Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Met Police change rape guidelines - shocker of a quote from cressida dick

118 replies

TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 13:06

A few articles today - this evening standard one is not paywalled.

It's interesting. Partly because the lack of disclosure was across all crimes, but the press focus in on rape (most of us will know why).

Secondly because the "We believe you" thing was - on MN at least - never about unquestioningly believing a report at all times no matter what. It was a reaction to two things:

  • Cases where women (and chidlren, probabyl men too) had reported and the police said I don't believe you go away - Saville etc Warboys had this too
  • Cases where a woman had reported a rape and immediately the police had started investigating her, and not investigating the actual crime she had reported at all

So the idea that they treat victims with dignity and respect and go and investigate is fine - I mean who wanted anything else Confused

The part that concerns me A LOT is this at the end:

"She reportedly added: "And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.""

This (to me) is a clear reference to "date rape" / sexual assault when the victim knows the assailant, and it happens behind closed doors, isn't it? I can't see another reading of it.

WTF?

OP posts:
TheBatPig · 02/04/2018 23:23

And I have to say, I dont think anyone deserves friendliness unconditionally. Politeness yes, but thats not what it says

Ereshkigal · 02/04/2018 23:23

How does that message (re sexual assault) square with this stance on hate crime?

Batshit crazy.

TheBatPig · 02/04/2018 23:21

I have been in the same situation. Didn't report cos I was living with the guy at the time. And the only reason I didn't fight it was cos I didnt want to be beaten up. Again. So there's that. Which is not a hate crime btw.

Aoifeaye · 02/04/2018 23:19

I'm sure I'm not alone in not reporting a rape, partly because I thought (and I would say thought rightly) that it would not get taken seriously. Meanwhile, unfriendliness is a crime. What a joke.

TheBatPig · 02/04/2018 23:18

So in order to convict, they do not need to prove hate crime, only that the victim felt it was such. This is So much a world apart from trying to get a case prosecuted for sexual assault it's unreal.

TheBatPig · 02/04/2018 23:16

Well I'd have said not, but that slide is from a police training thing on hate crime. So who knows?

Aoifeaye · 02/04/2018 23:12

Unfriendliness can count as a hate crime? Confused

TheBatPig · 02/04/2018 23:10

Because on the one hand they are saying you won't automatically be believed/taken seriously. And on the other, re hate crime they are essentially saying no proof is required?

TheBatPig · 02/04/2018 23:08

How does that message (re sexual assault) square with this stance on hate crime?

Met Police change rape guidelines - shocker of a quote from cressida dick
Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 22:49

Well quite.

This is why we aren't a hate crime category as well

OP posts:
whereverialaymyhat · 02/04/2018 21:49

Personally, I think that if 85% of your customers aren't even bothering you with their complaint then you should attempt to deal graciously with the 15% that throw themselves into this system and count yourself lucky.

Imagine how overwhelmed they'd be if 100% of victims were reporting?

Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 21:44

This is the thing.

They are intimating that women and girls lying about rape is a big problem in order to cover their own arses where they've fucked up investigations,

And are saying in future they won't bother.

In real life, outside the MRA forums, we KNOW that while treatment of rape victims has apparently improved, still most rapes aren't reported and of the ones that are, few go to trial.

The statement would have the public believe that the police have been "believing" witnesses to the point that they havent' investigated and have gone straight to court on her word, probably over trivial things that were actually misunderstandings. This is just not true is it.

So really she is smearing women, reinforcing rape myths, to distract from their internal fuck ups (which were across all categories of crime) and to divert budget from sex offences committed on child-bearing age women and girls by men that know them.

Awesome.

OP posts:
whereverialaymyhat · 02/04/2018 21:36

Almost 3/4 of reports of rapes aren't referred to CPS

My case is an example of one that didn't make it. I've exercised my right to review. They've reviewed my case without viewing my videostatement.

The problem isn't just the cases that fail at court (though that is very understandably a big problem).

It's that only 85% get reported. Then when they do, almost 3/4 aren't referred to CPS.

So around 3/4 of cases are being screened out not by trained lawyers, but by police officers who say things like:

"he would have no reason to believe that she did not want sex again as she had agreed earlier in the evening." and the case is closed and not referred to CPS.

What happens in Court is the tip of the iceberg.

Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 21:35

And this mainly shows up around sex offences, DV, child abuse (which to be fair is committed by women a lot, minus the sex element usually).

Are the police allowed to decide to essentially decriminalise things?

OP posts:
Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 21:34

Before someone says women do it too yes they do but in v small numbers + women have not historically run the country / justice system / police / made the laws & etc & they came out of property law so is it surprising that men have failed to put in place a system which mainly restricts men and where the victims are mainly women and children.

