Saturday, 27 July 2013

Some of my favourite tweets from #asktommyrobinson

So, today on Twitter, there was an amazing trending tag. 

It was set up by Tommy Robinson - aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka leader of the English Defence League - for people to ask him serious questions regarding the EDL and their ideologies (for those that don't know who the EDL are, they are very anti-muslim and are basically massive ignorant racists who shout about being English, but don't even know how to write/speak it).

Some examples of EDL members...

This, however, did not happen. Instead it was hijacked by the Twitter community and thousands of tweets appeared, asking some pretty fantastic and hilarious questions.

I list some of my favourite tweets below for you to enjoy.

And finally, a cheeky couple of my own that got a few retweets:

Silly EDL...

Monday, 22 July 2013

David Cameron doesn't know how the Internet works...

Ok, so if you've seen some of my tweets lately, you'll have may be seen that I'm not really inspired to go and see the new film, "The Internship".

However, despite me finding that old-people-not-getting-the-Internet a crappy joke, especially as so many older people DO understand how it works, it seems that the film may have actually based its main characters off of David Cameron.

See, I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard that Dave was sending a warning to Google, saying that they had to do more to block child pornography or face dire consequences.

I'm all for preventing child porn being circulated, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HE HAS NO IDEA HOW THE INTERNET WORKS.

But I thought Google owned all the Internet..?

Does Davey-boy realise just how many pages of information are created each day? Just by writing this blog I am creating a brand new link that can be searched for on Google. Google also has tonnes of measures already in place to try and block unwanted pages; you think they haven't already thought about this problem?! You think that you have to bloody remind them?!

If you search "child pornography" on Google (wow, my search history is going to look weird now), it doesn't give you links to sites showing disgusting material; instead it links to news articles or sites that talk about tackling the problems or explaining the issues around it. At the moment it does link to disgusting material, as most of the links are talking about you (ooooooo buuurrrrnnnn!). It already has measures in place to filter out the more disturbing sites - also I'd imagine they pass on any information they find to the relevant police departments.

Also, in the radio segment I was listening to, an expert in tacking the problem of child pornography explained that most people use private servers, share peer-to-peer and use very different methods to search for this kind of stuff. They send private emails to each other, find other ways of preventing any online footprints. They share things offline to avoid an internet footprint entirely. They know that what they are doing is wrong and against the law, and one expert said that child abusers would "laugh at" Dave's crackdown.

Basically, these people do not create "this is my child porn collection" websites, showcasing their collections to get hits from Google searches. That is the quickest way for them to get caught. You moron. 

Even if people do make pages or search for stuff online, Google doesn't have complete control over the Internet. It is a very powerful company, but it does not have the ability to immediately block pages that break laws, just because there are millions of pages created each day and it is a massive job that they are constantly working on. They have algorithms in place, they try their best, but they are not all-powerful beings that can see every internet page made ever.

Dave, mate, your "demands" are just an obvious desperate grasp for public approval - you know that 99% of the public will agree with you that child porn is wrong. The thing is, if you genuinely cared about this issue, you would've done a little bit more research and realised just how difficult it is to keep on top of the ENTIRE INTERNET, which is constantly growing and changing, and seen just how much work is already going into trying to prevent illegal images from being shared online. 

In trying to make yourself look like the good guy, you have ended up looking like an ignorant tit who has no idea how the Internet works.

Also, as this is related to your recently-reported 'opt-in for porn' pledge, I just wanted to share this hilarious image from the Daily Mail website, which I found here:

YEAH! OPT-IN FOR PORN! WE WIN! (Mainly because lots more people will then have to rely on all our pictures of "all grown up" celebrities in bikinis, often taken without their permission)

As someone who has grown up using the Internet, I just want to ask Dave, "Are you THAT bloody stupid?"

Stop child pornography = good thing to announce. That stuff is horrible and abusive, anyone would support you on that.

