Brighton’s sexual-consent course criticised over Evans link

[Herr Tubthumper]

Interesting

http://gu.com/p/48xht

I must admit I have not felt totally comfortable with this course from the start. This doesn't help.

 

[Dan Aitch]

He's a private detective - he'll work for anyone if the money is right; doesn't mean he supports Evans. What he will know is the extent of efforts that are made to prove/disprove claims of non-consent and so will present a more informed picture than others might be able to.

Storm in a teacup, with luck.

Akin to condemning the legal Counsel who defended Ched Evans - has anyone suggested he should be disbarred? I doubt it.

Edit - should have read the whole article. I retract much of the above. Yes - it does look misguided in its content. Worrying.

 

[BLOCK F]

We have previously had a thread about this course and I reckoned it was a good thing and I still do.
Have very quickly looked at the link,I don't think anything changes the fact that the whole point of such a course, is to help prevent young people,of either sex, making wrong decisions that could have very serious consequences for themselves and others.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Perhaps people that label any negative comments towards anyone perceived as a victim need to remember the Leicester incident at La Manga. 3 prostitutes making false allegations of rape against Paul Dickov amongst others.

Like it or not, there does seem to be a group of women in society that seem intent on securing the attention of high profile sports people. Anything that stops a repeat of the case against the Brighton players a few years ago must be a good thing surely?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

There was a police poster advising women not to let themselves be vulnerable which was widely condemned by feminists. It was perceived as victim blaming when it seemed more like common sense.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/p...-by-feminists-for-victimblaming-10162906.html

 

[KZNSeagull]

The article does not state that members of Rape Crisis or Women's Aid have actually attended the course, just judged it on it's promotional material. Perhaps they would like to do that before condemning it and then perhaps get pro-actively involved with it?

 

[spring hall convert]

Anything that stops a repeat of the case against the Brighton players a few years ago must be a good thing surely?

Anything that stops rapes would be a good thing.

 

[halbpro]

The links to Evans are a splashy headline that distracts from the actual point, which is significantly more important. The actual criticism seems far more damning.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Interesting

http://gu.com/p/48xht

I must admit I have not felt totally comfortable with this course from the start. This doesn't help.

At the time of the radio interviews and publicity around the course, I made the comment that it all seemed to be just about preventing footballers from getting into trouble, rather than educating about respect and thus not to want to commit such offences.

Seems like I was about right.

 

[hart's shirt]

“The course content refers to footballers as having ‘unique vulnerability to allegations of unwanted sexual activity’ and refers to ‘the dream of some young females to be romantically linked to sportsmen and in particular footballers’, which is victim-blaming. Sexual assault and rape are criminal acts regardless of careers of the people involved, and regardless of their relationship to each other,” she said.

'the dream of some young females to be romantically linked to sportsmen and in particular footballers'
Isn't there a degree of truth within this, especially in the narcissistic, fame-hungry culture that we live in? Isn't it seen as just a way out to a different life for some? Is it any different to someone getting together with a member of a boy band or film star?

This isn't victim-blaming or giving any excuses for rapes/assaults, the perpetrators of which should be rightly brought to justice.

It's just shining a light on the life aspirations of some members of society.

If it's just a matter of semantics, the club's still doing the right thing in running the course and should be rightly applauded for its proactive stance.

Forewarned is forearmed.

 

[soistes]

At the time of the radio interviews and publicity around the course, I made the comment that it all seemed to be just about preventing footballers from getting into trouble, rather than educating about respect and thus not to want to commit such offences.

Seems like I was about right.

I agree with this -- while the course was widely praised at the time (on the understandable grounds that anything that reduces the likelihood of sexual assault is a good thing), it did appear to be a bit too driven by self-interest on the part of the club (again understandably): i.e. "let's reduce the chances of any further bad publicity through cases against our lads", rather than a wider contribution to improving attitudes towards women among young men who play and support football.

However, if it was primarily motivated by risk aversion and avoiding bad publicity by the club, it seems very odd that they didn't do a bit more due diligence on the course supplier, as the likely outcome now seems to be a whole load more bad publicity.

 

[Danny-Boy]

Perhaps people that label any negative comments towards anyone perceived as a victim need to remember the Leicester incident at La Manga. 3 prostitutes making false allegations of rape against Paul Dickov amongst others.

Like it or not, there does seem to be a group of women in society that seem intent on securing the attention of high profile sports people. Anything that stops a repeat of the case against the Brighton players a few years ago must be a good thing surely?

High profile = rich. It's all down to money. ££££...

I am old enough to remember stories of the racy lifestyles of cricketers 50 years or more ago when they went on tour. But they weren't millionaires then. Nor were footballers. But if you look at the life of (say) Keith Harris...or even Richard, Jet or Rolf...

 

[BLOCK F]

I agree with this -- while the course was widely praised at the time (on the understandable grounds that anything that reduces the likelihood of sexual assault is a good thing), it did appear to be a bit too driven by self-interest on the part of the club (again understandably): i.e. "let's reduce the chances of any further bad publicity through cases against our lads", rather than a wider contribution to improving attitudes towards women among young men who play and support football.

However, if it was primarily motivated by risk aversion and avoiding bad publicity by the club, it seems very odd that they didn't do a bit more due diligence on the course supplier, as the likely outcome now seems to be a whole load more bad publicity.

I would be surprised if there is a whole lot more bad publicity.

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

I don't see any problem with this--Evans looking out for the rights of a footballer in the criminal justice system and also trying to educate some of these same kind of footballers.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

At the time of the radio interviews and publicity around the course, I made the comment that it all seemed to be just about preventing footballers from getting into trouble, rather than educating about respect and thus not to want to commit such offences.

Seems like I was about right.

This is how I feel.

 

[aolstudios]

At the time of the radio interviews and publicity around the course, I made the comment that it all seemed to be just about preventing footballers from getting into trouble, rather than educating about respect and thus not to want to commit such offences.

Seems like I was about right.

Spot on - very depressing

 

[GT49er]

Whatever your take on it, or who runs it or what the clubs motives are, it's still a form of crime prevention.

 

[The Large One]

I agree with this -- while the course was widely praised at the time (on the understandable grounds that anything that reduces the likelihood of sexual assault is a good thing), it did appear to be a bit too driven by self-interest on the part of the club (again understandably): i.e. "let's reduce the chances of any further bad publicity through cases against our lads", rather than a wider contribution to improving attitudes towards women among young men who play and support football.

However, if it was primarily motivated by risk aversion and avoiding bad publicity by the club, it seems very odd that they didn't do a bit more due diligence on the course supplier, as the likely outcome now seems to be a whole load more bad publicity.

If there is bad publicity, it will fall on the course organisers. The intent by the club to improve social issues is where the praise came in. Of course, risk aversion is one part of the agenda, but it would be disappointing if it was the driving consideration.

The fact that there is later questioning of the course or the message being put out is a slightly separate issue. Regarding due diligence, Brighton wasn't the first club to receive this training from these people; in which case, any criticism ought to be aimed at Reading too.

However, if the course wasn't exactly about what we presumed it was going to be (and how many of us have done this course?), it has served a purpose if the attendees in question (Brighton players in this instance) have learned... something positive.