Around ten years ago, my closest female friend – let’s, for the sake of this piece, call her Violet – went for a drink with a mutual female friend (who we’ll call Pauline) on a Saturday night; after the pair had got into conversation with two unattached guys (as often happens), Pauline abruptly exited the pub, leaving a ‘tipsy’ Violet in the company of two men about whom she knew absolutely nothing, an action which struck me as remarkably irresponsible. It turned out Violet’s newly-single status had caused Pauline to enter that weird feminine phase of competitive bitchiness that makes a mockery of ‘the sisterhood’; suddenly seeing Violet as an unattached rival in the pulling game and perhaps perceiving Violet was receiving the kind of attention ordinarily reserved for her, Pauline abandoned Violet when she was in an extremely vulnerable position.

Thankfully, nothing horrible happened, though it could have done as Violet walked half-a-mile home alone in an intoxicated state in the wee small hours of Sunday morning; she only told me of this a few days later. Not only was I angry with Pauline’s petty conduct, but I was annoyed that Violet hadn’t rung me to accompany her on the journey home; I only lived a short distance from the pub in question and would have gladly joined her simply to ensure she had a safe trip back to base. This wasn’t me acting as Sir Galahad; it was me offering to come to a friend’s assistance as well as expressing a streetwise awareness of how some men can exploit a young woman when her wits are diluted by alcohol.

I’m pretty certain mothers issue warnings to their teenage daughters about such scenarios; they wouldn’t amount to much as mothers if they didn’t. It is nothing more than basic common sense. After all, drink can alter behaviour in ways that no other ‘legal high’ is capable of; it can make us violent and aggressive; it can make us extrovert and hilarious; and it can make us uninhibited to the point whereby situations we’d reject when sober are stripped of their cautionary warning signs.

Back when women wouldn’t surrender their virtue without a ring on their finger, some men resorted to plying them with booze in the hope it would loosen more than just their suspender belts; it was a risky business prior to the widespread availability of birth control, but it happened – something that those of us whose parents were rushed into a shotgun wedding are conscious of, even if we ourselves weren’t ‘courting’ at a time when the rules of the game were far more formal than they are now.

The summing-up of Judge Lindsey Kushner when preparing to sentence a convicted rapist in Manchester last week seemed to speak of the changing climate where sexual morals are concerned; she strongly stressed the victim of the convicted man wasn’t ‘asking for it’, but she did emphasise the perils inherent in young women drinking themselves into a stupor when there are men around who seize on the vulnerability drink can engender. She said: ‘Girls are perfectly entitled to drink themselves into the ground, but should be aware people who are potential defendants to rape gravitate towards girls who have been drinking. It shouldn’t be like that, but it does happen and we see it time and time again.’

Who could possibly dispute the reasonable logic in the words of a judge making her final summary in her final case before retiring? Well, who else but that fanatical and unhinged Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (lucky Northumbria) – the North East’s answer to Valerie Solanas, Vera bloody Baird. A bitter and twisted real-life ‘Millie Tant’ with enough chips on her shoulder to keep an ailing fish shop in business for a good couple of years, Baird’s whole shtick is a form of psychological entrapment that is intent on exposing all men as the rapists-in-waiting she believes them to be. A female judge urging her fellow females to not put themselves in a position where actual rapists-in-waiting could capitalise on their vulnerability is apparently part of the problem.

Judge Kushner’s warnings were (according to Baird) ‘victim-blaming’; she accused the judge of implying ‘it’s your fault for having attracted him in the first place’. One could say Baird had reacted in characteristic knee-jerk fashion without having read the judge’s full statement, but Baird probably had her reaction prepared long before, merely waiting for any judge to utter similar sentiments before being able to use it. Her response was utterly predictable if one examines her record.

Thanks to Baird’s insistence that virtually every intimate exchange between the sexes constitutes male aggression, the reporting of incidents of sexual assault has risen, though it’s worth bearing in mind context. The mentally disturbed resident of a care home can call the police to claim she’s been raped, and even though the police are accustomed to receiving such calls on a regular basis and are well aware the caller in question is a deluded fantasist, the call is still registered as a report of a sexual assault. Baird also instigated the committees comprising the usual do-gooders with too much time on their hands that sit-in on rape cases in the North East, issuing severe admonishments to the judiciary should a jury find an accused man innocent. To hand someone with such an extreme and biased agenda the kind of power Baird can call upon is a dangerous state of affairs indeed.

I doubt few parents of young women or anyone with any semblance of common sense could find fault with Judge Kushner’s summary; she never hinted girls who drink too much are inviting sexual assault; she simply cautioned them against putting themselves in a place where the kind of men who do exploit a drunken woman have free rein to act upon their worst instincts. For the likes of Vera Baird to hijack the summary to slot into her own tunnel-vision viewpoint and present it to the media as an outrage says everything you need to know about that disgraceful individual.