Setting up an opt-in policy for porn = bad thing to announce. Forcing people to to basically publicly announce to their service provider that they want to watch other people having sex is going to piss off a lot of voters. I agree with trying to restrict/add laws against certain violent (not BDSM, actual abusive violence) or simulated-rape porn; even if laws are difficult to implement, some stuff online is horrific and just pointing out that it's wrong helps bring light to the issues around it. But block all porn entirely? Is that really going to automatically make the UK a safer, more 'wholesome' place?

My problem with it is the "think of the children!!" mentality behind it. It's the same stupid mentality behind the "video games are making children violent!" argument. The real problem that is easiest to solve? Parents not restricting what their kids have access to. There are already opt-in options for blocking porn to your home, there are countless parental blocking systems to stop kids accessing this kind of stuff; people just can't be arsed to set them up themselves, so they want it done by default at the expense of everyone else who may actually be old enough and responsible enough to access that material.

Also, it won't work. It's the Internet. People will find a way around these blocks. The whole thing is difficult-to-implement, easily worked-round by using different codewords to list and search for stuff, and there will probably be a hack for it within days/weeks. Hell, there is already so much material out there that is now saved onto people's hard drives or phones, and that will only increase after this announcements as people try and save up secret collections; people will just find other ways to share it offline, away from all the blocks & pushed down to the same level as paedophiles (the ones that Dave thinks use Google Image as their go-to site to find their law-breaking material).

Oh, and the easiest way to stop kids - especially teenagers - from getting the wrong idea of sex from porn? Explain to them that that is not what real sex looks like and that thepeople in it are actors, are faking things, porn filming is often actually very clinical, etc. Just bloody TALK to them, or show them programmes  rather than push all the responsibility onto Internet providers. You can't stop them from doing everything, but at least take some bloody responsibility.

Oh and Dave, in response to this quote from this article:
But challenged whether Page Three-style images of topless women should be banned from newspapers, he refused, saying: “It’s an issue of personal choice whether people buy a newspaper or not.”
It's also an issue of personal choice as to what people choose to look up on the Internet, and you're not refusing to get involved in that argument, are you? Hmm?

BAM! Crappy argument SLAMMED.

Urgh. I can't wait to vote against you again in the next election, you ignorant tit.

Some good articles & blogs that explain a few things to Dave:
EDIT: I couldn't release all my anger/frustration just by writing, so I created a video too. Enjoy!

Tuesday, 16 July 2013

Fox news - and by that I mean weird news about a fox

Ok. I love foxes.

I think they are adorable, with their fluffy tails and little pointy noses and ears. In fact at one point it was a dream to own a fennec fox as a pet. I changed my mind to "maybe", but you can see why I had the initial desire:


See, whilst I adore fennec foxes and think they are ridiculously cute, I am also aware that they are a wild animal that has only recently been domesticated. I should perhaps start on a more domesticated species as my first "big" pet step-up from hamsters and fish... 

I am also aware of how the urban foxes that live throughout London, whilst living near humans, are still wild animals.

I want to point you to this article, from This is Local London, a friend posted up on Facebook. It is a RIDICULOUS story of a fox walking in on a man on the loo, then biting his cat's face and him and his parter as they chase it around their home. It also comes complete with awful posed photos reenacting the scene. Seriously, go read it.

Anyway, there are just a few things I would like to say about this article:

