Vincenzo's Blog

Why I’m standing for Young Fabian Executive

Vincenzo Rampulla — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:07:45 +0000

Shoot me but I’ve only gone and decided to stand for the Young Fabian Executive this year.

Fabian members will soon receive the next Fabian Review which will include all the candidates’ supporting statements. Lucky Young Fabians will get to make their choice based upon a 70-word statement (enough space to describe…well nothing much really), gut feeling or by already knowing person behind the name on the list.

Not the ideal way to make a choice if you don’t know who to choose from!

Although I’ve put in my 70 words I thought I’d expand it here and give people an idea on what I’m standing for and what I want to use a position on the Executive to achieve.

Firstly let me say that I’m proud to be a Young Fabian.

That’s not to say I’m tribalist, I’m a member of Progress, Unite and Compass too. I believe the left is a broad church. But I believe that the Young Fabians are a really great group that offers young left-leaning people the opportunity to discuss and get involved in politics.

For those not immediately obsessed by politics, or for those who don’t work in Westminster, getting involved can be daunting. I know from experience. Yet I’m not alone in having built up a number of good friends through going to Young Fabians events and taking part. For that alone I think the Young Fabians are an important organisation.

Over the next year we need to build on those opportunities the Young Fabians offer for young people interested in politics. 2009/10 is going to be a critical year for the left.

I would like to help the Young Fabians increase their focus in three main areas:

Giving people more opportunities to get more involved – We as Young Fabians have the ability to make better use of our links with the trade unions, charities and the Labour Party to help more Young Fabians get involved with political campaigning.

Not just ‘vote Labour’ activism, but encouraging and facilitating young people to be more vocal about the issues they care about (whether those issues are local or national).

Someone once told me that “Young Fabians don’t do protests”. I don’t believe that – I think when it comes to ‘doing’ (as supposed to just ‘talking’): yes (individually) we do and yes (collectively) we can.

Many Young Fabians are already committed social activists but we can do more to help those not currently getting involved be involved.

Helping members contribute to setting the long-term agenda for the left – We can foster more debate about what the long-term direction of the left should be. Not just ideas for a challenging general election campaign next year, but ideas to fill a potential four more years of Government and realise the kind of society we want to see.

The Young Fabians already have a long-standing tradition of fostering debate and ideas on the left. Over the last couple of months I have been part of the Young Fabian’s Economy and Prosperity policy forum which has been looking at the manifesto policies we need to strengthen our economy to grow past this recession and beyond.

Bringing together Young Fabians has really brought out innovative and radical policies that would actually benefit the country if added to the Labour Party manifesto. I want to see more debates, more opportunities like this for members lead in the exchange of ideas.

These do not necessarily have to be set piece speeches with well known politicians, we should involve more commentators, academics and thinkers from the many important think tanks working in Britain today and experiment with different formats.

Come together socially more – The Young Fabians have put on some great social events during the course of the year: the Boat Party, new members drinks and the annual pub quiz to name just a few. I hope we can do more.

One idea would be to start a left-film cinema club. I’d really like set up something that can showcase some amazing movies from great ‘leftie directors’. A semi-regular film club would be a chance to meet and socialise in an easygoing environment that isn’t focused solely on debate. My aim is to broaden out the opportunities open to members to come together and get to know one another.

So there, that’s my stall all set out. If there are any Young Fabian members with comments or views to add then I look forward to hearing from them!

Best,

Vincenzo

Just another tale of the anti-social…

Vincenzo Rampulla — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:16:17 +0000

Anyone whose been following the BBC today will have seen Hazel Blears car had been slashed and smashed. Blears was quick to issue a statement:

“This was an act of anti-social behaviour by some youths, the same kind of anti-social behaviour unfortunately many of my constituents have to put up with”

Already some of the right-wing press is trying to pass it off as angry voters targeting Hazel, seeking some sort of retribution for the expenses scandal.

But Hazel was right, when she was saying that people have to put up with absolute tossers who do some really shitty things everyday designed to just hurt or piss of others. [n.b I think that is what Hazel's statement was saying...]

Just today I was travelling on the Docklands Light Railway when the conductor was checking people’s fares. Unsurprisingly one idiot thought he’d be clever and use some ridiculous excuse as to why he hadn’t bought a fare.

