Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Feminist reaction to kesha contract trial shows why it's scary to be accused of rape. Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Well yes that is true I suppose; rape has a dictionary definition and legal definition however this survey exists to determine victims of crimes so only the legal definition is relevant. Under the legal definition so long as there is reasonable belief in consent rape hasn't occurred.
    The woman has still been raped though, which is the entire point.
    The jury finding someone not guilty of murder because of self defence does not men that they have not been killed.


    Once again, please quote where I used those statistics.
    Do you absolutely dispute the fact you've said 40% of domestic abuse victims are men?

    How am I belittling rape? I think the fact that someone can make a drunken mistaken and call it rape belittles it far more than I ever could. I'm saying some are lying, I'm also saying some are mistaken. I don't have proof but its highly illogical to think that despite the fact we only imprisoned just over a thousand people for rape last year there were actually 97,000 rapes (that's the figure used by rape crisis).
    Oh deary me. There is next to no evidence for the existence of widespread false allegations as you are declaring. There is also no reason to assume that in all cases there was 'reasonable belief'. A rape victim has nothing to gain from lying on the survey and it's a widely accepted survey for all crimes. You don't doubt it for other offences like domestic violence on men, yet you doubt it for rape. You're picking and choosing.

    The whole problem is only a few are convicted and had you bothered to read the survey rather than dismiss it and belittle rape you might have half an idea. There are many reasons why only a thousand are convicted. Most never report it, because of the traumatic impact of rape. The majority of rapes are done by a partner or ex partner,; the victim often still has feelings and doesn't want them to suffer, the victim often is scared about being seen as a slut, the traumatic nature means the victims just want to forget about the incident and not go through a two year process and be interrogated by a Barrister, the victim often wants to get on with their life.
    You can't underestimate the psychological impact and trauma of being raped, especially by someone you know and trust.
    http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...of-conviction/


    So most are never reported, then for the ones that are there are a host of reasons why they drop out;
    - Some victims find the initial processes and having their private parts examined humiliating.
    -The police often view inconsistencies in the victim's statement as a sign of lying, even though after a traumatic experience like rape, you are unlikely to be able to think properly and clearly. Further to that, until recently the CPS were not allowed to ask questions and clarity for the inconsistency in statements.
    - Often they are met by a culture of disbelief by the police, who vastly overestimate the number of false allegations.
    - The first reaction of a rape victim is very often to have a shower, yet that washes off the evidence.

    -It's a notoriously difficult crime to prove, despite what you may think, most rape happens between two people who knew each other, either a partner/ex partner/ family member and mostly happens in private, not in a dark alley. Often it comes down to he said v she said. Proving beyond reasonable doubt is thus very very difficult - that doesn't mean the allegation is false as you are suggesting.




    Those are a few reasons for the low conviction rate and why cases drop out. All you've done is clutch at straw after straw to belittle rape. First you said 57% of cases result in a conviction for rape which is not true, the figure is 6%.
    Then you accused women of lying in the survey, despite using that survey to support your point on domestic abuse. Now you're saying that the crime has nothing to do with consent - idiotic to say the best.

    You'll go to any length to dismiss, belittle and minimize the experiences of women who have been raped.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The woman has still been raped though, which is the entire point.
    The jury finding someone not guilty of murder because of self defence does not men that they have not been killed.
    But it means they haven't been murdered. You can be raped under the dictionary definition of the word but when trying to see the problem you have with a crime (thus legal problem) you use the legal definition. Also if you want to start using dictionary definitions then why not use the dictionary definition of consent?


