner works for a charity supporting development projects in Africa, and the pair have been involved in running the charity Stepping Stones to tackle prejudice surrounding HIV.

A friend of Mr Dodgeon said he was a ‘liberal dad’ with an active social life, who held lively house parties.

‘I’ve been to quite a few of his parties but I’ve never seen any drugs there,’ said the friend. ‘You might see the odd guy staggering around but that would be from alcohol, like at any party. He’s a liberal guy, like most middle-class people from Notting Hill. He would have been the sort of person to let his daughter have parties, but I would be surprised if he had left them alone.’

‘Brian is very sociable, he works as a DJ sometimes in 1960s music. He’s a great dad and has never mentioned any problems with his daughter. I can’t imagine in a million years he would buy drugs. My first thought is it must have been the kids who brought them in. They are a lovely normal middle-class family.’

Neighbour Michael Sutton, who has known Mr Dodgeon and his partner since they moved to the area 15 years ago, saw the ambulances arrive in the early hours of Saturday. He said: ‘We got on well with them. I’ve seen them going out cycling’.

Mr Dodgeon may have first-hand experience of families blighted by substance abuse. After graduating, he took  qualifications in social work, and was a  social worker for Hammersmith and Fulham Council in 1975. He currently works at the Institute of Education, researching social problems including alcohol consumption. He also works part-time teaching Alexander Technique, a relaxation method.

Mr Dodgeon will answer police bail in June. Last night, he and his partner were at their daughter’s hospital bedside. What does this show us? Nothing. It's just an attempt to paint this 'liberal' man as ultimately connected with the death of a 15 year old, when all that really happened is that she was friends with his daughter and was at his house when she died. He wasn't there. His own daughter is in hospital. Leave the man alone. It is perfectly normal for a group of 15 year olds to be left in the house alone. He is not a monster.

[SIDEBAR] A rap fan caught in a downward spiral

 Described as ‘extremely popular’ by her teachers at Chiswick Community School, where they said she was doing well, photos and stories of the youngster paint a picture of a contented life with her family in Acton, West London.

But as she entered her teenage years, she became engrossed in an intense social whirl.

At one point, she wrote of her life: ‘It’s drugs, it’s sex, it’s family and every minute I make mistakes. I don’t mean to but I do and I’m sorry for those mistakes.’

The teenager described herself as a ‘down to earth girl’ who ‘people like to hate’ in another entry.

On one of her most prolific online profiles, Isobel, a huge fan of controversial rappers 50 Cent and Kanye West, posed as a 21-year-old.

More recent pictures show her with dyed red hair, smoking a cigarette and drinking from a can of Strongbow cider. Again, what does any of this have to do with anything? Does it tell us anything about her death? No. It's just typical Mail internet scaremongering, combined with a smidgen of  'rap-music-is-evil' on the side.

So what does this show us? Nothing. It's just another example of the tabloid press jumping on the bandwagon of a young girl's tragic death in order to flog a few more copies and get better Google hits. They have no shame about smearing the name of a respected academic in order to push their hateful 'modernity-will-kill-your-children' ideas forward, and again show their truly reprehensible nature by using out of context quotes to sully a dead girl and make it look like her death was her own fault.

A child died. Three children are in hospital. The media spin their narrative, and this is what we hear. This is the fault of the parents! It's the fault of celebrity! It's the fault of the internet! It's not. The children, as hard as it might be to hear, decided to obtain some drugs and take them. From the fact that one of them died and others were hospitalised, I will stick my neck out and say that they got some bad drugs, which were probably stronger than, or contained something different from, what they were expecting. They played russian roulette with their health and are now suffering the horrendous consequences of their actions. They and their families have to live with this. So why is the media queueing up to make them look even worse? This is a tragedy, not an opportunity to have a self-indulgent mass-froth at everything that the media feels is wrong with the world. Use this to educate children on the dangers of drugs, not to push forth a hateful invective and ruin lives further.

What's funny about retinal damage?

Prime example of failure to understand the law from Richard Littlejohn today:

A criminal prosecution brought against a man who hit a woman in the face with a flying sausage has been laughed out of court.

Judge Anthony Goldstaub told the Crown Prosecution Service that the case was ridiculous.

Ashly Brearey, 22, from Harlow in Essex, was charged with assault causing actual bodily harm as a result of injuries sustained by 24-year-old Candice Whybrow during a food fight at a party.

But when it reached Chelmsford Crown Court, Judge Goldstaub told the CPS to drop the case.
Although he sympathised with Miss Whybrow, who suffered retinal damage, he said the prosecution undermined the dignity of the court.

The judge said that apart from the difficulty of securing a conviction in front of a jury, ‘there was the prospect of a lot of laughter’ which could harm the judicial process.

Earlier, the prosecution had alleged that the party had got out of hand when ‘there was a period of unruly horseplay, before the sausage came into the scene’.