I only had a twenty-pound note and the ticket machine wouldn’t take the note.

I’m not going to pay a £25 penalty fare for only going one stop.

[Though as soon as he got off he got on to the next DLR..]

Apart from the reality that there was very little that Mr DLR conductor could have done to penalise him, who else would have been minded to step in over a £3 fare?

The next bit of local anti-social behaviour today was the black Ferrari which sped along a busy street full of pedestrians, only to screech to sudden halt at a pedestrian crossing (though the situation could have been infinitely worse if they hadn’t stopped at the crossing!). Dangerous and irresponsible driving, but what could have been done?

With both of these things we recognise that they’re wrong, that ‘people shouldn’t do it’. But we are still powerless to act against that sort of behaviour.

How does an individual challenge, with either authority or legitimacy, another individual in either of those situations? Part of the problem with Labour’s anti-social behaviour agenda has been that it still leaves the victims and the wider community feeling like there is very little they can do to challenge those that act anti-socially. Yes they could call the police but what is the chance that in the end the community’s ‘sense of justice’ will be ‘served’?

Even worse, we have a created a tendency to see everything through the prism of anti-social behaviour. Crimes that should be called crimes are now bunched in with pathetic and annoying behaviour of the young, bored but non-criminal youth and all equalised under the banner of “ASB”…

If Alan Johnson wants to do more than just sound tough on ASB as he tried to do in a recent Times interview, then he should stop calling drug dealing, or assaults anti-social behaviour and start calling them crimes that require police and the criminal justice system. Then he should focus on giving people the tools to tackle behaviour that is truly anti-social.

If we can give communities a franchise in dealing with this behaviour and give them the confidence that the prevalence of low level violence and serious crimes are being dealt with by the police then we can build closer, stronger and more confidence communities.

If anyone sees a black Ferrari in the east end…be careful!

American Airlines – ripping off non-americans is our business…

Vincenzo Rampulla — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:34:00 +0000

Trained pickpockets?

Companies make their customers feel cheated at their peril. But someone seems to have forgotten to tell that to American Airlines. Now I know that large US companies are notorious for their shoddy customer services and convoluted telephone systems, all designed to keep you on hold listening to 80s tripe or ‘lovely’ American voices telling you how ‘important you are to us’.

Anyway – American Airlines have stolen £118.30 from me. And as bold as brass they’re not going to give it back.

I say we just invade…and I’m only half joking.

Take my advice? Don’t take vouchers from airlines.

The American Airline scam is to demand that you have an American Airlines leg in their journey to redeem the voucher. Unfortunately I live in London. So essentially I can only fly to the US. But only if I pay them more since American Airlines don’t have any flights that meet the value of the voucher and its conditions.

So they’ve given me a voucher that I can’t use without paying more and have run off with the money I have already given them. Mmmm…I smell a rip off !!

This is especially dodgy when the only thing customer services can say is that “it’s clearly stated in the terms and conditions”. Fine, except those terms and conditions weren’t posted along with the vouchers you gave me Mr AA and it’s probably worth mentioning that kind of restriction before offering me vouchers I won’t be able to use…

Simple question Gerard Aprey, Chairman and CEO of American Airlines – why can’t I have my money back?

Labour Ministers should not hide in the Lords..

Vincenzo Rampulla — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:03:00 +0000

Another day, another Government minister resigning. But today’s news that Lord Malloch-Brown will leave the Government for “personal and family reasons” means that it s a good time to re-look at one of Brown’s defining styles of governing, the Government of All the Talents (GOAT for short).

Bringing in people from outside the traditional political sphere is applaudable: Why shouldn’t capable professionals that have the skills be brought into Government to serve their country and for our good? It’s an attractive notion. Certainly GOATs like Lord Carter, Lord Malloch-Brown, or even Lord Digby do actually bring something tangible to Government that is sometimes sorely lacking in our elected ministers, they are professionals who do not want to be politicians. And don’t we need more of that sort of leader…

But there is a wide contrast between these Ministers and the political creatures like Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis that were brought into Government because…well because nobody was really sure they could win a parliamentary election and, in any case, the PM didn’t have the time to wait.