  • Everything, from the in-depth description of the "attack" to the weird reenactment pictures, screams "slow news day".
  • It is one of the worst pieces of writing I have ever read, and I read the Twilight Saga...
  • To reiterate my last point, it includes the quote "I didn't even have time to wipe myself." This is the level of journalism we're at, ladies and gents...
  • The fox manages to "nose" its way into the loo - LEARN TO CLOSE THE DAMN DOOR, MAN. Even if you don't lock it, at least close it so no one / no animal can just push the door with their nose to open it!!
  • The guy is quoted as saying, "It was so frightening. It was like a wild animal." Guess what, it IS a wild animal! And you chasing it with your hands outstretched like in the picture below is going to scare the crap out of it and make it follow its defensive instincts - i.e. IT IS GOING TO BITE THE CRAP OUT OF YOU AND ANYTHING NEAR YOU THAT MOVES.
"Just like that..."
  • You say the cat's face was mauled. To be honest, it doesn't look too bothered in this picture. In fact, it looks more pissed off than scared - it has a lust for revenge in its eyes... I just feel sorry for it that its owner terrified a wild fox into a biting frenzy.
"I've been through worse with the cat down the road...just wait 'til he comes back..."
  • He says the cat is too scared to go into the living room. Can I just ask, where the hell is the picture above taken, then?
  • "At the time I wanted to kill the fox. But it must have been in real trouble, really hungry. It panicked - I don’t blame it for that." Let's just read that again "At the time I wanted to kill the fox". Not only is it bad grammar (the journalist should've put a comma after 'time', otherwise it's an incomplete sentence), but it makes me feel even less sorry for the man who was chasing after a fox with his bare hands stretched out, even if he did realise the poor thing was terrified afterwards.
  • "We were concerned for our neighbour’s baby next door." Not every fox is planning its next baby attack, but hopefully your neighbours take care to not leave their baby unsupervised where a fox can easily access it.
  • I could go on... Just read the article and see for yourself.
Some tips about foxes:
  • Don't chase a fox that has wandered into your house. If you run towards it, it will attack you. It is in strange territory and there are giant animals chasing it - it WILL bite you in defence. Instead, move very carefully around it. Try to close doors to prevent it running further into the house, and gently "shoo" it out with a tea-towel or something else that helps you keep your distance without being overbearing, for your safety and the fox's calmness.
  • If you cant get it out your house, or it seems aggressive, trap it in a room (by shutting the door, that is) and call an animal service like the RSPCA who have experts that know how to deal with wild animals.
  • Be aware that they are carnivores - I love foxes, but I am also aware that they eat bunny rabbits, another of my favourite animals. In fact, if it weren't for us humans killing off a lot of the rabbit population with myxomatosis to keep them off of crops, foxes wouldn't have wandered into urban areas looking for food.
  • Be careful when you leave back doors and downstairs windows open. It is rare that a fox will come inside, but foxes are curious, just like cats, and might wander in - especially if they smell food. They are getting braver around people, so don't invite them into your unattended kitchen.
  • If you don't want them near your home, do not feed them. Also, don't feed them inadvertently - keep your rubbish properly tidied away in dustbins.
  • Foxes do sometimes attack cats, but we have lots of cats and foxes around where we live and they steer clear of each other. Also, cats are far more likely to be run over than be killed by a fox (1in4 pet cats are killed on the roads in the UK, whilst fox attacks are very rare).
  • If you have a cat, don't leave its food outside as it will attract foxes. This will piss off the cat - just watch this video...
  • JUST BE CAREFUL. Just because something is fluffy, doesn't mean it's automatically a nice animal. Wild animals are unpredictable.

Anyway, the whole thing is just bad, lazy journalism. Sarah Trotter & others at This is Local London made this man look like a bit of a tit whilst trying to get a cheap easy-scare story - "ooo people don't like urban foxes! Let's write about them attacking people and cats!" Well, it backfired as readers soon figured out that the man was the agressor and scared a wild animal into attack-mode. The comments section is hilarious - I recommend you read them and see how badly this story has gone down with readers.

So what have we learnt today? Foxes are WILD ANIMALS that EASILY SCARE and you should NEVER go up to them if you want a guaranteed bite-free day. Also, local papers are weird.

EDIT: It seems that Anthony Schofield (the man the article is about)  has gone on a reply-spree in the comments section of the article. It's an interesting read. Be aware that the comments are from a man who let someone photograph him on the toilet, for an article about his "frightening" ordeal with a wild fox, where there was "blood everywhere". He also said the sentence: "There are a lot of foxes around here - it was an utter surprise." I dunno about you, but I think it would only be a surprise of there weren't a lot of foxes around there.

