Tuesday, 24 May 2011

The Long Arm of the Law

Who is the Law For?

If obtaining legal redress is only available to those with vast amounts of money, is there not something fundamentally flawed with the legal system? Surely the law should be there to protect all of us, not just a select few?


Following on from the Ken Clarke issue; I’ve been reading about women’s groups saying that women who dress provocatively are blameless if they are raped. In an ideal world, yes.

If you leave your car unlocked with a tantalising laptop on display, you will get no sympathy from insurance companies if your laptop or car is stolen, as you are held partly culpable.

Dressing provocatively is done for one reason only - to attract attention. If, in an imperfect world, a provocatively dressed woman happens to attract the wrong kind of attention, then to claim she is not tempting fate is rather naive.

However, rapists do not seem to be fussy about whom they target and I think it’s a popular fallacy to think they tend to target provocatively dressed women – it seems to have more to do with opportunity than type. Ergo the drunk, unaccompanied woman is more likely to be a target; however, the two seem to go hand-in-hand.


  1. You might be right about the legal system only providing redress for those with money but the current case provides a wonderful example of how an attempt to get redress can backfire spectacularly. Those who live by celebrity shouldn't complain too much if they die by celebrity. (yes, I'm back)

  2. I usually find that I am sick when I'm drunk. Down my ample cleavage. I find this to be a deterrant for untoward behaviour.

  3. We're just monkeys in shoes, when you accept that every stupid thing we do makes sense.