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Do you absolutely dispute the fact you've said 40% of domestic abuse victims are men?
    I certainly don't remember and the fact that I've asked you to quote me as having said that so many times and you're still yet to leads me to think I didn't say it.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Oh deary me. There is next to no evidence for the existence of widespread false allegations as you are declaring. There is also no reason to assume that in all cases there was 'reasonable belief'. A rape victim has nothing to gain from lying on the survey and it's a widely accepted survey for all crimes. You don't doubt it for other offences like domestic violence on men, yet you doubt it for rape. You're picking and choosing.
    You're still talking about quoting this domestic violence statistic, something you're yet to substantiate. I'm not declaring that false allegations are widespread but maybe their more common than we know and for the same reasons that people don't report rapes other deport report false allegations.

    People had nothing to gain by signing a petition claiming to be Han Solo yet it happened. Saying 'it's accurate because people have no reason to lie' is not proof of anything, it's incredibly feeble reasoning.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The whole problem is only a few are convicted and had you bothered to read the survey rather than dismiss it and belittle rape you might have half an idea. There are many reasons why only a thousand are convicted. Most never report it, because of the traumatic impact of rape. The majority of rapes are done by a partner or ex partner,; the victim often still has feelings and doesn't want them to suffer, the victim often is scared about being seen as a slut, the traumatic nature means the victims just want to forget about the incident and not go through a two year process and be interrogated by a Barrister, the victim often wants to get on with their life.
    You can't underestimate the psychological impact and trauma of being raped, especially by someone you know and trust.
    http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...of-conviction/
    Lots of crimes are traumatic yet are still widely reported. Why would someone be called a slut for having sex with their boyfriend? And more to the point who are these people so worried are going to call them a slut? Two years is such an exaggeration.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So most are never reported, then for the ones that are there are a host of reasons why they drop out;
    - Some victims find the initial processes and having their private parts examined humiliating.
    -The police often view inconsistencies in the victim's statement as a sign of lying, even though after a traumatic experience like rape, you are unlikely to be able to think properly and clearly. Further to that, until recently the CPS were not allowed to ask questions and clarity for the inconsistency in statements.
    - Often they are met by a culture of disbelief by the police, who vastly overestimate the number of false allegations.
    - The first reaction of a rape victim is very often to have a shower, yet that washes off the evidence.
    -It's a notoriously difficult crime to prove, despite what you may think, most rape happens between two people who knew each other, either a partner/ex partner/ family member and mostly happens in private, not in a dark alley. Often it comes down to he said v she said. Proving beyond reasonable doubt is thus very very difficult - that doesn't mean the allegation is false as you are suggesting.
    Do you have any evidence of all these allegations you're making against the police? You know whats going through the mind of every woman who has just been raped? You know they all want to shower? I'm aware that stranger rape is less common but thanks for reminding me.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Those are a few reasons for the low conviction rate and why cases drop out. All you've done is clutch at straw after straw to belittle rape. First you said 57% of cases result in a conviction for rape which is not true, the figure is 6%.
    Then you accused women of lying in the survey, despite using that survey to support your point on domestic abuse. Now you're saying that the crime has nothing to do with consent - idiotic to say the best.
    The conviction rate is 57% for cases that make it to court. Like I've said, several times now, not all are lying. Again please quote me using statistics from that survey. Like I've also said a few times now the crime has nothing to do with the EXISTENCE of consent. It's fine, I assume you're going to continue to read anything I say as though it says what you want it to say and ignore the bits that you can't do that with. I assume you'll also keep making claims you can't provide evidence for but continue to use estimates as facts.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You'll go to any length to dismiss, belittle and minimize the experiences of women who have been raped.
    You're yet to explain how I've belittled rape but like I've said before it seems that unless someone says 'rape is the most awful thing ever and it happens once every second' then you're automatically an awful person who is victim blaming or sympathising with rapists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    But it means they haven't been murdered. You can be raped under the dictionary definition of the word but when trying to see the problem you have with a crime (thus legal problem) you use the legal definition. Also if you want to start using dictionary definitions then why not use the dictionary definition of consent?




    I certainly don't remember and the fact that I've asked you to quote me as having said that so many times and you're still yet to leads me to think I didn't say it.



