RAPE & RESPONSIBILITY

Rape is wrong. Anyone convicted of rape should go to prison for a very long time. To me these statements are obvious and irrefutable.

In today's world, however, we too often hear of cases of alleged rape in which there are no witnesses and insufficient evidence for any jury to decide whose version of events is true - the accuser or the accused. Consequently, the conviction rate in such cases is very low and some people claim that this is a disgrace and that more must be done to secure a 'better' conviction rate; that this flies in the face of proper justice seems to escape them.

In years gone by, young women did not disport themselves as they do today; they did not wear provocative clothing, get drunk, wonder the streets at all hours and nor did they jump into bed with someone they had met a few hours, or even minutes, before. Equally, young men were more controlled in their own behaviour, they did not expect young women to behave in these ways and treated them with greater respect. In a more constrained world, a young woman who cried 'Rape !' was much more likely to be believable.

The free-wheeling attitudes of today's world lead inevitably to situations in which both parties are drunk or drugged or both, in which both have been behaving in a highly sexual manner towards each other and in which expectations have been raised. When both men and women treat sex as no more than a few minutes of fun, to be enjoyed anywhere, anytime and with anyone, can we be surprised that at least some of these encounters end up unhappily ?

When a woman says 'No' that should be enough but, when the people involved have their senses dulled by drugs or alcohol, it is inevitable that it will not always be so. Regardless of this, a man who ignores a woman's words is, morally at least, guilty of rape. The real problem arises when an attempt is made to turn this moral guilt into a guilty verdict in court. This is where the social climate in which we now live comes into play.

To suggest that the burden of proof should be reduced in such cases is not the answer. To convict anyone in a criminal court should always demand the same level of evidence and proof, regardless of the alleged crime; any other approach will inevitably lead to unsafe and potentially wrong convictions of innocent people. The answer has to be to encourage a change in the behaviour of younger people, to encourage more control and less loutishness, to make the sexual act less of a' throwaway' event; however unpalatable it may be, young women must learn to behave more like young ladies and be less provocative and available. Young men must realise that, whether they like it or not, young women are not simply provided for their sexual gratification; they must accept that 'No' means 'No', even if they would like to think it doesn't.

Rape is a shocking crime, but at least some women contribute to their fate by their behaviour; it is quite wrong to exonerate them from all responsibility and lay the whole blame for any such act at the door of the man accused. If women want a 'better' conviction rate for these crimes, they must take steps to protect themselves in their everyday lives; if they continue to behave as they do, they will have to accept a fair share of the responsibility when things go too far. Part of that share is being unable to prove that a rape occurred.

DYSLEXIA RULES - KO !?

My dictionary defines Dyslexia as an 'impaired ability to read due to a disorder of the brain'.

These days, we are regularly told that a substantial proportion of our population is dyslexic but exactly what this is intended to cover seems rather vague. Is it that the sufferers cannot read or is it spelling that they have trouble with ? We even have references to some sort of numerical dyslexia added in, presumably so as not to disadvantage those who can read, write and spell but can't add up.

Let's be clear. Our educational system is pretty crap when it comes to teaching children to read, write and spell; it fails miserably when it comes to grammar and punctuation. It is equally poor at teaching the young any mathematical abilities, allowing them, instead, to rely on calculators and computers. Given this scenario, what better way to avoid having to blame teachers, schools and the whole educational system (and, by implication, the Government) for being pretty well useless than to widen the definitional scope of a highly subjective, pseudo-medical condition ?

No doubt, some people do suffer from dyslexia; whether it is any where near as many as are claimed is an entirely different matter. As a matter of interest, do other countries have similar rates of dyslexia recorded ? Are the French or Germans equally afflicted ? What about the Japanese and Chinese ? A brownie point for anyone who can answer the question.

BIG BROTHER RACIST ?

I have to admit that I have never watched the television programme that is 'Big Brother' though I have heard much about it and seen assorted 'highlights'. To my mind, this is the type of appalling drivel served up for the dull-witted masses who seem to constitute so much of our society. It is a programme 'starring' a variety of aspiring but talentless would-be celebrities whose ignorant and disgusting behaviour is calculated to appeal to those of limited intelligence and salacious mind.

Putting the above aside. it seems that the programme has attracted more than its fair share of controversy over the years with a succession of high profile incidents, no doubt specially choreographed by the producers to gain media attention. Now, it transpires, the latest programme has been fortunate enough to lure an apparently unwary 'Bollywood' star into its midst; some of her personal habits seem to have raised concerns amongst her house-mates and she feels that she is not liked.

