One of the things the bill addresses is the problematic use of past sexual history as evidence. And to quote from a well-written article by Kez Bhola-Dare and Jamie Fletcher that I've been reflecting on, they say, "It is argued that prosecution using a complaint's past sexual history [as] evidence is both morally and legally wrong. Introduction of such evidence is largely used as a tactic to undermine the credibility of the complainant to the jury. This plays on an old-fashioned myth that the more a woman consents to sexual activity, the less serious one should take their claim of not offering consent to one particular sexual activity. It is analogous to rape myths that paint a woman's morality based upon their choice of clothes. Morally though a woman should not be found to have given consent solely because she has previously done so. In this sense, every incident of [consent] should be judged upon its own merits and gain no legitimacy from previous grants of consent." The authors write—and this is something we talked about with young people at YouthLaw getting them to understand what consent was—"The 'cup of tea' [analogy] can be used to illustrate this. A person can want to drink one, two, three cups of tea, but if they say 'no' to a fourth, that 'no' is valid. Legally, juries should be focusing only on whether consent was given for the offence on trial,". Let me say this one even more slowly: you cannot imply consent. 