Woman Raped at Occupy Glasgow

This is just awful. The poor woman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15462443

Anyone know if there is any truth in the story?

why would it not be true?

How can people answer?

Why am i to assume everything i read written by journalists is true?

The Daily Mail for example is saying it was a gang rape done by a number of drunk males whilst protesters could hear the girl crying but did nothing. Am i to believe that is true?

I dunno to be fair, the OP's probably just worded wrong, but innocent enough.

It was just something i've just heard and was quite shocked about.

I just thought maybe some on here might know a bit more about Occupy Glasgow and know people there who would know what was going on, rather than me just having to accept what the BBC and the Daily Mail want me to know.

Your OP title and first line assumes that it's true.

I don't know if that's true, and it's not what you asked about initially. You asked about a straightforward, unsensational BBC article outlining the bare facts.

There certainly seems to have been a sexual assault which the police are taking seriously - that much is almost definitely true. I'm not aware that the BBC has a reputation for reporting total fictions in such matters. Whatever you may think of their editorial line, they have a reputation for fact checking.

As far as I know, it's being taken very seriously by the police. There have been a number of incidents over the past few months of this nature, and the local police take all reports of sexual assault and rape seriously, investigating accordingly.

Latest from local press:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/police-step-up-hunt-for-protest-camp-rapists-1.1131543

Two men being sought in connection with this.

Also, protest being shut down by council (supposedly unconnected to attack):

http://breakingnews.heraldscotland.com/breaking-news/?mode=article&site=et&id=N0311471319721329293A

walked past today at about 4p.m today- totally deserted, all the tents still up but not many people around. I got the sense things were winding down, although I've not got anything to compare it to.

Don't know anything about this, but it does seem a good idea for all events to have some clear policies decided on reactions to out of order behaviours. If need be I can't see what would be wrong with GA's discussing attitudes towards rape, harrassment and ways of challenging abusive behaviour. At the end of the day if people aren't willing to face up to providing sufficient security for their occupation it is hardly an occupation- it is just a bunch of tents.

i get the point of what you're saying, but are you seriously suggesting there needs to be a discussion about attitudes to rape?

Yes. If occupations are truly revolutionary they will need to question the dominant culture.

Reading some of the responses online to Glasgow have been eye opening. It is far better to discuss attitudes towards rape in a preventative context rather than when people are "shocked" and "depressed" that such a thing could happen.

Some people, women especially, expressed that they were not comfortable about excess drinking at St Pauls as they felt at risk- it seems that a policy has now been adopted re. drinking.

I think that it is a really good idea for a discussion to take place regarding forms of consent. There are some men who go around, in all walks of life, thinking that if a woman is blind drunk she is "fair game." I would be surprised if there weren't some men - and perhaps women- with similar attitudes at occupations. Discussing and challenging these attitudes will hopefully go some way to help prevent rape- and to help provide real support and immediate reaction if the worst does happen.

We need to show that the state can not validly claim any kind of monopoly on security.

edit: last two paragraphs added.

You seem to think it's more shocking that it happened at a camp. But these things attract weirdos. Your sleeping in a tent in the middle of a city. It's not safe.

I think you're talking rubbish. Define "weirdos".

You are sleeping in a tent. Why is it that you're instrinsically unsafe?

If it is an occupation then the people doing the occupation need to consider the security- it seems this is happening already to a large extent at many occupations. I am not shocked- that is why I used quotation marks.
However, people online have appeared shocked.

Having said that- it is unacceptable to just shrug one's shoulders and say "shit happens in city centres at night." The basic should be that people look out for one another. An occupation is a lot more than a space in a city if it is to mean anything.

yeah i appreciate what you're saying and not disagreeing with what you're getting at - but the point is there isn't really any room for discussion around the acceptability or otherwise of rape is there?

there's no discussion to be had. the disccussions shouldn't be around the attitudes towards it (do we really need to discuss whether rape is unacceptable?), they should be around the methods adopted around collective security & responsibility in general for all occupants at such events

Agree with Paulie here. Some of the comments I have read on the web have seemed to assume that as occupations are not state sanctioned anti-social behaviour (not to belittle rape as being included within that term) is to be expected. which is basically bollocks. Don't forget that the ex chief of the IMF was in front of a court for rape only a few weeks ago- and even if he was not tried it is pretty obvious that there are plenty of "wierdos" in positions of power.

I think most of us would come from the opposite point of view of this to be honest

Appreciated. I don't want to have an argument about this either- I think it is too serious for that. You are right that discussing whether rape is acceptable would not go very far- I hope. . A good starting point is what rape is. YI never cease to be surprised how many different opinions there are.

I can remember in the early days of U75 there was a guy who was pissing women off at unsound events.Steelgate. Anyway, he finally came on the board and said that as he didn't believe in property he thought that if he had needs that needed satisfied he could take what he needed. To paraphrase, in the same way as a hungry man can take from a bakery so can someone not having consensual sex rape. My point is that this man really felt justified in his attitude, by discussing the matter he could be identified as a real danger to women which backed up some peeps impressions of him. I think a ban followed.

Me too- I feel safer in any area lit by the smallest glimmer of anarchy

anyone know if they had any system of stewarding overnight up there?

if not, then this girl would appear to have paid the price for shit organisation.

http://mhairi.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/de-occupy-glasgow/

Lovely place Glasgow, if it's not the neds, it's the bent council and now the stealth rapists.

I read this article the other day, seems pertinent.

Any girl sleeping in a tent (which is really like sleeping rough) in the middle of a city is unsafe. Why is that rubbish, it's not even controversial.

They shouldn't have offered her a bed for the night if they weren't going to look after her.

As a Glasgow resident, I find your post quite insulting. And 'stealth rapists'?? WTF???

isn't it? why not? we should simply accept that a single woman is fair game for anyone? are you really saying that?

or come to that, you've actually said any woman (or "girl" as you put it) shouldn't be safe, and we should accept that?