With 29 peers serving in the Government (including about 7 who attend Cabinet) it is surely a massive downside to Brown’s GOAT that it is dressed in just so much ermine. Obviously the political reality is that this person might be good for Government but the risk of election means that that the electorate could still tell you were to stick your candidate. But the democratic deficit of so many governing us from the comfort and safety of the unelected ‘other place’ is unacceptable.

That is the prinicple problem, these Lords are out of reach of the elected; those that have been sent to the gravy-train…sorry the Commons…to ensure our interests. If the Lords do not have to answer to the MP whose constituent is suffereing because of noble Peer’s policy then how can the MP be a sufficient representative?

Peers can be brought before select committees to give evidence which means that select committees more important. These MPs can do what other MPs can’t, they can pose probing questions to peers like Mandelson and Myners. Example? This clip of Mandelson before his department’s select committe…

Is he Gordon’s what?!…

If the Government is really interest in democracy then it will look at changing the rules to ensure that Ministers in the Lords can be held to account in the Commons. Specifically Ministers should answer questions in the Commons and not leave it up to junior ministers (of which there could be fewer!).

Government statements should also be made in the Commons before being made in the Lords (irrespective of whether they’ve already been made on the morning news).

This isn’t about making Ministers make the same statements twice in two different places but ensuring that they govern in the open glare of our elected representatives and not in the polite and docile Club of Lords.

Anyway I’m sure Mandy’s more than up to it!

Why are politicians seen as legitimate targets…

Vincenzo Rampulla — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:29:00 +0000

It isn’t surprising that ordinary people still very much want to throw things at politicians at the moment. Even I, mild-mannered though I am, frequently want to throw something at the TV when I hear another politician say something daft or make a plainly wrong decision. But the latest ‘soft drink attack‘ on on former Blairite cabinet minister Stephen Byers has got me thinking about why people currently think it is ok to do that sort of thing to politicians just because they’re in the public eye.

Imagine that you’re walking down the street and someone throws paint over you because they didn’t agree with a decision you made at work. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? But this kind of ‘direct action’ against politicians is always argued as legitimate. Most people don’t see it as assault, more like ‘aggressive protesting’.

Hence the powder-filled condom flung at Blair during PMQs in 2004 were middle-class kids making a ‘serious point’ about hunting and the green custard flung at poor Mandy earlier on this year was a serious protest about climate change. Except they weren’t really. They were fun for the TV for about an hour and then they were forgotten.

When you listen to Leila from Plane Stupid argue about why her ‘gunking’ of Mandy was legitimate then it sounds all very understandable. In reality we’re not talking about someone knifing a minister over climate change. These acitions are born out of a deep distrust in our current democratic process and they feel that the only option open to them is to play out their issue to the media – in what ever way that best aroses their attention. Still it’s a bit sickening when they plead: “What else was I supposed to do?!”

At the end of the day someone is still being vicitimised. That person isn’t usually given a proper right to reply and it always all descends into farce. The issue gets lost. Things like the possibility of a third runway at Heathrow, the scandal of MPs’ expenses and hunting (but not really hunting…) are all public issues that deserve proper debate. The strength of the issue should be based on the number of people that show an interest in it – not on the strength of the gimmick.

I don’t know about anyone else but I need fewer gimmicks in politics and that goes for pressure groups too.

We’ve got the Party, now where’s my t-shirt?

Vincenzo Rampulla — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:39:00 +0000

Last Thursday I was giving another talk about my experiences of the Obama campaign as part of Progress’ Obama Roadshow. This time I found myself infront of Barking CLP who, by the way, are one of the most friendly and engaging bunch of Labour comrades I’ve met in quite some time!

Going through my presentation, I rattled off all that I thought Obama’s campaign had gotten right and all that Labour could learn from Obama’s success in the States. Pretty obvious stuff to be honest. However, one thing stood out glaring at me. When do we ever wear our Party on our sleaves anymore?

The idea of showing allegiance or support by wearing merchandise is a well trodden path. Bands do it (I’ve still got a Nine Inch Nails t-shirt from back when they were cool), charities do it (Shelter even did it at Glastonbury this year and I wear my Fawcett Society Feminst t-shirt with pride…when it’s not be appropriated by my fiancee) and even then I’m not counting all of those people that just like making their own cool t-shirts and badges that say something important about them.

BTW – I’m not Bill Bailey

Shleter chic?

