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:
LassWiADelicateAir · 02/04/2018 19:59

'AIBU to think that If you reported a burglary you'd expect to be believed'. How does that sound?

No. At the reporting stage the police should not assume you are telling the truth or lying.

whereverialaymyhat · 02/04/2018 19:50

But, you know, he was a friend I'd had (protected) sex with before.

The decision not to charge in my case includes the words "he would have no reason to believe that she did not want sex again as she had agreed earlier in the evening, although this cannot be presumed it is a reasonable assumption"

No reason. I consented to protected sex earlier in the evening. Therefore there is NO REASON for him to assume I wouldn't want to be impregnated by him.

whereverialaymyhat · 02/04/2018 19:47

WRT to the ABH / breaking nose issue...

The thing I found most disturbing about my rape (and I speak ONLY for myself here, no other victim) is that he didn't use protection, ejaculated, put me at risk off STDs and did actually impregnate me.

So he physically altered my biological state (non-pregnant to pregnant) without my consent.

Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 19:34

Ereshkigal

  • wow and yes

I wonder if there will further on this - are any of you twitterers? Is there anything on there or anyhting? (don't know how it works maybe I need an account!)

OP posts:
Ereshkigal · 02/04/2018 19:25

It reminds me of when David Cameron said he was going to make child poverty a thing of the past and then literally did this by getting rid of the child poverty index.

CertainHalfDesertedStreets · 02/04/2018 19:22

Oh god no don't apologise for disagreeing! Like I say I might be being a bit naive here Smile.

Elendon · 02/04/2018 18:41

Sexual violence:

kareningalasmith.com/counting-dead-women/

rapecrisis.org.uk/

www.womensaid.org.uk/

www.refuge.org.uk/

Sexual assault:

I don't know

Why don't you tell me OP what comes under this heading?

All I know is that you cannot conflate the two.

Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 17:40

Thanks though and sorry I argued back Smile knee jerk!

I really don't trust the police and about more than this so there's that on top of the feminist thing.

OP posts:
Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 17:36

Yes true Certain.

I just can't imagine what else she means though that the police are actually having to spend significant resource investigating.

It's a real worry.

Maybe she will clarify.

OP posts:
HairyBallTheorem · 02/04/2018 17:22

Chaos: "They're justifying a resource decision by trivialising the whole issue."

Absolutely my thought on reading the article. The police have fucked up a number of prosecutions through straightforward incompetence, and brought a number of prosecutions which should never have been made and which collapsed at the eleventh hour due to extra evidence (which the police had lost/sat on) not being disclosed - i.e. more police incompetence. And now they're trying to shift the blame around. "It wasn't our incompetence, it was that some nasty women lie, so we're not even going to try to pursue date rape cases any more - look, no more police incompetence, because if we don't do anything at all we can't do that thing incompetently."

CertainHalfDesertedStreets · 02/04/2018 17:02

Ok. Well you asked a couple of times if your reading was 'off' initially. And I think it is - a bit. And I thought that was helpful since you had asked.

But I also think it's an awful statement so we can agree there. Smile

Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 16:50

I don't think that police make statements, however casual sounding, without an awful lot of thought.

If it is open to interpretation then that is deliberate.

Are large numbers of women reporting men to the police for moving in for a snog and stopping when she moved away? I suspect not.

OP posts:
MrsHathaway · 02/04/2018 16:49

I don't think she means that. I do think her choice of words leaves space for people to infer it, though.

CertainHalfDesertedStreets · 02/04/2018 16:46

I know all that Dukes. I'm not disagreeing with any of it. I think she means men making clumsy passes at women by, for e.g, moving in for a snog or groping them. Groping them being obviously entirely unacceptable.

I think she should be much more careful what she says. I think the climate at the moment is appalling and her words need to be judged against that, I think that some people will want to read this as 'see, this whole business has gone too far'. I think all of that means this is a terrible, ill judged statement and sets us back a long way.

But do I think she's saying that date rape isn't a police matter? No, I don't read it like that.

Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 16:37

Yeah I don't really understand that comment either

OP posts:
Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 16:36

Sexual violence and sexual assault mean crimes that are motivated by sex as in intercourse.

Nothing to do with sex (m/f) or gender.

Much of it is committed by one sex though and rape law is specific around penis (which used to mean male perp, now, whatever, who cares about stats).

OP posts:
Chaosandchocolate · 02/04/2018 16:35

Sexual violence and sexual assault should not be conflated.

Can you explain please?

Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 16:34

Women don't go to the police when they are raped FFS

She knows this.

The thing about past offences too, what is the impact there for historical CSA. Like the sports coach, these things often come out years later.

OP posts:
Original poster
TheDukesOfHazzard · 02/04/2018 16:33

Certain half deserted, is the context of the police, reported crime, cuts, and what we know if under reporting / conviction rates, what do you think she means?

"And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, " these are excuses that men often make for sex offences.

Women don't go to the police because a man they don't fancy asks them out.

OP posts:
Elendon · 02/04/2018 16:19

Sexual violence and sexual assault should not be conflated.

Regarding the word 'sexual' what does this mean?

Is it related to sex? Sex as a class?

Certainly it's not gender.

Gender assault and gender violence certainly doesn't cut it.

CertainHalfDesertedStreets · 02/04/2018 16:18

I suppose I'm just having trouble reading this clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, as meaning date rape.

Maybe I'm being naive...

gluteustothemaximus · 02/04/2018 16:03

I'm beginning to think that cases of sexual violence and child abuse should be taken out of the hands of the police and be dealt with an entirely different criminal justice system, designed to support the victim so that they are not retraumatised dozens of times through the process

YES. But I don't know what.

I think it should be a version of civil court, but without fees or compensation involved. But perhaps once balance of probabilities has been proven, then the rapist/attacker can have punishment via community service and rehabilitation, and the woman can have the 'justice' in being believed and the attacker having some consequences.

LangCleg · 02/04/2018 15:47

It's one thing for people in the police to think this (we know many do), but to officially announce it? Is this fucking Gilead?

This.

I'm beginning to think that cases of sexual violence and child abuse should be taken out of the hands of the police and be dealt with an entirely different criminal justice system, designed to support the victim so that they are not retraumatised dozens of times through the process.

Chaosandchocolate · 02/04/2018 14:57

They're justifying a resource decision by trivialising the whole issue.

gluteustothemaximus · 02/04/2018 14:49

"If it's a long time ago, or it's very trivial, or I'm not likely to get a criminal justice outcome, I'm not going to spend a lot of resources on it"

I did try to say that the Police are shite when it comes to female sexual assault and rape. I got shot down for it with 'but not all police, and but what about the cuts, and it's not their fault'.

The problem is, MOST rapes are via someone you know. It's more than likely to be in a house, it's more than likely there are no witnesses, and it doesn't always end in injury (so no physical evidence), so it's very very very unlikely that you will ever get a criminal conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

This says to me, that women (already) don't report, are even more likely now to not report (after the rugby rape trial - which had EVIDENCE), and more so now after this statement - and women accept sexual assault and rape as part of being a woman.

Sad