The law has a very male view of the world. Things that are bad that happen mainly to men are recognised as bad - things that are bad that happen mainly to women and children are much less well catered to.

OP posts:
Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 21:31

Fucking hell wherever.

I agree with someone upthread (or different thread) who said they are coming to the conclusion that the police / cimrinal justice system are completely incapable of dealing with men's sex offending and a different approach needs to be taken (what?).

Off the back of the police saying they aren't going to bother with men viewing images of child sex abuse that are "low level" as there are too many and it's overwhelming the system.

You don;t give men green light to commit sex offences just because you can't deal with the volume - and this is the same approach the met are takign towards sexual assault and ?rape between people who know each other.

The bit about not bothering with historic sex offences is worrying - the football coach would not have gone to prison then, just don't bother with it?

OP posts:
Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 21:12

This underlines that women and girls over a certain age >> there is a presumption that we are consenting at all times.

Why is this? It's such obvious shite.

OP posts:
whereverialaymyhat · 02/04/2018 21:12

I exercised my Victim Right to Review and had the case reviewed.

The Chief Inspect who reviewed my case states that the have been unable to view my videostatement.

They have therefore reviewed my case without...well...looking at my evidence.

I have no right to further appeal this, as far as I can tell.

Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 21:10

The previous posiiton where the police turned away people who reported sex offences, or immediately started to investigate them was not reasonable, @lass. That is why we had we believe you on MN - because the initial reaction from society and the authorities was that the woman (or older girl) was lying / exaggerating / malicious / etc.

I had no idea that the police had taken a line that with this ONE crime they always totally believed that the report was true always and never ever questioned it etc. In fact >> I don't believe that at all. If a person went in and gave 13 different contradictory stories they wouldn't simultanesouly believe all of them and proceed as best they could.

I suspect that they have said they are "changing" this guidance due to the recent cuts and them fucking up cases left right and centre. Note that the lack of disclosure has affected all crimes, but the media have only focussed on sex offences, and the police have only announced this wrt sex offences ie that if it's someone you know, don't bother.

OP posts:
whereverialaymyhat · 02/04/2018 21:08

DukeofHazzard, that is the exact wording.

It's been reviwed by TWO inspectors.

It's not a PRESUMPTION, but a reasonable assumption apparently.

"He would have no reason to believe she did not want sex again."

whereverialaymyhat · 02/04/2018 21:06

Thank you gluteus, weirdly....I was actually burgled once, by someone I knew. I knew she was a dodgy character. I knew she had keys to my house. She took something valuable of mine while I wasn't at home to guard it. She didn't even leave the property with it, but hid it in the attic so that I would never find it.

She was convicted of burglary.

Nobody ever questioned what I did to bring it on myself or lead her to the assumption that she could take my things. The law was incredibly black and white.

Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 21:05

wherever that's so disturbing

that consensual protected sex early in the evening meant that he could have a reasonable belief that you consented to unprotected sex later in the evening, which is kind of beside the point as you didn't consent.

The way they have put that seems very contradictory it doesn't make sense.

Totally >> thank you for looking on twitter, maybe it will pick up after the bank hols

OP posts:
gluteustothemaximus · 02/04/2018 20:53

Only in rape cases do we have the consent issue.

An intruder comes into the house. You hear him rooting through your belongings and stealing things from your home. You do nothing. Did you consent? Because you said and did nothing?

You are walking home. A person jumps out at you and demands you hand over your wallet/purse. You hand it over. You don't scream. You don't say no. Just give him the wallet. Did you consent to being mugged?

You are jumped on by 2 men. They beat you, and then leave on the ground, battered, bruised and bleeding. You didn't fight back. Maybe you enjoyed the beating? You didn't scream for help, because you had frozen. Did you just consent to a beating?

Only in rape cases do we have the scenario of: why didn't you scream, why didn't you say no, why didn't you run away, why didn't you bite him, why were you there in the first place, what were you wearing, did you encourage him in any way, you must have known what would happen at a house party, maybe you agreed to have sex then regretted it later......etc etc etc etc

It's bizarre isn't it. No other crime is treated in this way.

whereverialaymyhat I am so very very sorry for what happened to you. men who rape (IME) don't use condoms Flowers

Totallymyownperson · 02/04/2018 20:47

Dukes of hazard - couldn't find any outrage on twitter just people approving. The only Ones not agreeing were people who mentioned Asian grooming gang victims who were not believed.
It seems you are only believed you are a sex abuse victim if your attacker is Asian or Muslim or both

thebewilderness · 02/04/2018 20:00

Will they apply this dismissive policy to children who are raped by family members?