Also, the more I read the article, the more I feel the over-exaggerations in the writing perhaps give away that there may be some over exaggerations in the story... Hmm...

Sunday, 14 July 2013

A warning for Apple users (and how to easily detect email scams)

My mum came into my room this morning to ask if I thought an e-mail she'd gotten through from 'Apple' was genuine, as it seemed a bit "weird"; she asked if I could double check it and if there was a way to send it into Apple so they know of the scam. Here it is:

Subject: Your Apple ID is automatically disabled

My mum was completely right to think it was a scam. Here are some obvious reasons why:

  • The sender was labelled "Apple", but if you clicked on it, you saw that the actual e-mail address was "". Hmmm... 
  • The reason for "disabling" the user's account is reaaaaally vage. I'd understand if they'd "detected" unauthorised login attempts, but "detect" is not in past-tense, so it sounds like they did it for no reason whatsoever. In fact, it is full of weird spelling and grammatical errors which make it look very unprofessional. Bit stupid...
  • It said my mum's Apple ID was disabled, but if that was true, then she probably couldn't have used her iPad to check her emails online... Ahem...
  • It was asking the receiver to click on a link and enter their login info - most companies say they will never ask for your login details in emails. Another weird thing was the wording - they "recommend" users do it to get their ID back, rather than say they need to. Riiiight...
  • The link leads to "", which then lengthens out into  "", showing this page:
All the links lead to ""insert Apple product here". Seems legit...
  • The link for any comments or queries going to "" actually sent you to a Tesco Bank Contact Page. Bit weird...
  • It then lists the address of "Apple Personal Finance plc." (a company which doesn't exist), which I immediately recognise as the rather large Tesco Bank offices in Edinburgh, as I've gone past it on the train more times than I can remember... Erm...
  • It then finishes off the smallprint with "No responsibility is accepted by Tesco Personal Finance" when talking about possible viruses. What?
My conclusion: someone used the template of a previous Tesco Bank phishing scam and has changed some of the words to "Apple".

If you know of anyone with an Apple ID, do let them know that this e-mail is doing the rounds and to be careful if it gets past the spam filter. Also, if you know anyone who isn't sure of the signs of an email scam, do show them what to look out for; don't forget to let them know that some scam/phishing emails are more professional-looking than this one...

Basic scam-detecting tips:
  • Check the sending address. Don't trust an email from Services_Payments@Pay_PAl.Com, especially when you use and only ever get emails from an address from that site.
  • Don't input your login details for anything ANYWHERE other than the actual site you use them on.
  • Look at the spelling, grammar & punctuation - if it's odd, then it's most likely spam.
  • READ THE SMALL PRINT. They often re-use templates and sometimes don't change all the details properly (like in the email above).
  • If you click the links, check the site address for obvious differences to the ACTUAL site you use, look out for any re-routes as the page is loading, etc. If you don't want to click the links (just in case of viruses), you should be able to easily see the addresses by hovering your mouse over them.
  • If you do click the links and go to the site, look at any links on that page; sometimes they don't bother to link them all properly in the hope that the receiver of the email will be in too much of a rush/panic to check that they're real links (like in the email above).
  • Don't just trust something because it has a logo on it. Anyone can use Google Image search.
  • If you don't actually have an account with the company apparently sending you a letter, that's a big giveaway...

And to Internet scammers: nice try.

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

Provocative dressing and rape (cheery topic, I know...)