    You're still talking about quoting this domestic violence statistic, something you're yet to substantiate. I'm not declaring that false allegations are widespread but maybe their more common than we know and for the same reasons that people don't report rapes other deport report false allegations.

    People had nothing to gain by signing a petition claiming to be Han Solo yet it happened. Saying 'it's accurate because people have no reason to lie' is not proof of anything, it's incredibly feeble reasoning.



    Lots of crimes are traumatic yet are still widely reported. Why would someone be called a slut for having sex with their boyfriend? And more to the point who are these people so worried are going to call them a slut? Two years is such an exaggeration.



    Do you have any evidence of all these allegations you're making against the police? You know whats going through the mind of every woman who has just been raped? You know they all want to shower? I'm aware that stranger rape is less common but thanks for reminding me.



    The conviction rate is 57% for cases that make it to court. Like I've said, several times now, not all are lying. Again please quote me using statistics from that survey. Like I've also said a few times now the crime has nothing to do with the EXISTENCE of consent. It's fine, I assume you're going to continue to read anything I say as though it says what you want it to say and ignore the bits that you can't do that with. I assume you'll also keep making claims you can't provide evidence for but continue to use estimates as facts.



    You're yet to explain how I've belittled rape but like I've said before it seems that unless someone says 'rape is the most awful thing ever and it happens once every second' then you're automatically an awful person who is victim blaming or sympathising with rapists.
    It's nice that you and underscore are getting to know each other and all that, however, what you are discussing is basically the definition of rape and this is not what this thread is about so please end it right now and don't further derail the thread. Feel free to continue this conversation in your private messages if you wish. What you are discussing has been done many times on TSR and I do not want further discussion on it on this thread thank you.

    The same message goes to Bornblue, stick to the topic of the thread please.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    But it means they haven't been murdered. You can be raped under the dictionary definition of the word but when trying to see the problem you have with a crime (thus legal problem) you use the legal definition. Also if you want to start using dictionary definitions then why not use the dictionary definition of consent?
    But they have still been raped. Could you give me an example of when a victim is not consenting but there is reasonable belief? Logically its unlikely that if there was no consent, that the defendant would reasonably believe there was.
    The case of R v Olugboja makes it clear that silence and submission do not count as consent, so reasonable belief implies some requirement on the defendant to ascertain consent.





    People had nothing to gain by signing a petition claiming to be Han Solo yet it happened. Saying 'it's accurate because people have no reason to lie' is not proof of anything, it's incredibly feeble reasoning.
    Oh come off it. It's one thing signing a petition on something, its another
    to imply making up you've been raped. You have no reason to believe it is a lie.

    Lots of crimes are traumatic yet are still widely reported. Why would someone be called a slut for having sex with their boyfriend? And more to the point who are these people so worried are going to call them a slut? Two years is such an exaggeration.
    None more so than rape but here you go again, belittling the experience of rape victims. This was a lsited reason on teh survey for why they arent reported.

    Do you have any evidence of all these allegations you're making against the police? You know whats going through the mind of every woman who has just been raped? You know they all want to shower? I'm aware that stranger rape is less common but thanks for reminding me.
    Yep, police estimate false allegation are over 10%. ANd yes all these points are listed on the survey and given by rape crises centres who deal with victims.


    The conviction rate is 57% for cases that make it to court. Like I've said, several times now, not all are lying. Again please quote me using statistics from that survey. Like I've also said a few times now the crime has nothing to do with the EXISTENCE of consent. It's fine, I assume you're going to continue to read anything I say as though it says what you want it to say and ignore the bits that you can't do that with. I assume you'll also keep making claims you can't provide evidence for but continue to use estimates as facts.