There was also a suggestion that the injury could have been caused by a chicken drumstick.
It sounds like something out of Beachcomber. Spike Milligan would have had a field day with the Case Of The Flying Sausage.

But when we’ve all stopped giggling, you have to ask how this ludicrous case ever got so far. And how much police time and public money was wasted on a food fight?

M’lud, my client Bugsy Malone pleads guilty to GBH with a sausage and asks for two jellies, one bowl of custard and a Turkey Twizzler to be taken into consideration.

Right Richard. Time for a quick law lesson.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is prohibited by section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861.

Here's the CPS guidelines for prosecuting ABH:

45) The offence is committed when a person assaults another, thereby causing actual bodily harm. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim: such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling: (R v Donovan 25 Cr. App. Rep. 1, CCA). It is an either way offence, which carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

46) As stated above, the factors in law that distinguish a charge under section 39 (common assault) from a charge under section 47 are the degree of injury resulting and the sentencing powers available to the sentencing court. For instances where common assault will be the appropriate charge. Where the injuries exceed those that can suitably be reflected by a common assault a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm should normally be preferred. By way of example, the following injuries should normally be prosecuted under section 47:

• loss or breaking of tooth or teeth;
• temporary loss of sensory functions, which may include loss of consciousness. (T v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2003] Crim. L. R. 622)
• extensive or multiple bruising;
• displaced broken nose;
• minor fractures;
• minor, but not merely superficial, cuts of a sort probably requiring medical treatment (e.g. stitches);
• psychiatric injury that is more than mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic. In any case where psychiatric injury is relied upon, as the basis for an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and the matter is not admitted by the defence, then expert evidence must be called by the prosecution. (R v Chan-Fook, 99 Cr. App. R. 147, CA).

47) A verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm may be returned on proof of an assault together with proof of the fact that actual bodily harm was occasioned by the assault. (i.e. it need not be intentional to cause the harm done)

48) The test of recklessness is as per R v Cunningham (Archbold 19-167).

I think it's safe to say that retinal damage falls under those guidelines, given that the victim has lost a significant portion of central vision in her eye.

A clearer picture of what the judge actually said is offered by the Telegraph:

  “Apart from public interest in the matter he is of good character and it is a question of whether a jury can be persuaded to consider a conviction.

“I want it to be seen by someone more senior. I have concerns on four points: public interest; the prospect of conviction; the dignity of the court and the prosecution process.”


Following a review of the evidence, CPS barrister, Richard Stevens, told the court the Crown had decided not to proceed.

Yesterday, he told the court: "The Crown have considered the matter further and have reached the conclusion that there is not a realistic prospect of a conviction.”

At that point the judge quipped: “There is the prospect of a lot of laughter.”

The Crown then formally offered no evidence against Mr Brearey, who was found not guilty and discharged.

It seems to me that the CPS decided to drop the case as it couldn't prove that the defendant was the one to cause the injury, and also that he was unlikely to reoffend.

Richard Littlejohn: now against justice if it involves a word he finds amusing. You couldn't make it up.

FacebookFacebookFacebookFacebook

A lot of people point out that the Mail writes scare stories about Facebook because it increases their online traffic. I've decided to try increase mine, but without involving piss-poor journalism (mainly because I don't get paid, so I can't be a journalist).

FacebookFacebookFacebookFacebook.


Anyway, this is on the front page of the Mail today:

"How many more child victims of the Facebook sex gang?"



(FacebookFacebookFacebookFacebook)

Guess what? There is no Facebook sex gang.

I'm going to take my trusty red pen to this, but not much, as it's fairly self explanatory. (Facebook)

How many more child victims of the Facebook sex gang? Parents of 16,000 children get warning letters after attacks by internet predators

By Sam Greenhill, Stephen Wright and Ryan Kisiel Three people were paid for writing this, and I'm a bloody barmaid.

    * Man, 19, arrested in connection with investigation
    * Police praise 'bravery' of 20 victims who came forward
    * All victims, aged between 12 and 15, knew offenders
    * Police investigate whether children were groomed on web

Parents of 16,000 pupils have been sent stark letters warning that internet predators may be trying to groom their children for sex. Online, the Mail reproduces the letter about halfway down the page. I'm going to reproduce it here.

Find me the word "Facebook" in that, and I'll give you whatever the Mail journos earn for finding it.

Police believe at least 20 pupils – and fear as many as 50 – have been ensnared on Facebook and other social networking sites over the past three years.

The victims are thought to have been plied with drink and drugs before being abused or raped. Some were as young as 12.

Yesterday council staff took the extraordinary step of warning parents of pupils at 14 Devon secondary schools that it was no longer safe for their children to go out alone. Where?

In a bombshell letter, signed by headteachers, parents were told there was no need for alarm. But it added: ‘The safety of your child is never more important than at this crucial time.’

