This we should emphasise from the off. This paper truly despise women, especially when they’re in court. Reporting recently on a sexual assault case, in an attempt to undermine the victim’s testimony they state: “The woman who claimed she was sexually assaulted by Jack Gillett had previously told friends that another student had molested her.”
Christ, if she’s claiming that she’d experienced sexual harassment before, she’s clearly an attention seeking liar, right? Wrong. 1 in 3 women experience sexual violence during their lifetime. Why is it therefore noteworthy that the woman in question had previously been groped by a student at Cambridge? Because for many people, speaking out about attacks and violations of their selves still remains taboo. People like the journalists at the Daily Mail presume every woman a liar until the attackers are convicted. Often, even then, they aren’t satisfied. It is within this culture that 75% of rapes go unreported, and that of those 25% that do get reported, only 5.6% result in a conviction.
Anyway, back to dissecting this “story”:
When she told police months later that he had sexually assaulted her, she failed to mention her earlier alleged encounter with Mr Morrell.
Perhaps that’s because it wasn’t fucking relevant, you idiots. I rang 999 when I narrowly escaped being gang-raped, and failed to mention that I’d been attacked for wearing a miniskirt the year before. Clearly I’m just a sodding liar, untrustworthy as a result. Seriously, nearly every woman I know has been groped several times when simply going for a drink in a pub or club. If my friends get raped in the future, shall I speculate on whether the previous violations to their personal privacy mean they are lying about sexual assault?
I often wonder if the Daily Mail would applaud the reintroduction of Chastity belts. Oh of course not, it’d come out of taxpayers money. Idiots.