    You're yet to explain how I've belittled rape but like I've said before it seems that unless someone says 'rape is the most awful thing ever and it happens once every second' then you're automatically an awful person who is victim blaming or sympathising with rapists.[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But they have still been raped. Could you give me an example of when a victim is not consenting but there is reasonable belief? Logically its unlikely that if there was no consent, that the defendant would reasonably believe there was.
    The case of R v Olugboja makes it clear that silence and submission do not count as consent, so reasonable belief implies some requirement on the defendant to ascertain consent.
    If someone is incredibly intoxicated (to the point of lacking the capacity to consent) but is not giving that impression. If you want to go by dictionary definitions then like I've said yes but when you're talking about a crime being committed it isn't the dictionary definition thats relevant. If you want to use dictionary definitions then anyone who has given consent (by dictionary definition) but lacked the capacity shouldn't be counted as being raped.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Oh come off it. It's one thing signing a petition on something, its another
    to imply making up you've been raped. You have no reason to believe it is a lie.
    People lie for no apparent reason, as that petition demonstrated.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    None more so than rape but here you go again, belittling the experience of rape victims. This was a lsited reason on teh survey for why they arent reported.
    Well thats subjective, some people might find being burgled more traumatic because they no longer feel safe in their home. I'm belittling rape by saying that some people might find other crimes committed against them more traumatic?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yep, police estimate false allegation are over 10%. ANd yes all these points are listed on the survey and given by rape crises centres who deal with victims.
    So where is your evidence that the police have a 'culture of disbelief' and that they view inconsistencies as a 'sign of lying'?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The conviction rate is 57% for cases that make it to court. Like I've said, several times now, not all are lying. Again please quote me using statistics from that survey. Like I've also said a few times now the crime has nothing to do with the EXISTENCE of consent. It's fine, I assume you're going to continue to read anything I say as though it says what you want it to say and ignore the bits that you can't do that with. I assume you'll also keep making claims you can't provide evidence for but continue to use estimates as facts.



    You're yet to explain how I've belittled rape but like I've said before it seems that unless someone says 'rape is the most awful thing ever and it happens once every second' then you're automatically an awful person who is victim blaming or sympathising with rapists.
    I'm not really sure why you've just left this quote in but I'll leave it there because yet again you've failed to provide a quote from me where I've used statistics from the CSEW and you've yet again acted as though I've said something I haven't simply because I'm making an objective argument about rape.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I had no idea about this at all. I generally ignore Kesha. However it could be true that she was date-raped. "Sex, drugs, rock-n-roll." Whether she has motives to get out of a contract is irrelevant. The rape still could be true. Look how disturbed she is.

    O.P. is basically defending the alleged perpetrator?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    lool if there is no evidence of rape you have no choice but to support the men lol unless you have some agenda of course.

    Also take note the trial was not about rape but a contract lol.
    Err no.

    There is a trial anyway because she wants to not work any longer with someone who allegedly raped her. Rape victims often take a long time in coming out about their experience.

    I am defending rape victims, so since Kesha--excuse me, Ke$ha--claims to be one, I must defend the possibility of truth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gryffindorian)
    Err no.

    There is a trial anyway because she wants to not work any longer with someone who allegedly raped her. Rape victims often take a long time in coming out about their experience.

    I am defending rape victims, so since Kesha--excuse me, Ke$ha--claims to be one, I must defend the possibility of truth.
    And in 2011 she swore under oath she lied about the rape allegation. So what will you defend now, her word or her other words?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    And in 2011 she swore under oath she lied about the rape allegation. So what will you defend now, her word or her other words?
    There's no doubt Ke$ha as a person could be a liar. But there's no doubt that she could have been bribed to deny the rape.

    She looked high and annoyed to be there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gryffindorian)
    There's no doubt Ke$ha as a person could be a liar. But there's no doubt that she could have been bribed to deny the rape.

    She looked high and annoyed to be there.
    Lying under oath is felony which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years. Without any evidence it is mere speculation what we do have however is a sworn testimony.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Lying under oath is felony which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years. Without any evidence it is mere speculation what we do have however is a sworn testimony.
    I know exactly why you mentioned "under oath," as if it's a buzz term for me to concede. But no; I know exactly what happens when you lie under oath. However, it hasn't been proven that she has lied. So of course, she never went to prison for it...?