I recently came across a Young Turks video about how women also perpetuate sexism towards women by writing crappy articles about "who wore it better" and bitchy articles from Daily Mail writers. They mention Liz Jones saying how Rihanna's outfits "invite rape" and there is a massive debate in the comments section about whether women's clothes do "invite rape". If you would like to watch the video, here it is:

Ok, so the idea that 'certain provocative clothes "invite rape"' is even being debated annoys me. What the person is wearing doesn't matter, what matters is that someone decided to sexually abuse them. A lot of it is actually to do with power over another person; just look at rape in male prisons - the perpetrators are men using rape to exert power over other men (i.e. make them their 'bitch'), not gay guys who just think the victims look "hot" (in fact, LGBT people are more likely to be a victim than others). The only 'sexual' reason for rape that I can think of would probably be sexual frustration, not just that someone "looked sexy"; to clarify, by 'sexual frustration', I don't mean the normal kind, I mean they wanted to have sex and they were frustrated that the other person said no so they did it anyway...

Now, some people spoke about advising women to not dress provocatively, saying it's not 'victim blaming' but just giving advice for women to be safer. Someone said that an equivalent would be if their friend got mugged in a bad part of town, say "well why did you go there? Take this other route next time" Another said that if someone gets robbed, they are advised to have better security after being robbed and if they get robbed again, it's kinda their fault for not listening.

Ok, let me break things down for you to explain why your argument is crap, especially when it comes to court trials: if the mugger goes to court, the judge doesn't go easy on them and say to the victim "but what did you expect walking round there?" The criminal is seen as exactly what they are: a criminal. They are charged. Same with the burglaries - burglars don't usually get lower sentences just because the house owner left a window open with the TV in view. However, with rape cases, the victim's actions (being nice to the attacker beforehand) and clothing (what is on 'display') is often taken into account when deciding how bad the level of the crime was and what the sentence should be. Mugging is mugging. Burglary is burglary. But rape, even with glaring proof, is sometimes only 'real' rape if the girl didn't have anything on show and didn't "encourage" (i.e. be flirty or nice, because apparently that = immediate invite for sex) the guy, or if they put up a real fight and show signs of real damage. She was wearing skinny jeans? The jury reckons it must've been consensual as they're hard to take off...(because apparently rapists don't use force to remove clothing). One bizarre example was a Judge saying that "some girls enjoy being raped". WTF?!

The truth of the matter is that we shouldn't have to have adverts telling us to hide our valuables when we walk along the street, or telling us to keep our windows locked and have burglar alarms installed, but we do. Robbers of all kinds are looking for an easy grab, a way to slip in and steal valuables, so we are advised to be careful and not stand out as an "easy target". It is not our fault if we are robbed, and nothing can guarantee you won't get robbed, but we are advised to take precautions.

Whilst robbers are not the same as rapists (please stop equating the two, people), it is a sad fact that women do have to be careful of certain creeps wanting to sexually assault them in the street. I was taught safety tips at school by some people who came in from our local council and some members of the Metropolitan Police. Wanna know something?

None of them said anything about not dressing "provocatively".

Most of the safety tips we were given were also paired up with avoiding muggings, as we were just as likely to experience either one (cheerful thought...), but here are a few things I remember being warned about when it came to opportunistic rapists who attack women walking alone in the street, and some of the safety tips we were given:

  • They often attack women with long hair (the stereotypical haircut for women) as it is easy to grab from behind and pull them off-balance. Ponytails are especially easy to grab.
  • Don't wear a scarf that hangs off the back of your shoulder(s) - another easy grab-point and they could strangle you.
  • Walk near the curb - do not walk on the inside of the pavement, especially when there is a man walking on the same side as you and especially if there is a wall on that side, as they can walk along the outside of the pavement and pin you against it.
  • If you are worried you're being followed by someone behind you, cross the road - if possible, walk into a nearby shop and tell the people behind the counter. Stay where there are other people.
  • Try to avoid secluded areas, stick to the main roads where there are more people and better street lighting.
  • Try to stay away from areas with lots of large bushes/trees that attackers can hide behind. Not just parks, but front gardens too.
  • Wear shoes you can run in.
  • Do be careful what you wear, but not in terms of provocativeness: some street attackers often choose their victim in terms of how easily they can run away and how easy it is to access their vagina. So, to spell it out for some people, a woman wearing an ankle-length skirt may be more likely to be attacked by an opportunistic street rapist than a woman with shorts that take more time/are more difficult to get off and are easier to run in. Rapists who attack a stranger in the street often need quick, easy access - they do not always have the victim contained in a room/vehicle and don't want them to have the chance to get away. They also don't want to be somewhere too long and get caught. Pinning a woman down and undoing zips and buttons is more difficult and time-consuming than pinning her down and lifting her skirt.
  • Carry something large-ish in your hands that you could easily hit an attacker with, such as an umbrella or tightly rolled-up newspaper. People don't want to attack someone who could easily fight back.
  • Walk along confidently, strongly, and look alert - attackers want to catch someone off-guard (don't walk & text, don't have your headphones in, etc) who looks timid and easily-overpowered.
  • Carry a rape alarm with you and make sure you have easy access to it (not right at the bottom of your bag/pocket).
  • If you don't have one, shout and scream at them to get away from you if they approach you - they don't want the attention.
  • If someone grabs you from behind, step on their foot or try and elbow them.
  • If someone comes up to you from the front, thrust the bottom of your palm up under their chin to push their head back and hopefully make them lose their balance/grip.
  • If they are able to overpower you and sexually assault you, shout "FIRE!", because people are more likely to run and help than if you shout "RAPE!" because people don't want to witness something so disturbing (poor them...).
Wanna know something else? They never made it seem like these things were a guarantee that you wouldn't get attacked, neither did they sound like they would judge anyone or blame them for not following these guidelines if they get attacked. Shitty people are shitty people and we should blame them instead of the person that decided to take a shortcut home because they needed to get back before 11, or wore a skirt because they thought it looked pretty. Neither of those things are "invites" to be attacked.

Another thing is, the "don't walk alone" argument is a brilliant way for rapists to offer to walk a woman home like a gentleman, with the sole intention of attacking them. Lovely. And you could get a taxi to avoid walking home alone, but then you have to be extra careful that it's a real cab driver from a reputable company that does background checks, as you could end up locked in a car with a rapist. Great. Are women just not supposed to go near any male strangers just in case they get raped? Dating for straight women might get a bit difficult if so...

Actually, the truth is most rapes are not attacks from strangers in the street. To quote Rape Crisis' website: "only 9% of rapes are committed by 'strangers'. Women are raped in their homes and in their work places where they are less likely to be believed and even less likely to report. This myth can control movements and restricts freedom. This can feel like women are living under a 'curfew' and that it is a woman's responsibility to be either in or out at certain times. Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men."

So, does this mean the only option is for women to avoid contact with men entirely, just in case? After all, available data shows that 95% of victims say their offender(s) was male and nearly one in four women worldwide may experience sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. That'd be a bit extreme and kinda sad - I like my male friends and family, and I love my boyfriend, so much so that I trust him with my life. I understand little things like segregated train carts to avoid being groped by a stranger, but avoiding all male contact is just stupid, has huge negatives (yaaay segregation...) and would be stupidly hard to implement. Also, it only helps (possible) female assault victims, not male ones...

Ok. So, what if we all just covered up and made ourselves look undesirable, then maybe we won't be the targets of rapists? I mean, they usually go for *ahem* certain women.

Well, to repeat myself, the whole idea of rape victims just being attractive women or women who dress provocatively is complete bollocks... To quote Rape Crisis' site again: "Many women are led to believe that if they are not part of a certain category of women then they are 'safe' from being raped. Women and girls of all ages, classes, culture, ability, sexuality, race and faith are raped. Attractiveness has little significance. Reports show that there is a great diversity in the way targeted women act or dress. Rapists choose women based on their vulnerability not their physical appearance."

