The worst thing in all of this is that you haven't gone any distance to understand the views of the other person. It's really not hard to see what Ted is talking about. There are different levels of sexual assault just as there are different levels of most event. Sometimes the statistics for these crimes are grouped in a way that implies the worst while the median average of the crime is much less severe.

For the purposes of accurate risk assessment (which is really what this is all about) some levels of the crime can never really apply. Think of all the types of rape and then consider how many of those can happen at an event.

Stay with me, I know you're probably about to delete this comment for being that of another "rape apologist" but I have a point.

What you seem to be inferring from Ted is that some levels of rape are okay somehow… And that's where you lose me completely. Where the hell does he say anything like that? In fact, when I re-read his posts without your sensationalism, all I see is somebody using statistics to make a very specific point about others' fear of statistics.

And what is the block about Jimmy Saville all about? What on earth does a paedophile or the approach around that paedophile have to do with Ted? Are you somehow trying to draw a parallel between what Ted is saying and the *alleged* approach to Saville? I think you're getting dangerously close to defamy.

The only person that deserves an apology here is Ted.