© The Editor



  1. There are two issues here. The first is that of encouraging everyone to exercise a modicum of common sense, as regards any potential risks to themselves. Most men are well aware of that, even though some behave stupidly. There are certain places where you know its is unsafe to walk after dark. In an ideal world that wouldn’t be case, but we don’t live in an ideal world. Also, alcohol affects your judgement, so that you are more likely to place yourself at risk when you shouldn’t do.

    The second issue is the misandric feminist agenda, which has spawned among some men (the ‘MGTOW’ crowd) an equal mistrust of women. These ‘MGTOW’ are doing precisely what feminists want, breaking down relationships between men and women. In reality there is no way that any man can protect himself against a false allegation of rape. His name can still be smeared even if he never had any wish to have sex with the woman in question, he may not even know who she is. For example, there was a ludicrous case in Dec 2014 when a man was accused of sexually assaulting a woman (an unnamed actress) whom he brushed past, without even being aware of it, in Victoria Rail Station, London. It took him over a year to clear his name.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s not the smartest reply you’ve ever provided. Wanna change it a bit?

        And remember, as Solomon said, it’s those who are your real friends who will tell you the truth 🙂


      2. ‘tdf says:
        March 13, 2017 at 11:38 pm

        I’m just going to put this here as a hint.’

        Indeed, but I think he needs a bigger callout or he might findout that a mere strikeout could still get him sentout


        Liked by 1 person

  2. One wonders about the even more vicious stream on venom which would have poured down onto the head of the wise judge if the said judge had been a man.
    Perhaps, on reflection, whilst the judge’s words may have been wise, she may have been personally quite unwise to utter them in the current climate of repression, but hearty cheers for her courage to speak the plain truth to those who would rather not hear it..

    As for Dame Vera Baird, she always struck me as one of those women who can be confident of never suffering any unwanted sexual attention – even if the bloke was completely off his head with Stella Artois, his guide-dog wouldn’t let him get anywhere near her on the grounds of taste and decency.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Lol! 😱 Not even the most powerful ‘Beer Goggles’ could even come close to twisting her visage into anything that would not instantly be the subject of what Viz would have called a “Boiler Curfew” lol.

      I myself think that she would be a perfect contestant for a new ‘Reality TV’ show that I have in mind, “Celebrity Whitechapel Murders” where a group of Z-list celebs, has beens, never were in the first place and disgraces/former politicians are locked up in an exact, historically accurate, recreation of 1880’s Whitechapel. Every week, by public vote, the most obnoxious contestant gets to be brutally murdered by ‘Saucy Jack’ himself!

      “Day 47. Duncan, from Blue, has just found Dame Vera butchered in the Diary Room!!!” lol 😉


  3. RUBBISH! It is not only misogynistic but also lookist to even comment on a woman’s physical appearance in a negative fashion, OR in a manner that could be construed as negative. You people are even worse than the NAZIS.


    Liked by 1 person

  4. As far as I can see, when you look at the comments in full and in context, she did not blame the victim, or excuse the guilty party, but she did make the elementary error or speaking some common sense, which is that young women should be careful not to expose themselves to unnecessary risk by getting shitfaced.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. One:

    I think this woman would have a wise take on it all:


    Hubert Rawlinson and Mudplugger – do you think rapists only ever target “lookers” ? it’s never too late to wise up you know.


    This advice should also be given to men (especially when travelling to foreigh countries where cultures are different). This is the voice of experience.

    And Ho Hum – it’s amazing what you can get away with when your partner is in government.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. ‘And Ho Hum –’

      Indeed. Similar behaviours too, sort of like pushing people under the bus. LOL

      But as for your ‘it’s amazing what you can get away with when your partner is in government’, that could make for a good game! Let’s start with ‘speaking Welsh in France’… LOL

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Dame V’s comments may have been widely reported in England but never touched these shores. Here’s a link for lazy expats (don’t open if you’re feeling a bit queasy – the photography is rather graphic).

    “Yes, the ‘tube incident’ was the woman who plays Usha in ‘The Archers’; despite CCTV evidence contradicting her bizarre fantasy, she still maintained ‘it’ happened.”

    My understanding of the incident (I was in Norwich at the time it received national coverage so read about it a lot) was that the lady in question, who has a measure of fame and fortune in her own right, and no history of false allegations or whiplash claims, reported what had happened to the Transport Police but consistently said she didn’t know who was the culprit. She pointed no fingers, it was the CPS which decided to prosecute their chosen victim because, well – he was there, his Oyster Card records prove it! CCTV footage cleared him of the CPSs bizarre fantasy, not hers.

    tdf, many thanks, I’m downloading as I type.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.