It revealed police were investigating the ‘sexual exploitation of a number of young people’ and officials wanted to ‘raise awareness of the potential dangers’.

The mass mail-out was sent to pupils at schools in Torquay, Paignton and Teignbridge.

Jenny Faulkner, who is Torbay council’s ‘children’s champion’, stoked further anxiety by warning children: ‘Don’t go about alone – go in groups of twos or threes or fours.

‘We are saying children need to be careful and be vigilant. If they are going home, they should go straight there.’ She urged parents: ‘Just watch your children.’ I can't find this online but just note that she SAYS NOTHING ABOUT FACEBOOK.

All known victims attended three of the 14 schools and yesterday police arrested a 19-year-old man on suspicion of child exploitation.

Another man is being hunted by Devon and Cornwall Police, which has launched a major child abuse investigation codenamed Operation Mansfield.

Detective Inspector Simon Snell said the victims were predominantly girls – but also boys – aged between 12 and 15 and that two were in care.

He said the offenders had befriended their victims first rather than snatched them off the street.

‘There appears to have been all manner of grooming taking place, which may have occurred on the internet,’ he added. May have occured on the internet. May.

‘We are keeping an open mind with regards to Facebook, Bebo and other internet sites.’ This is their link to Facebook.

‘We have interviewed around 20 children so far with regard to offences connected with child exploitation. We may deploy officers to interview further children.’

Police have dismissed links with other inquiries of a similar nature such as  that of Asian sex gangs in the Midlands and North. Because only people from Asia abuse children, right?

The inquiry started last week after children came forward to childcare agencies which then alerted police.

Officers could not confirm the setting in which the abuse took place, but said they wanted to make clear it was not in any of the schools.

Mr Snell said the offences included indecent assault and rape and could go back two or three years.

He paid tribute to the victims, saying: ‘We are dealing with children from all different backgrounds and social groups. I respect their bravery – they have been very brave coming forward to us.’

‘If the letters have alarmed parents and alarmed victims then I can only apologise on behalf of my organisation. That was certainly not the intention.’

The decision to send out the letters was taken by two local councils.

Mr Snell played down the dangers of walking home: ‘Parents need to know that their children are completely safe to walk the streets of Torbay and can return home from school completely safely.

‘It is simply not the case that a group of paedophiles is grabbing children off the street, I need to emphasise that.’

Police sources said none of the attacks were random and many of the victims were vulnerable children, some of whom had run away from home and had fallen into drug use.

Mr Snell apologised if the letter, which was sent out by each school and signed by its headteacher, had caused panic. ‘I need to clarify the reason we sent these letters out. We are reacting very quickly to intelligence we received from lots of agencies,’ he explained.

‘The letter was sent out to reassure parents and to make sure that they didn’t hear on the grapevine about the police investigation.

‘The whole idea was to tell parents there was an investigation in progress and we are very limited in what we can say.

But parents spoke of their fears after news of the investigation emerged. Sharon Houghton, who has children aged 11, 13 and 15 at different schools in Torbay, said she and her husband Ray were worried and in the dark.

‘It is obviously very concerning and we have been given very few details about the investigation,’ she said. ‘I am now thinking I can’t let my kids go out. I want to know where they are at all times.’ I appreciate that Mrs Houghton is worried, but really? The police and council have reacted very quickly to this, and are to be commended for their actions in alerting parents to the investigation to stop tittle-tattle and unnecessary worry.

One mother of a 13-year-old girl said: ‘We’ve been told not to let them on these sites like Facebook because they could be meeting up with strangers.

‘These older boys seem friendly and nice on the internet but they are a real threat.

‘I’ve talked to a lot of the other mums and we’re all going to stop them going on there.’ Again, I appreciate this woman's concern, but surely the answer isn't to ban Facebook, but to set their child's privacy settings to the maximum and tell them not to speak to anyone they don't know in person?

Another mother added: ‘I am worried about the internet and when we get home we’re going to go through all her online friends and see who she has met in person and not just on the computer.’

Special assemblies were held to warn children to be vigilant. Carol Tozer, director of children’s services in Torbay, said a team of eight social workers had been drafted in.

To summarise:

Child sex abuse takes place. This may or may not have occured after grooming online. Council and police commendably keep parents up to date on the investigation. Admittedly send slightly mixed messages about how to keep children safe. Mail decides they are in the wrong for....something. Also, FACEBOOK.

Why is this on the front page of the Mail? There is no 'Facebook sex gang'. The Mail can't even make up it's mind as to whether the Council are wrong to "worry parents" by alerting them to the investigation, or whether they need to be told more. Articles like this are the reason I drink.

FacebookFacebookFacebookFacebook*.


*If I don't get a million hits now, the theory about the Mail just trying to increase online traffic goes out the window, and we'll be forced to conclude that they really are just that stupid.