Vulnerability. See that word? See how the tips I was given by police/council were about trying to make yourself less vulnerable? Be able to run away? Be able to fight back? Be able to get help? Not once did any of the people advising us on our safety tell us to "not dress provocatively" or "make yourself look ugly" to "keep the rapists away". Why? Because it is complete bollocks.

The biggest danger noted with that whole argument of "it's what they were wearing" is that women who do not dress provocatively may assume that they're 'safe' because they dress modestly. But they're not safe. As many women will unfortunately know, modesty does not automatically give you a ticket to a rape-free life, even to a catcall-free life; I got leered at by two men when I was covered head-to-toe just because I was eating a long wrap. Some creeps will sexualise you in any way possible and covering up your body does not mean rapists will not think of what is underneath your clothing and attempt to get at it.

Most rapes are done by people the victim knows because the rapist realises that the victim is vulnerable to them and know they can't fight back. They can't fight back because they're not physically strong enough or are caught in a position they can't move out of. They can't fight back because that person has the power to spread rumours about them or do other things to make their life a misery if they do. They can't fight back because they would never expect that person to ever attack them and are caught off-guard. They can't fight back because they aren't sober (or maybe not even conscious) because they trusted that person enough to get drunk next to them (or to buy them a drink without spiking it). They can't fight back because they're scared of what injuries they'll receive if they do. They can't fight back because someone else they love is in danger if they do. They can't fight back because they're scared that they'll be killed if they do. They are chosen as victims because the rapist has power over them that they can exert, physical or otherwise.

"Rape culture" is spoken about a lot, because it perpetuates stupid false ideas like "inviting rape" with clothes and creates another vulnerability for women who are raped: they cant fight back after it happens, because certain people won't believe them.
  • People won't think it was rape because they sleep around a lot anyway. 
  • People will think they were "asking for it" because of their "sexy", revealing clothes or their drunkenness. 
  • People won't believe it even happened because they're "not attractive enough". 
  • People won't think the guy did it because "he's a nice guy, he's not a crazy person". 
  • People won't think it was rape, because if she really didn't want it, she wouldn't have invited him back to her place for a chat. 
  • People won't think it was rape, because if she really didn't want it, she wouldn't have been nice to him and flirted with him. 
  • People won't think it was rape, because if she really didn't want it, she would've just pushed him off (this one especially affects men also).

A few things to finish this post:
  • Rape is asserting and abusing power for instant sexual gratification and/or the feeling of superiority over another person. 
  • It is not a crime only done by "sickos" or mentally ill people (quoting Rape Crisis again: "Studies have indicated that as few as 5% of men are psychotic at the time of their crimes. Few convicted rapists are referred for psychiatric treatment"). 
  • It is not women "asking for it" - most guys don't have to automatically stop themselves from raping a woman just because she has her legs and cleavage on show. It is a crime done by disgusting people that don't understand that no means no.
  • Women who are raped are 'chosen' by their attackers because they have a vulnerability that the attacker can exploit, not because they "look sexy" or are "asking for it".
Anyway, I'm just fed up of seeing idiots like this (usually male, I hate to say), who know nothing about rape or what victims go through, spouting crap about this like they're the bloody fountain of knowledge when it comes to sexual assault. You're not - neither am I, but as a woman who has received actual useful advice from professionals who know the facts, and as someone who knows people who have gone through this stuff, I just wanted to share my thoughts on your ignorance.

It's especially annoying when there is countless evidence, even stuff published back in 1978, that de-bunks all these stupid arguments time and time again.

I'm off to go and think about something more cheerful now. Thanks for reading, especially if you got all the way down to this bit. I didn't do this as a video, just because I knew it would be very long and I have other videos I want to do - another big reason is that I also find that certain stuff is more striking when written down in black-and-white.

Edit: just want to stick this Louis C.K. clip in here as it adds to some of my points and is bloody funny and should lighten the mood of this post...!
(won't let me embed for some reason, so here's a link: "There is no greater threat to women than men")