I don't see anything right with the blog.It confuses law with fantasy, and fact with fiction.
Previous history has been allowed on application, and the last study i am aware of in 90's was prior to 2003 99 and saw about 40% of cases examined making an application, of which some 75% or so were granted.
Part of the adversarial process is trying to degrade the prosecutions evidence including witnesses.That may be done various ways, some fairly crude, some more subtle, but that's the aim.I don't quite think the batty blogger in full rant mode would be acceptable, though a few have made the odd not entirely dissimilar remark.
One female in a SA case had some footage shown of her dancing in what was described as a 'provocative way' unrelated to the case far as I'm aware.Defendant acquitted.
What the prosecution didn't have was footage of her trying to escape her assailant, which included her jumping out of a 1st floor window to try to escape, and breaking her ankle in the process.
Rule of thumb is some -mainly, but not exclusively men, will not convict regardless, whereas in general the feeling is women tend to be harsher on 'morality ' issues which tends to increase with age. Juries seem to address stranger assaults fine, but begin to have problems when previous knowledge, drink etc appear.
Looking at various social media sites, I wouldn't disagree with the above
The batty blogger's answer is twofold
1) Don't go out
2) If you get drunk, you essentially have yourself to blame and lose your rights
Both the above only apply to females, who are just to remind, the victims in general
In keeping with tradition, no advice is offered or needed presumably for the offenders, who just cant help themselves and it should be understood as a natural right.
7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
