Advanced search

Women convicted for retracting rape allegation freed from jail.

(23 Posts)
StewieGriffinsMom Tue 23-Nov-10 15:21:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

smallwhitecat Tue 23-Nov-10 15:24:38

Message withdrawn

StewieGriffinsMom Tue 23-Nov-10 15:25:49

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

smallwhitecat Tue 23-Nov-10 15:28:10

Message withdrawn

Sakura Tue 23-Nov-10 15:31:28

"Lord chief justice says there is important distinction between false allegation of rape and false retraction of rape allegation"

It's so reassuring that ole 'patriarchy' is bright as well as fair hmm

Still, thanks for posting this SGM. She should be compensated for the loss of time with her children, and loss of earnings too, most probably

PrematureEjoculation Tue 23-Nov-10 15:31:58

i really hope this woman now leaves her husband for good, and those kids are taken from his custody

smallwhitecat Tue 23-Nov-10 15:37:52

Message withdrawn

smallwhitecat Tue 23-Nov-10 15:39:30

Message withdrawn

Sakura Tue 23-Nov-10 15:40:24

that's reassuring smallwhitecat, thanks

ElephantsAndMiasmas Tue 23-Nov-10 15:54:11

thank god for that.

Poor woman.

And, on a less serious note, is his name really Lord Judge?

Sakura Tue 23-Nov-10 15:55:12


ElephantsAndMiasmas Tue 23-Nov-10 15:58:00

lovely, yes he is. Igor Judge to be exact.

Bramshott Tue 23-Nov-10 16:41:14

Thank goodness - this was insane sad!

dittany Tue 23-Nov-10 17:08:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StewieGriffinsMom Tue 23-Nov-10 19:05:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StayFrosty Tue 23-Nov-10 20:29:26

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ISNT Tue 23-Nov-10 21:07:43

Just saw this on the BBC website and was going to post.

But reading the guardian piece there's not much to celebrate - she has a criminal record, he is free and has the children. The children have witnessed DV before and now he won't give them back. Why didn't the police or courts intervene when he refused to hand the children over to the sister when he was supposed to?

None of it makes sense to me.

ISNT Tue 23-Nov-10 21:09:23

So basically she's lost her children to her violent ex-partner, and has a criminal record, and has spent time in prison.

For reporting DV and rape, and then doing something many many women understandably do ie bottling it and retracting.

Seriously is this the way that victims of this level of abuse should be treated?

I just don't understand it at all.

StewieGriffinsMom Tue 23-Nov-10 21:18:11

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ISNT Tue 23-Nov-10 21:23:25

But why, when a man who has had a non-molestation order against him, and has been taken to court for DV and rape, with the DV in front of the children, and judges have said they accept that he did these things, and he doens't hand the children over when he's supposed to... Why do the police and judges do nothing about that?

Too busy persecuting a victim of crime to bother with the children? What?

It literally doesn't compute in my brain. I had no idea that this was how things worked.

whoknowswhatthefutureholds Tue 23-Nov-10 21:40:48

I agree ISNT. It's beyond comprehension. Thank god she is out though. Why on earth are her children with her, I assume social services are aware of the situation. And if not why not. If I knew the details of her I would pass it on to them to make sure they were because I don't trust the police to have necessarily have passed on the info. (Having worked in child protection for years).

StewieGriffinsMom Tue 23-Nov-10 21:50:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sakura Tue 23-Nov-10 23:08:18

it is beyond comprehension. This is not a "loophole" in the law; it's proof that the law is fundamentally flawed in many serious ways

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: