So what would need to happen for women to report rape and get convictions?

She was brilliant at the Feminism in London conference. I want to be like her when I grow up

Would be great to hear a summary. I've got too much on at the mo to read the book.

Oh, just remembered that Helena Kennedy's book is actually called 'Eve Was Framed' and not what I wrote above.

I'll read it again later and try to summarise it. Even I was shocked.

I've had Helena Kennedy's book 'Who Framed Eve' on my to read pile for a long time. I picked it up last night and read the chapter on rape. It is incredible and I urge everyone to read it. The whole system is rotten to the core.

Because if something has happened to you, and you don't want to prosecute, there is no point whatsoever in telling the police and by definition they won't be interested, that's not what they're there for.

That's wrong, surely.

There is a problem here with the remit of the police isn't there, the fundamental reason they were created

ie to act as a deterrant to crime, and to gather evidence when crimes are comitted with a view to arresting someone.

Al the way their performance is measured is to do with that.

They are not equipped to offer appropriate support to victims, there is no incentive to record crimes that they are unlikely to be able to "solve". They are not set up in any way to offer a service of listening and understanding and taking a record for information which might lead them to build up a picture about someone and arrest them later. They see that as a waste of their time.

So fundamentally you would need to change what the police are for, and change their remit.

I can't think of any other crime where people seem to think that giving any credence to the victim when she reports, is tantamount to locking a man up without trial.

Million dollar question, but as a start:

A properly funded campaign encouraging people to i) recognise what rape is and ii) reassuring people that complaints will be taken seriously. Start it in the schools - police explaining to children what is not acceptable (I am thinking sex assualts rather than rape at this stage). Somehow we are living in a society where swathes of girls have got the impression that boys grabbing their arses is OK; and boys think that following girls around town and catcalling is "flirting". It's not and it needs to be spelt out

Have specially trained officers on hand to deal with any complaint immediately - rape victims should not have to explain their attack to whoever is on fron desk before they "get through the gate". Instead people need to be able to visit the police station and ask to see someone from the rape unit and that happens immediately.

The deeper problems are the ingrained attitudes. I have no idea how you attack those but as a starting point the police have to take the position that an offence has been committed and they need to investigate.

SO nancy what should the police be doing IYO to improve their responses? Clearly something radical.

Quite. The problem with reporting rape is, as others have pointed out, that in addition to a lack of willingness to take reports of crimes that are unlikely to be solved there does appear to be an ingrained mentality that rape doesn't happen frequently.

An addititional issue is that of the "type" of person who is most likely to report a rape. Rape is more often committed against the most vulnerable members of our society: the drug users, prostitutes, girls in care etc etc. There is sadly, in my experience, an institutional lack of empathy with woman in those positions. I have on more than on occasion been told by a police officer words to the effect that "it is not as if it was someone like you that got raped".

That is awful I have had friends asked "are you sure you didn't forget where you left it?" and thought they must have got a particularly dense officer.

But what's really scary is that this continues from minor crimes like mobile and bike theft to serious crimes like rape(and aren't we always being told how serious rape is, in the context of "we can't convict men for it ever and ruin their lives!").

Seriously the police needs a huge overhaul.

This is all anecdotal of course but usually one of two approaches is taken.

Either the "are you sure it was stolen?" approach which involves being asked such gems as "can you prove it?" "are you sure you didn't forget where you left it?" "perhaps someone borrowed it" etc etc.

or the "this is going to cause you a lot of hassle" approach which in the first instance can be an invitation to come back to make a statement at an inconvenient time, pointing out that there is no one available to take your statement and that you will just have to wait until there is, letting you know that the likelihood of them finding the theif is non existent and just a general discouragement from wasting your own time etc etc

What would they say to someone reporting a bike stolen for instance? Are they literally allowed to say "you must be joking, on yer - alternative form of transport"?

Certainly the ones that they are never going to get a conviction. Try reporting a bike or mobile phone as stolen in central London - you might as well ask for the moon.

Skews the conviction rates you see....

Surely a jury should be there to decide whether the defendent did the crime or not? And the judge decides on severity of the sentence, within guidelines. I am clearly naive.

interesting nancy, thanks. Do the police do that for all crimes?

Should have added there is a difference between what a victim might consider a report i.e. calling the police and saying I have been raped and what the police consider to be a report i.e and official recording of an offence having taken place. Sorry didn't make that terribly clear.

E&A I don't think you will ever get accurate figures on reports of rape since anecdotal evidence suggests that numerous woman are not permitted to report rape i.e. they turn up a police station and describe what has happened and are simply told that there is no crime, or that it will be impossible to prove so they are asked to "go away and think about" whether they really want to pursue the matter etc etc.

vesuvia for example a mother who has clearly stolen something (in one particular case PTA funds) blamed it on her ex partner. There was no evidence that ex p had anything to do with it, in fact fairly incontrovertible evidence that he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

However she was a sympathetic character - obviously going through a difficult time, had been ostracised and bullied since the offence was uncovered and both her life and that of her DD had been made extrememly difficult. The evidence was there in spades but the jury didn't convict, the general consensus was that the jury didn't want to kick the woman whilst she was down.

So strictly speaking you are right - jurors are only supposed to consider the evidence and guilt but anecdotal evdence suggests they don't.