Political parties can do the same. We’ve got the slogans, we’ve got the iconic images but Labour doesn’t seem have cottoned-on to the power of t-shirts (sorry for the pun!). The sad thing is that, as members, we’re lucky if we’ve seen a Labour rossette somewhere (presumably on the chest of an eager candidate) and anyone of the doorstep will have gotten one of those awful Labour stickers. But there’s nothing to wear to show that you’re proud of the Labour Party.

I thought that maybe it was a case of members being to embarrased to wear Labour t-shirts. But a quick look at the Membersnet Shop gave me the depressng options of either buying a ‘Stop the BNP’ t-shirt (which doesn’t look too bad) or a Labour tie (see above) which looks awful.

Would you wear this out?

Where are all the Labour t-shirts, pin badges, posters, scarves, etc? Why are LGBT groups, students, unions and all the rest creating the clothing that will tell everyone they meet where their political support lies? We don’t necessarily need the party to get it, members could start making their own!

Look at what the Obama campaign had, what they encouraged, the difference is shocking. From iconic t-shirts intended to inspire:

to individual communities showing their support,

right the way to medical students showing that they care.

But there weren’t just t-shirts around, there were buttons, posters, bags, and anything else you could think of. Yes some of it was created by those riding the bandwagon trying to make money out of the campaign, but the real importance was that seeing people wearing this stuff meant that you knew that they supported the same cause as you. Seeing people support Labour will be worth more than any news interview or billboard in the long run.

Victory flavoured

Now I’m realistic, I don’t we’ll ever get a ‘Labour Party-flavoured’ ice-cream but a cool ‘Team Labour’ t-shirt is not much to ask?

Boris’ deputy just won’t go away…

Vincenzo Rampulla — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:52:00 +0000

Both Dave Hill at the Guardian and Paul Waugh at the Standard continue to unearth messy little secrets surrounding the resignation of Ian Clements, former Deputy Mayor for Government and External Relations.

Dave Hill is looking at evidence that points to Ian charging Bexley council expenses (where he was leader of the counicl) whilst he was working on Boris’ election campaign – naughty, naughty indeed.

But Paul Waugh has got the jucier story in that it now seems that Ian was using his City Hall credit card to help run seemingly two households…one with a stated parter and another with a lover. How embarrasing.

The Standard says that Boris was incadescent with rage, but I wonder if he was just annoyed about losing another crony? Boris’ letter accepting Ian’s resignation does convey some anger but unfortunately no swear words:

Monday, June 22, 2009

Dear Ian,

Thank you for your letter of resignation, which I accept with immediate effect.

As you know, I was extremely angry at the liberties you took with your corporate credit card; but last week I made the essential distinction between behaviour that is crass and anything that amounts to dishonesty or deception. In the light of the further discrepancies in your expenses that have emerged this morning, it is clear to both of us that your position is untenable.

Thank you for all your hard work in the year you have spent here. You played a major part in helping to extend the Freedom Pass for 24 hours across London, and in pioneering Open London, and in launching the City Charter.

Best wishes,

Yours ever,

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London

But Boris, it really isn’t good enough to be angry after journalists have worked to uncover the truths you would rather they hadn’t. There are some essential questions that are going to need answering:

Where are the internal checks in the Mayor’s office that are supposed to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen?
Who was signing off Ian’s credit card bills and why weren’t questions raised earlier?
Is Boris going to fill Ian’s place and if so is he: a) going to publish a job description (if the job is just to lunch Tory councillors then it sounds like easy money) and b) going to put in place new safeguards to make sure this doesn’t happen again?

Boris better get his story out quick, this one looks like it is blossoming out and could get even messier…

Why did it take so long for Boris to ditch the expenses cheat?

Vincenzo Rampulla — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:56:00 +0000

Most people will not recognise who the guy on the right is, I certainly didn’t. But Dave Hill, the Guardian writer and London blogger, has changed that by putting the spotlight on this guy’s expenses. Ladies and gentlemen, join me in saying hello and very goodbye to Ian Clements, Boris’ former deputy Mayor for Government and External Relations who has resigned today.