    Why you choose to believe she is lying is what I want to understand...I think I want to understand that kind of thinking, anyway.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gryffindorian)
    I know exactly why you mentioned "under oath," as if it's a buzz term for me to concede. But no; I know exactly what happens when you lie under oath. However, it hasn't been proven that she has lied. So of course, she never went to prison for it...?

    Why you choose to believe she is lying is what I want to understand...I think I want to understand that kind of thinking, anyway.
    "under oath" is particularly important because what is said in a court of law holds more weight than what is said on twitter. The burden of proof is upon the accuser and no evidence has been produced other than her word both for and against it.

    She is certainly lying about one thing or another. What pushed me to believe she is lying about the rape is that her lawyer has already tried to claim that Dr Luke raped Lady Gaga which was proven to be completely false and being sued as a result of it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So under oath she denied the rape in 2011. If under oath she was lying, that would mean...she was raped. However recently she claims she wants to leave SONY because of the rape, the rape which she is given benefit of the doubt to have denied under oath, since many people believe her. Her coming out about lying though is now self-incrimination of lying under oath.

    (Original post by Mancini)
    I believe it is reasonable to assume that perhaps she could be telling lies to get out of this contract.
    But Mancini thinks she is lying about lying. Because he doesn't think she was raped.

    Oh, this is all too much.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    "under oath" is particularly important because what is said in a court of law holds more weight than what is said on twitter. The burden of proof is upon the accuser and no evidence has been produced other than her word both for and against it.

    She is certainly lying about one thing or another. What pushed me to believe she is lying about the rape is that her lawyer has already tried to claim that Dr Luke raped Lady Gaga which was proven to be completely false and being sued as a result of it.
    We're discussing Ke$ha, not Lady Gaga. The same way it's nearly impossible to prove a rape, it has to be impossible to disprove it. Because it would take the same insufficient investigative methods (examining the vagina of a non-virgin after much time has passed since the alleged rape).

    It hasn't been disproven. It simply hasn't been proven.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gryffindorian)
    So under oath she denied the rape in 2011. If under oath she was lying, that would mean...she was raped. However recently she claims she wants to leave SONY because of the rape, the rape which she is given benefit of the doubt to have denied under oath, since many people believe her. Her coming out about lying though is now self-incrimination of lying under oath.



    But Mancini thinks she is lying about lying. Because he doesn't think she was raped.

    Oh, this is all too much.
    Nice attempt to twist my words, tell me something what's stopping Kesha from walking over to another record label and making a new contract for herself?

    All this would mean is that this new record company she chooses to work with, would have to pay a large amount of money over to sony music label.

    Of course Kesha doesn't really care about this alleged rape , which possibly never occured. Instead she chooses to attempt this possible lie to get out of a contract.

    Kesha also has no real reason to look for another record label and is destroying her music career even more since Sony already offered her the chance to work with another music producer but she declined it.

    Good luck to Kesha I say , I hope she wakes up before her singing career really is in tatters!

    Who wants to sign a singer who can possibly spin another lie? It's bad publicity for any label and sony is only keeping her contract as it is because who know's what releasing her could mean in terms of the actions any of their current musicians or future musicians could make.

    They can't just have people making lies and successfully changing or getting out of their contracts that's not good business.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gryffindorian)
    We're discussing Ke$ha, not Lady Gaga. The same way it's nearly impossible to prove a rape, it has to be impossible to disprove it. Because it would take the same insufficient investigative methods (examining the vagina of a non-virgin after much time has passed since the alleged rape).

    It hasn't been disproven. It simply hasn't been proven.
    If neither can be proven even after a person has sworn under oath that the assault never happened then you should be supporting Sony music label.

