A Distorted Reality.

Rape victims told alcohol consumption may cost them compensation.

And I don’t understand the outrage. You get drunk and you lose your ability to defend yourself, you lose certain awarenesses of your surroundings, you become more vulnerable: but all of this is voluntary - nobody forced these women to drink. Their drinking led to an increased likelihood of getting into a situation where they would be likely to be raped. I’m not saying that they deserved it, or were ‘asking for it’ (that would indeed be an awful thing to say), but they made themselves accomplices to their rapists. I find it far more offensive and far more concerning that one of the women affected by this was awarded full amount (£11,000 of taxpayer’s money) after her solicitor claimed that the 25% cut amounted to ‘indirect sexual discrimination’: notice how no claim like this has ever been made for the patently direct sexual discrimination of the legal definition of rape excluding male victims of sexual assault. Here is evidenced another example of how the knife does not cut both ways: everyone wants equality so long as it benefits them or makes them a little more equal than everyone else.

This raises another point: I don’t understand the logic behind the existence of CICA, nor do I understand why victims of crimes should be given compensation appropriated from taxpayer’s funds: the sixty-one million people of the United Kingdom did not each commit a crime against any given victim, only a handful (at most) did. These multi-thousand pounds payouts at a time would be better spent improving policing in order to 1) prevent these crimes and 2) catch the criminals behind these awful acts.

Being a victim of a violent crime should not be viable as a secondary income stream.