This is far from the first time that one of the characters in this programme has been the victim of such criticism or pointed attack; the difference this time is that the 'victim' is coloured and, so, the immediate cry that goes up is one of 'Racism'. Miss what'ser'name has not complained of this but, perhaps, that is unsurprising; she is a highly successful film star in her own land and, no doubt, has ambitions to extend her charms to other countries. It seems highly unlikely that she entered this awful programme for any reason other than to gain publicity for herself; who is to say that the programme makers have not colluded in this aim by deliberately creating the current situation, which, by the way, has nothing racist about it. What it has done is to raise the profiles of both the programme and the silly woman while giving those with their own agendas an opportunity to play the 'racism' card.

'Big Brother' is utter rubbish and utterly deplorable, but it is not racist. If simply commenting adversely on the habits and behaviour of someone is now to be termed 'racism', we really have reached rock-bottom. Those who are trying to make more of this piddling matter than it deserves should be ashamed of themselves, not least the politicians in both the UK and India who have already joined the fray with the usual sanctimonious blather that such people use instead of communication.

Who will rescue us from this ridiculous, overblown media circus ?

Postscript :
I see from yesterday's 'Times' that there is now a free 'Shilpa Shetty' DVD on offer - what a surprise !!

AGE OF REASON ?

It seems that a new initiative from the Government is to require young people in the UK (or is it only in England ?) to remain in education until the age of 18. There will even be some form of nebulous sanctions for those who refuse to comply.

Leaving aside the obvious questions, such as 'if they didn't learn anything by 16, what difference will another 2 years make ?', this issue raises a whole raft of questions about the assorted ages of responsibility in this country.

The age of criminal responsibility is currently 10, although the Children's Society wants that limit raised to 14. At 14, a child can drink alcohol with a meal; at 16 they can be legally married with parental consent and some want them to be entitled to vote at this age. At 16½ they can join the armed forces, though they cannot engage in active conflict until aged 18; at 17 they can drive a car legally on public roads; at 18 they can vote and buy alcohol legally and, later this year, will be able to buy cigarettes legally, too; at 21 they can stand for Parliament.

Is not this mish-mash of ages of responsibility completely non-sensical ? Can it make sense that someone can be married at 16 and yet be compelled to remain in education until they are 18 ? Is there any logic in allowing a child to run riot on our roads with a potentially lethal weapon, a car, at 17, while not allowing them to make the personal choice of buying cigarettes or alcohol until they are 18 ? They can be killed for their country at 18, but cannot represent themselves, or others, in Parliament until they are 21.

Let us be sensible. Instead of raising the age limit for compulsory education to 18, let us ensure that there is good and proper education up to 14; let us remove the vast array of mickey-mouse subjects from the curriculum and instead concentrate on good old-fashioned reading, writing and arithmetic, basic geography and history, proper science. With a solid grounding in these subjects it will be much easier for our children to determine a future path through life; for some that will mean remaining at school and for some of these it will lead to further education in appropriate institutions - not all going to the dreaded 'Uni', but to a range of establishments that are designed to deliver education and training as is appropriate in each case. For those who are not inclined to an academic progression, apprenticeships and night school should be the norm, but it should be for the individual to determine what is best for them.

Enforced education is unworkable, as anyone who has attempted to teach an unwilling class will testify. It is a recipe for increased laziness and loutish behaviour, particularly when the students are near-adulthood and there is no effective disciplinary means at hand. Of course, from the Government's point of view, it will keep a few thousand more off of the unemployment register, further massaging the already grossly understated figures.

Age of Reason ? You must be kidding !

Homosexuality - Right or Wrong ?

There is a regular furore in the media about the issues of 'gay rights' and 'discrimination against gays', but is this either justifiable or worthy of the publicity given to it ? In recent days the matter has been given new impetus by a debate in the House of Lords and, once again, various individuals and organisations have been out and about in support of their case, whatever it is.

In my mind, we have the whole emphasis on this issue wrong. Homosexuality is neither right nor wrong, but it is an aberration - anyone who disagrees with this should read a dictionary definition. 'Gays' have no more nor less 'rights' than anyone else; they should be allowed to lead their lives the same as anyone else. They should not be discriminated against because of their difference to the bulk of the population but they must also accept that they are different and go quietly about their business as do the rest of us.

They should not wave their difference in the face of the rest of us, nor parade themselves outrageously, as far too many do, on our television screens and theatre stages. They should not expect to receive special treatment nor to be cosseted; they should not expect to be treated in the same ways as heterosexuals for they can never be procreative without the undue and unnatural intervention of medical science, and it is procreation that is the driving force of humanity. Children should not be conditioned to believe that homosexuality is 'normal' for, patently, it is not.

We should be spared the over-emphasis that arises from the over-representation of homosexuals in the worlds of entertainment and the media. Let us restore true balance in our lives.