    I say one thing there is proof from Kesha's sworn testimony that she never got raped , her word is good enough for them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    Nice attempt to twist my words, tell me something what's stopping Kesha from walking over to another record label and making a new contract for herself?

    All this would mean is that this new record company she chooses to work with, would have to pay a large amount of money over to sony music label.

    Of course Kesha doesn't really care about this alleged rape , which possibly never occured. Instead she chooses to attempt this possible lie to get out of a contract.

    Kesha also has no real reason to look for another record label and is destroying her music career even more since Sony already offered her the chance to work with another music producer but she declined it.

    Good luck to Kesha I say , I hope she wakes up before her singing career really is in tatters!

    Who wants to sign a singer who can possibly spin another lie?
    Lol I didn't twist anything; I literally quoted you :confused:

    Anyway, you can't just "walk over to another record label." It literally takes legal advisors, do you know anything about contracts? Also other labels have to want her. Contractual restrictions are the main reasons people breakdown and lose their careers! Also...severance pay. Mariah Carey got 28 mil for hers. Who wants to dish that out? So now Ke$ha needs to go to extreme measures to try to get out of it. Extreme=bringing up a nightmare she could have been suppressing this whole time.

    The worst she gets is nothing but a lot of public support, even if that was her motive. Because even I, someone who doesn't like Ke$ha nor pop, am talking about her lol
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    If neither can be proven even after a person has sworn under oath that the assault never happened then you should be supporting Sony music label.

    I say one thing there is proof from Kesha's sworn testimony that she never got raped , her word is good enough for them.
    Like I said and will keep saying, people testify to loads of things that aren't true. Have you ever heard of unethical investigation methods? That's not the exact term but surely you've heard of it happening

    Her face was so red and eyes so baggy. She in 2011 was a bit of a nobody, a powerful music company and all their employees...vs Ke$ha, a new artist at the time. I emphasise new because her finances weren't there to fight them that it's true. She comes from a bad looking family as well. Who knows what issues she has and low intelligence. She could've been bribed to say that!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gryffindorian)
    We're discussing Ke$ha, not Lady Gaga. The same way it's nearly impossible to prove a rape, it has to be impossible to disprove it. Because it would take the same insufficient investigative methods (examining the vagina of a non-virgin after much time has passed since the alleged rape).

    It hasn't been disproven. It simply hasn't been proven.
    The Lady Gaga incident is related to this one because it was Kesha's lawyer who made the allegation during the ongoing trial. Clearly he has a motive to try and push the Dr Luke is a rapist rhetoric to try I could only assume to make his client's case stronger.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gryffindorian)
    Lol I didn't twist anything; I literally quoted you :confused:

    Anyway, you can't just "walk over to another record label." It literally takes legal advisors, do you know anything about contracts? Also other labels have to want her. Contractual restrictions are the main reasons people breakdown and lose their careers! Also...severance pay. Mariah Carey got 28 mil for hers. Who wants to dish that out? So now Ke$ha needs to go to extreme measures to try to get out of it. Extreme=bringing up a nightmare she could have been suppressing this whole time.

    The worst she gets is nothing but a lot of public support, even if that was her motive. Because even I, someone who doesn't like Ke$ha nor pop, am talking about her lol
    No Kesha does not need to go to extreme lengths all Kesha had to do was accept Sony's offer of working with another Sony record producer but clearly Kesha had another agenda and is making it harder for herself. It's a shame she is a talented girl but she' doing this to herself.

    The only other option she may have is quitting her music all together and perhaps finding career she will still have to deal with Dr Luke's defamation lawsuit though and quite possibly a Sony Lawsuit for not fulfilling her contract.

    I really hope Kesha does the right thing for herself and not fall for this illusion of feminist support, so far the only female I know gave her any financial support is Taylor Swift. It would be nice to hear a donation to Kesha from a big feminist organisation since these are the mouthpieces that are using her situation to step upon others and using others is what they do best.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 25, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.