So why did he resign you ask? Well that’s a good question! You see Boris doesn’t let his deputy mayors resign for just any old misdemeanour. Mr Clements had to rack up a whopping £10,000 expenses bill on a GLA corporate credit card over his time at City Hall (all less than two years of it). That is an astounding figure. All credit to Dave Hill for diligently piecing together what this man spent the GLA’s money on and why.The real mystery is why he thought he could get away with using his corporate credit card in this way? Apparently the staff guidance for GLA corporate credit cards state that it should only be used in “emergencies and when travelling abroad”. Yet Mr Clements expenses seems to show a distinct lack of emergencies…

Boris is now losing aides at a rate of knots. Ray Lewis, James McGrath, Tim Parker, David Ross and now Mr Clements makes for an astounding inability to recruit competent and reliable senior staff who understand what a public role entails.

Lookign through the reports of irrelevent lunches with local government Tories it seems that Clements fell into that easy trap of thinking that ‘External Relations’ was just about taking political mates out for a free lunch. Sure that’s probably a small part of the job but why so regularly?

Even more interesting is seeing at which point Ian managed to incur the wrath of mighty blunder Boris, as Dave Hill himself says:

the big numbers reflect the costs of far-off foreign visits: the ones to, respectively, Beijing for the 2008 Olympics and that upgraded one to New York with its seven hundred quid “formal dinner” that angered Mayor Johnson.

So was Boris angry about the misuse of public money or that there was a lavish dinner he seemed to have missed? The big question is why it has taken so long for someone to resign and why Boris didn’t just hand him his p45. With David Cameron making a big play on decisive action against misbehaving colleagues it seems like Boris didn’t not want to lose another piece of drift wood.

Some of the details of the affair are guarenteed to make council tax payers see red (from the Standard):

He broke City Hall rules by using it for “private expenditure” totaling £2,300, including more than £200 on groceries at Tesco and a £535.49 audio system for his Jaguar, which he then repaid. He told City Hall officials it was the only card he had at the time.

With so much personal expediture on a corporate card, who made the decision that it wasn’t a disciplinary matter? Why did no one think that it was unacceptable to enable a Deputy Mayor to use their corporate credit card like a tax-payer interest-free loan?

With MPs’ expenses taking up all the pages in the national newspaper it is incredible that more has not been made of the rot in Mayor Boris’ team. It shows incredibly bad judgement for Boris to be continually picking gaffe-prone colleagues who embarrass him and anger the public. Top tip Boris, stop employing cronies – especially when they are not up to the job!

Boris with the next GLA employee to resign?

How many subordinates will it take before Boris realises that if he’s going to be an effective mayor he has got to be able to spot bad eggs. Maybe it is because he’s more than capable of making “stupid and crass” mistakes himself that he doesn’t recognise when someone else is messing-up. But at what point should be asking for the Mayor to take some responsibility for the actions of his team?

Update: David Hill highlights here that the announcement of an investigation will mean that won’t be able to “quip his way out of this one”.

An open letter to the new speaker of the House

Vincenzo Rampulla — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:36:00 +0000

Dear Madam (or Mr) Speaker,

Today will see your election to the Speakership of the House of Commons in circumstances that won’t just be reported in Hansard but in newspapers, blogs, websites, TV and radio around the country, possibly the world. The violent death, albeit political death, of Michael Martin and the current crisis of trust facing the House of Commons probably aren’t the circumstances in which you’d want to be taking this job but you shouldn’t waste too much time thinking about that.

I am writing to you because your election isn’t just a matter for those MPs who will elect you. Perhaps more so than at any other time in the history of the Speaker, you will need to face the eyes of every voter in the country upon you. As such it is important that you see your role not just through the prism of expenses but centred on the issue of trust.

You will know more than I about the role that you now occupy (see here and here). But if we are to rebuild the level of politics in this country then it will be your job to convince the people that they can trust their political class.

What most people see of your job is the chairing of the debates in the Commons. Actually given the modern ambivalence to politics what most people actually see of the Speaker are the short repremands made during the comedy that is PMQs. Is it any wonder that people do not trust MPs or politics anymore?

Trust in our politicians has been waining from well before the Daily Telegraph began their expose of MPs abuse of their expenses. The public has maintained a deep distrust in the political class as a whole which they frequently see duplicitous, opaque and self-serving. The malaise is widespread and is not the fault of just one institution. But the inability of the public to properly understand what MPs do and understand how the Commons works is critical to the belief in the institution. The case for reform is self-evident and it will be up to you to maintain that momentum.

