All current rape and sexual assault cases to be reviewed - BBC

wheni ignore the rape apologists on here. Some men don't actually give a shit about victims, as it's too challenging to their narrative. There's a word for that, begins with M

masterwu great post. Another example of the effects of austerity

handbag I get the impression this is one of the things some men talk about amongst themselves. "You know Paul, yeah, Paul went out last week and picked up a bird in a club. They had a great time, he left at 3 and she was out for the count. Next thing you know coppers are at the door saying he raped her! She says she doesn't remember taking him home. It's bollocks though, Paul says she was a right bunny boiler. Kept going on about wanting his phone number/where did he work. That's why he snuck out. She's obviously trying to get revenge. Poor old Paul".

No critical thinking at all. Obviously though men maintain rationality and objectivity at all times so it's not necessary.

I know far more men, women and adults who were children who have been raped and abused than I do men who have been the poor victims of malicious allegations. In fact, anecdata alert, I’ve never met a man who has told me they’ve been a poor victim of malicious allegation. Funny how every fucker on the internet knows swathes of them.

whenireported all the best and I believe you. Axegrinders don’t want to listen to people have actually had to live through as it doesn’t fit their narrative.

@PatriarchyPersonified can’t you see how it’s sensible to at least be a little bit compassionate in discussions surrounding rape? If not can’t you see how your desire to get a point across with little or no empathy for who you are participating with serves as a microcosm of the entire problem?

A massive problem with rape cases in England and Wales is the amount of political interference. There are too many parliamentary/judicial/investigatory bodies giving contradictory information, and each having their own view on how to proceed. (For example HMIC dictated that officers' starting point should be believing the victim at point of contact, the college of policing give different guidelines) Politicians have become increasingly involved esp with historical allegations (I wonder why?) and they too are ordering departments to change the way crimes are investigated. There are far too many bodies playing political football with rape, and not enough sitting down and working out a fairer and more just methodology for both victims and suspects alike.

The last two DPP's have put enormous pressure on police forces to bring more rape cases to court, at the same time large scale changes to officer numbers and bail act changes, have put huge pressures on officers trying to investigate these cases. It's pretty common for a DC to have 15-20 rape investigations on the go at the same time. Rules on disclosure and file prep change on what seems almost a monthly basis. It is really fucking hard to juggle that many balls and not drop them occasionally. There's waiting lists for tech individuals to look at computers and mobile phones of up to 6 months. It's not just a case of reading 400 pages of text messages, they've got to be downloaded and presented in an official way, and exhibited so. I can see why disclosure is fucked up, it's very unlikely officers are with holding information deliberately, especially since the relevancy test is so subjective, it's simple human error.

There's ways to change this but it will require a fuck tonne of money, and this government are never going to pay it

Bye for now, PP. I'm off out now with my lovely DH and his friend.

Gosh, I hope they don't rape me. Because, you know, all men do that.

Later.

Are you suitably mollified now, PP?

I have read the thread and I haven't seen a single suggestion that all men are rapists. Let alone a constant narrative.

Have YOU read the thread?

Have you read this thread?!

"One of the reasons why the police and the CPS may have felt motivated to pervert the course of justice by suppressing evidence might be because of the constant narrative that all men are rapists"

Oh, and PP, I'm sorry, but wrt the above statement.

There's a "constant narrative that all men are rapists" Really? Where? I have to say that this is something I have NEVER encountered. Where do you live/work/read the newspaper to experience this narrative?

Oh gosh, PP, don't build a straw man. now.

I haven't "insisted" they you do anything.

I've simply pointed out your astounding and notable lack of empathy for rape victims that permeates both your attitude throughout your thread and your interactions with me.

I also think that pointing that out DOES form part of a "sensible discussion".

Now, it's interesting that you feel that acknowledging the experience of a rape victim doesn't amount to adding to a discussion around rape. Don't you think? Why is that?

WhenIreported

I'm genuinely sorry that you have been the victim of an awful crime but I'm not sure what insisting that I say that to you has added to the discussion.

Are you suitably mollified? Can we now continue to have a sensible discussion?

Quentin

Clearly not. Please don't reverse the context of what I'm saying. Your suggesting that a woman has nothing to gain from a false rape allegation therefore any allegation is likely to be genuine.

That's only true if you believe that everyone is a rational actor and only makes 100% rational decisions.

I'm not a rape apologist, I'm not minimising rape. I'm just against replacing one injustice (that it's difficult for women to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt) with another injustice (presumed guilt of all men).

whenI

I suspect that all rape victims are invisible to him.

Quentin absolutely nails it with the "who benefits?" question. (There's a wonderful Jackie Fleming cartoon of this, with a woman saying breezily to a man "Of course women don't report bad sex as rape just on a whim. We don't want to spend our whole bloody lives in court.")

The 'who benefits' line of reasoning in these circumstances is a tricky one. It assumes that all participants are completely rational actors who only make rational decisions

Haha haha
Hahaha
That's hilarious.
Ok, so I can infer from that that men arent always rational in emotionally charged situations and may get carried away and not get consent? Then regret it and lie about it later?

@PatriarchyPersonified If you are seriously asserting that swathes of traumatised women is acceptable collateral damage as long as men believe consent occurred then you have a seriously wonky moral compass.

As to solutions I think legal aid to rape victims to at least pursue rapists in civil cases. I realise that isn’t really good enough, but it would change the cultural conversation around rape. More men would be found liable and couldn’t exactly parade themselves around as innocent furthermore it would provide some sort of closure to a victim that on the balance of probabilities they were believed over the rapist.

I think as the years rolled on the number of men falling foul of civil cases would change our culture for the better and lead to more realistic prospects for criminal convictions in the long run.

Wow.

I really am invisible to you as a rape victim, aren't I PP?

Quentin

The 'who benefits' line of reasoning in these circumstances is a tricky one. It assumes that all participants are completely rational actors who only make rational decisions. Sadly not always true, especially in emotionally charged situations.

"PatriarchyPersonified Sat 27-Jan-18 14:33:51
Quentin

Firstly, it's possible to care about more than one thing at once."

Also, with reference to the above ^

I call BS.

You're happy to argue until you're blue in the face about the things men might go through, but you haven't ONCE acknowledged my personal experience, that I have shared on this thread.

Or expressed empathy, understanding or concern for me as a rape victim.

You've made it quite clear why you're here, and it certainly isn't because you want to understand how rape affects women.

Man and woman on date, go back to hers afterwards and go to bed together. Enthusiastic consent given, and man penetrates woman. During sexual act, woman decides she isn't happy any more and wants it to stop. However doesn't communicate in any way to the man. Next day she is upset and tells a friend, who encouraged her to report it.

I would be very sceptical if a man told me this had happened to him. I think it's more likely consent wasn't enthusiastic or the man decided to do something mid sex that the woman didn't want. And is now pretending she didn't say anything at the time.

If you weren't there, how would you know what actually happened? And if one if them is lying, who stands to benefit most from that? The man, who raped someone but through lying can get away with it? Or the woman, who for some reason decides to report a rape to the police, go through an intimate exam, get her behaviour and history questioned, all for the satisfaction of seeing an innocent man in court? (At a considerable risk that if it's discovered she's lying, she will be done for perverting the course of justice).

It's just flipping nonsensical. Apply some logical thought to the scenarios rather than just blanket assuming everything your mates tell you is fact. What are you, 5?

And did either of your scenarios result in a conviction? I'm guessing not.

On the flip side, I remember reading a first-person account of being raped by a woman who was brutally raped in a dark alley by a guy she'd talked to in a bar earlier that evening. The defence argued that because she'd talked to him (cctv footage and witness statements) and some women liked rough sex (she was left bloodied and bruised by the assault that accompanied the rape) it was all consensual. The jury didn't convict.

(There's a case where an inquisitorial system might well work better. My understanding is at the moment the prosecution have no right to know what direction the defence will take things in - in this case, the prosecution might have been served better by being able to ask the woman whether in this case she was prepared to waive her right not to have her own past sexual history discussed, in order to establish that she had never, ever been interested in rough sex. But in the current system this would count as coaching the witness and wouldn't be allowed.)

If a woman who is capable of consenting then reports the act as rape then that ISN'T a "misunderstanding" it's a false rape allegation.

The first one, I can't comment on without having been there. Presumably your friend didn't notice he was fucking an unhappy woman?

WhenIreported

Yes because that was the woman's story as well. She never denied that consent was given, or that any further alcohol was consumed etc. She just told anyone who would listen that it 'wasnt valid' because she had been drinking. When it was pointed out to her that by that rule, she had also technically sexually assaulted the man, it didn't go down well.

Anyway, examples given.