Pynchme:"At the outset she told police that she'd had consensual sex with some of the players in the days leading up to the complaint."

No, she didn't. the police officer quoted in the story said ""We were getting good evidence of an incident of consensual sex but not of a pack rape.
"In fact, we were getting nothing to suggest any crime had occurred at all.'' "

Her allegation that she was raped was not withdrawn by her. The evidence the officer refers to is that of witnesses The officer goes on to say:"As to the woman's motive for possibly making up the story, he says she had been insulted by one player some hours earlier. "

Do you regard accusing someone of rape for insulting you as a reasonable thing to do?

Seriously, Pynchme, your cause is not served by deliberately misquoting stories or trying to ignore data that don't fit your preconceptions. The evidence in this matter and in the Broncos case is that the allegations of rape were false and that the women involved made the accusations for reasons other than any sense of having had their chastity or personal safety violated. Sometimes women do bad things and sometimes football players don't do the bad things they're accused of. Personally, I'd expect a top level athlete, well-used to self-discipline, to be far better able to control himself than a woman with a skinful of West Coast Cooler or whatever the current leg-opener happens to be.

The same would apply if the athlete were female and the alleged "victim" male, with a gut full of Jim Beam and Coke.

The trouble is that you grrls, always keen to see women only as helpless, hapless victims don't give them the credit for being responsible for their own situations. It speaks volumes about your sense of your own capacity to do so.

<What are some ways that you can think of that men can protect themselves from women who might make claims later of improper behaviour?

I ask this because I recently read where someone was advising men to drop a drunken woman off but not to enter her premises and certainly not have sex with her no matter what she seems to be inviting, which is what you did isn't it (I was one who was intoxicated, not her).>

Firstly, apart from having 5 High court judges as witnesses, there is not much a man can do to protect himself from allegations of improper conduct. The only other way to avoid such allegations would be not to have anything to do with women.

Yeah I know not all women will do such a thing, but it is impossible to differentiate between ones who will and ones who wont.

The problem with alcohol is that it is used as a social lubricant, and a disinhibitor. So people may do things whilst under the influence that they may not do when sober or would like to do when sober but feel too inhibited.

As a male I find that unless I am prepared to take the risk and try to initate, nothing happens. Due to some privileged conversations I understand some women feel offended when a bloke doesn't at least make an attempt.

pynchme,

'What are some ways that you can think of that men can protect themselves from women who might make claims later of improper behaviour?

I ask this because I recently read where someone was advising men to drop a drunken woman off but not to enter her premises and certainly not have sex with her no matter what she seems to be inviting, which is what you did isn't it.

The poster suggested the fellow, if he was interested in sex, phone her the next day when she'd regained her faculties and try to make some sort of arrangement. What do you think? As a general rule of thumb would that work as a recommendation for men in dating situations ?'

So, when woman are taught how to protect themselves from rape, that's putting the onus of responsibility on the victim. But when a man is a victim of false accusations...

Double standard anyone?

Antiseptic: You are again pressing Nine to discuss NSWRCC matters when she has explained more than once that it is inappropriate for her to do that. You seem to have difficulty accepting “No” for an answer.

New Callers - 1,399
Repeat - 5,630
Total - 7,029
Telephone - 6,201
Online - 787
Email - 41

The RCC stats are enumerated in the link below. I can tell by the figures that you’ve selected to quote that you have seen the page.
http://www.nswrapecrisis.com.au/LatestNews/Statistics/StatisticsJuly07-June08.htm

Over 365 days that’s more than 17 calls per day, plus provision of training, education and consultancy to many service providers throughout NSW. All human services have stringent and very time consuming recording requirements.

You compare that to your own efforts in responding to up to 50 calls in an 8 hour work day, while coping with additional duties. That’s about 10 minutes per call. Busy bloke.

- but not all phone biz is the same is it. Like, the RCC isn’t taking pizza orders is it. I take it that you have no idea what’s involved in responding to someone who has been assaulted or to an enquiry about how to help someone navigate the emotional and legal complexities of sexual assault.

Re: Bulldogs – links were provided in an earlier post, but here is one. You could Google further information if you need more clarification.

“REPORTER: How long after was it that the police were aware that the girl was with the -- some of the Bulldogs players three nights before -- when did you learn of that?

DET CHIEF INSP JASON BRETON: The first time she gave a statement.”

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1097323.htm

Lastly, one of the interesting things that I am noting in posts since expressing regard to CJ Morgan, is the way that other some other males here are seeking to push him back into line – into conforming with some sort of male code of behaviour towards women.. Heaven forbid that one man might have an independent opinion and the courage and self assurance to express it.

pynchme:"You are again pressing Nine to discuss NSWRCC matters when she has explained more than once that it is inappropriate for her to do that."

No, she's stated it, not provided any explanation of her reasoning at all, probably wisely if the rest of her output is a guide.

She states on her CV here that she is member of the management committee of the NSWRCC, presumably in an attempt to increase her perceived authority. That means that I am free to examine the derivation of that authority and it also means she has the means to obtain the answers to the simple questions I have asked. If the answers are not forthcoming, I can only assume she or her fellow committee members are not confident they will be adequate.

I should make it clear that I don't regard the NSWRCC as an especially badly run or wasteful organisation of its type. These sorts of groups that have political backing are rarely as efficient as they could be. However, this group uses its funding for a purpose unrelated to its raison d'etre and discriminates as a result. The purpose of their funding is to assist rape victims in their time of crisis; it is NOT to promote feminism.

the following statement appears at the head of their annual report for last year:"“Anything I do is my attempt to emulate the commitment of all of you at Rape Crisis and the
work you do to change women’s lives. I have a career as a feminist that is well rewarded.
The real issues are always on the ground and anything I can do to recognise and support that is a
fraction of what women in my position should be doing.”
A leading feminist who has been assisting the Centre’s fund-raising efforts"
[cont]

[cont]

At least she acknowledges her career is as a feminist, not as whatever it is she's being paid to do. The NSWRCC regards this as such an important statement of their worthiness that they place it above the title of their report, yet there is not a single endorsement of their work from a victim included anywhere in that report and there are

Religious groups that run NGOs, such as Mission Australia, Salvation Army, Anglicare, Hillsong (famously) are prohibited from using their funding to proselytise. why should the situation be any different for groups that espouse feminism as their ideology? The parallels are quite striking.

In terms of the call volumes, each call, including repeat callers, handled by the centre cost $138.49, or more than $695 for each new caller. Nearly half of all calls were for incidents that allegedly occurred more than 6 months previously, which hardly seems like a "crisis" situation justifying such massive outlays, let alone justify the evem more massive outlay they're asking for next year. As no figures were provided, I can only assume that none of those callers were men.

If Nina would like me to stop asking the questions she obviously finds uncomfortable, all she need do is respond with some accurate and truthful answers. If the NSWRCC doesn't want her speaking for them, then perhaps they might respond on her behalf - after all, it's not as though they've much else to do.