For reform do not just read more tours or websites. The public has disengaged with polticians and politics, that needs to be tackled. You will need to play a part in finding a new connection between us, the people, MPs and the chamber. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean that we should upsurp the connection between elector and elected, but we need to be able to understand what is happening and why in the chamber. And then we need to find more ways for ordinary people to come together to influence the Commons. Getting more people invovled will help build the bridge between people’s ordianry lives and ‘Westminster politics’. If successful the Commons can once again be effective in representing us and we can we be comforted that you lot are working for us and not yourselves.

One of the better aspects of Michael Martin’s time as Speaker was the sense that he genuinely looked out for the welfare of those under his charge. It was unfortuante that this duty of care clashed with the need for a transparent Commons. You will need to be a leader and not just a protector of those under your charge, including MPs. It should be obvious that they need protecting not just from the threats out there, but from themselves as well.

The next ten months will be difficult. There will be much for the Commons to do before any election. Moreover a hung Parliament or one with a whafer-thin majority will need a strong and
diligent Speaker who can command the respect of all sides of the
Commons to ensure that it is effective and works for the people.

Most people agree that you will need to think carefully and focus on the following:

Control of the business of the house – It is crucial that the Commons is relavent and vibrant in debate. Presiding over two or three lonely members in a short and pointless debate completely shames our democracy. The legislature needs facilitate Government business but should not have it’s time dominated over.

Build on Select Committees – Their development has been slow by mordern standards. Yet they are refreshing in that they allow evidence to be taken publically to inform recommendations which then should direct policy.They need to be utilised more, especially in the scrutiny of legislation post-Royal Assent.

Reign in Punch and Judy – The actions of those members who just read out pre-prepared speeches or the use of PMQ to create soundbytes rather than debate policy is beneath the stature of the Commons. The people see right through it and don’t respect it, the Speaker should tackle that head on. You need to assert the culture of the Commons as a serious place for serious debate, relavent to normal people.

So congratulations on your election. You will need to lead, enable and facilitate the work of the MPs from across the House and help work to rebuld our politics. The direction you choose will be closely watched. The challenge is huge and we will all be eager to see what you can achieve.

Yours sincerely,

Vincenzo

Rape: jurors need to ditch the myths

Vincenzo Rampulla — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:39:00 +0000

A good seventeen months since it was first reported that the Government was proposing to enable judges to instruct jurors about ‘rape myths’ to help dispel the kind of wrong thinking that has contributed to appalling low conviction rates for rape in this country, it is finally happening.

The solictor-general, Vera Baird QC, has been promoting the initiative throughout this time and it is heartening to see a minister in a job long enough to deliver this kind of change.

Having said that I think that some of the myths that the Times report highlights as ones that judges will have to instruct jurors on really show up how backwards our society is in its thinking about the victims of sexual violence. Look at some of the myths that jurors are still likely to believe:

Myths to be challenged

— A genuine victim will report rape at once The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that juries can be told that delay can be down to trauma after the rape

— False allegations of rape are common There is no reliable evidence that more false complaints are made in rape cases than in other serious crimes

— Most rapes are committed by strangers

— Most rapists are known to the victim: a partner or former partner, friend, colleague, acquaintance or professional

— Rape victims should put up a fight and show signs of struggle, and a victim will sustain genital injuries Not all victims resist, many fearing the consequences. Many women freeze

— Consent to sex can be assumed from dress, flirting, drink

— Juries would be told that if a man flashed his bulging wallet around in a pub and then had it stolen, no one would say that the person who stole it was not really a thief

— Stranger rape is more traumatic than rape by a known person

— Sexual assault is a traumatic experience whoever the perpetrator and sometimes more traumatic if a breach of trust is involved

I’ve blogged before about rape and how society should be doing more to deal with and tackle it. As Angie Conroy has said, part of the problem is the way that the police still dismiss rape victims – I’ve certainly heard police officers myself trying to use anecdotes to argue that most cries of rape are believable.

But what I find hardest to understand is why messages of a campaigns like the one by Scottish Rape Crisis – entitled “This is not an invitation to rape me” aren’t self-evident to everyone already. Why do we need to actively educate society to think this way?

In effect it isn’t just juries that need these myths wiped out of their consciousnesses – we all do.