"Were there signs in my friend's behaviour towards women that I ignored? Yes. And then he raped my friend. That's on me until the day I die."

Ashamed this is the first time I've seen this @daniel_sloss video. To my male followers, please watch and share.pic.twitter.com/TUKEy2Lu3c

— Anna Collinson (@AnnaCollinson) March 11, 2021

[Post edited 11 Mar 2021 15:35]

No means no by Gogs 19 Oct 2020 20:31
i've sat on a jury on a rape trial, well over 20 years ago. If my experience is anything to go by, it's tough for all concerned who aren't used to being in court. This was obviously way before sexting or anything like that.
Alleged victim and accused knew each other well. Were out p!ssing it up on a weekend, landed up in bed together. This much was not in doubt. Pretty much everything else was. Alleged victim was a hopeless witness, her version of events was very unclear and inconsistent, she came across as having been put up to it by her housemate who was very cocky and thought she knew better then the barristers (including the barrister of
alleged victim) and kept arguing when she'd been proved incorrect.
Accused claimed he had drunk around 30 (thirty) pints of Stella that day. Which struck me as fairly unlikely (he wasn't exactly a big chap) for a start, and there were numerous other holes in the rest of his testimony. But the crux of the matter was, and still is, the question of consent and who said what to whom and when. As I recall it was something along the lines of she claimed to have said 'don't' and he thought she said 'go on'. One person's word against another, neither of them at all convincing.
When the jury retired we took about an hour and a half to reach a 10-2 majority not guilty verdict. On the evidence presented there was no other option for me. One woman on the jury didn't get the concept of trial by jury at all, she was adamant she wanted to convict him because he 'looked like a rapist'. I forget why the other person wanted to convict. It was tough, he might have raped her, but no way was there anything like 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. When it boils down to one person's word against another, can you really do anything else?
If mobile phone evidence is to be used there must be equal access to phones belonging to alleged victims and accused lawyers on both sides to prevent miscarriages of justice on either side.