I lived in England for a year (doing grad school, so I was in need of quiet, books, and wine many a time). My favorite spots in the places I spent time:

I mean, everything I’ve heard about her makes it sounds like that wasn’t the case for her family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_R… I just didn’t want to say that they were rich, since I don’t know that, but it does sound like they were at the very least comfortable, if not affluent.

I think you may have meant to reply to timetorambleon above, not to me?

I don’t know if her family is actually rich, but she comes from a well-off part of the Chicago area.

I’m voting for her because I think she can win.

Seriously. She’s not perfect, but the shit that will go down if a Republican is in the White House is so terrifying that we just have to band together and get her in there. She’s the strongest candidate and we need someone who can win. Ted fucking Cruz cannot be president. No one who is going to pass whatever insanity…

I think because they’re two adults who have built both of their careers. Yes, they built them together, but it’s not like they inherited legacies the way the Bush kids did. Sure, Hillary in particular comes from a privileged background, but it’s in no way comparable to being the child of a president.

Holy shit! That would be terrifying. Good for you for turning it in.

Yeah. I was raised in a really religious household, and I stopped believing at around 12-13, but at first I didn't think my brain being like "You know this doesn't make sense, maybe there is no god" actually meant "There is no god," but instead "God has taken away your faith and you're going to hell." For years I…

If only we could ask the dude who said it.

And in what universe is a group of guys blocking a lone woman's path not super threatening? I'm sorry that happened to you, that's really scary.

Er... the Daily Mail is basically a tabloid. And many rape victims keep in contact with the rapist, especially immediately afterward, when they may be trying to convince themselves that they weren't raped, and, if they were drugged, may be unsure about what happened. I don't think the evidence the Daily Mail discusses…

Source?

The article says that her accuser did bring a private prosecution against her, which the Crown then took over (something it was not obliged to do) so it seems that they do allow that in the UK.

Eleanor DeFreitas. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/0… "Lawyers for the CPS were told by the detective who investigated the rape allegation that there was no evidence that she had lied, they would not be investigating her for perverting the course of justice and the crime had been recorded as rape."

Actually, it doesn't sound like all the cases mentioned in the article did have sufficient evidence, particularly the case in which the police told the woman that they didn't think there was sufficient evidence to win, pressured her into dropping the case...and then prosecuted her based on the fact that she dropped…

Especially the case where they initially were going to bring charges against the accused rapist, then told the victim that they didn't think she would win, so she dropped the charges— then they prosecuted HER? Fuck that.

I think it's an estimated 2% that are actually considered false, as opposed to insufficient evidence.

An estimated 2% of rape allegations are false. Of course, many more rapes go unreported. So there are far, far, far, far more rapes than false rape allegations.

Have a latte for me! I miss their coffee.