A very compelling reason not to report rape

Thanks for the link TulipsinParis - but the Guardian's article contradicts the Professor's paper. The issue is not whether the ex-boyfriend spent time in Prison - everyone agrees he did. The issue is whether he was charged or not. The Guardian says he was. The professor says not.

Ultimately, what I am asking is why was it that the Police decided to prosecute Brooker - and that is also what the Professor's account is seeking to explain. But her account is nonsense. A man being held lawfully on remand for 37 days before the CPS decide to discontinue with the prosecution is not going to worry the Police in the least - the average time for people spending time on remand is 10 weeks (70 days roughly) - many of those being acquitted at the end (according to the Prison Reform Trust).

Legal or not, the man Rhiannon accused was held in custody for 37 days. Read all about it in the Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/05/law-graduate-guilty-falsely-accusing-boyfriend-rape

So the claim that the professor was lying is a lie.

Perhaps you could try in plain English and less words?

OK, I'll give it a go....

In England & Wales you cannot hold someone in prison for a month without that person having been charged. When the professor says you can, she is lying.

www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody

Borisbike747: I agree; personal attacks are not cool. People do that when they can't argue on substance.

The whole point of this thread is holding the CPS to account for prosecuting vulnerable women. If there are things that are unclear or dubious about a case, that is a reason for more transparency and a full inquiry, not less. Why did the Attorney General just recently refuse to call a public inquiry into Eleanor's death? Is he afraid of what such an inquiry would show? He made that announcement right before the Buzzfeed article came out. Strange timing. Why, there had been calls for such an inquiry for months?

Now MPs are starting to express concern, thankfully. See Buzzfeed follow up:

www.buzzfeed.com/janebradley/mps-have-criticised-britains-overly-aggressive-prosecution?utm_term=.ooV2zpv6E#.oewyXv4qn

sawdustformypony: Resorting to personal attacks on an author is a surefire way to lose an argument. I could care less whether she is from America, Australia, or from Mars – the important thing is to engage with the issues. Or maybe you’re mocking her because you have a problem with women professors. You should take your offensive posts elsewhere.

The only substantive argument you made is based on a flawed premise. It is undisputed that the man Rhiannon accused was actually held in custody, and the CPS/police paid him off for that time. And all that was before Rhiannon was charged with PCJ. So yes, this case is quite odd – but these facts are not in dispute, and they support the need to hold the CPS to account.

More to follow obvs....any questions? Do try to stay on subject ladies! 🙄

Shame isnt it golden

I did mention the debunk of the prof's nonsense might be lengthy - but not as long as her jackanory.

Borisbike747

So reverting to the Professor's "especially good and convincing" narrative again, she writes

Their reasoning was that because Brooker’s ex-partner had spent about a month in jail while the rape allegations were investigated. page 494

and

They needed a way to explain to the public why the ex-partner had been held in prison for 30 days and then released without ever being charged same page

Not so much the why - answer the how first - How do the Police get somebody held in prison for 30 days without ever being charged.
Maybe the Professor has strange ideas about quaint British ways - maybe she imagines something like Bunty the big cheese from Avon & Somerset ringing up Charles, the Governor at the local nick on the dog and bone to ask a favour.

Maybe along these lines ?

Hello Charles, how are you?
Bunty, how are you, Sheila told me you might be ringing - lovely to see at the cricket last Sunday
Yes very enjoyable – I bowled a maiden over!
Err, is that wise these days?
Anyway, I’m in a bit of a fix, the reason I’m ringing is we got this chap, apparently not enough evidence to charge him at the moment – namby-bamby CPS for you - its only a matter of time I feel, but damn and blast, the custody officer has thrown a spanner in the works and tells me that time is up and we have to release him on police bail with conditions while we carry out further investigations – it’s the law apparently. Look I’m not awfully keen on that idea – I wondered if you might put him up for a bit – say a couple of weeks?
Couple of weeks? – your chap bit short on the evidence front doing a sort of bunk up with my remanded and convicted chaps ?
Yes!

mmm…might we get a court order remanding him in prison or ….
Like I said rotten luck, he’s not been charged – so he’s not been before the beaks – go on be a chum !
Well yes, why not – what could possibly go wrong. You’re not worried about time limits under PACE then ?
Nah…as if.
Well we’re all having tea and ice-cream on the lawn this afternoon – bring him around I can introduce him to some of the chaps but I can’t promise there’ll be enough sandwiches to go around.
Splendid – you still up for a glass of Port at the George and Patriarchy next Wednesday
Rather!

Could this ever happen ? No. Yes, the Police and Prison Service are batting on the same side but they are separate organisations - the Police cant get people remanded in custody in prisons by asking nicely - there are rules (this ain't Nam - courtesy The Big Lebowski). Its the Courts that make these remand orders on people that have been charged with serious offences.

Hard to believe of a Professor of Law ? - but damn, she clearly has no idea what she is talking about ...and if none of that could ever happen - the rest of her explanations as to the Police motives melt away PDQ.

Borisbike747 and others that are interested in this matter - hopefully you have had a chance to look at those pages from the CPS.

Clearily in the life of a prosecution there is a pre-charge stage and a post-charge stage. Pre-charge stage the Police can only hold suspects for a limited amount of time before charging them - in the vast majority of cases this is 24 hours. Sometimes - and these really are the exceptions a senior police officer can authorise the extension of detention - but there must be good reasons for it. If the Police want further time then they need to apply to a Magistrates' Court for a warrant - very rare they need to do this. But, goodness gracious, this is the Land of Magna Carta after all, so even then the time is limited to 96 hours - the Police take these time limits very seriously and there is an officer called a custody officer - an sergeant whose role it is to manage the custody suite and ensure these time limits are strictly observed.

The prof has Brooker's ex-partner in prison for 30 days pre-charge !

Fairies at the bottom of the garden ? - maybe.
Arrested person in E&W held without being charged in prison (!!) for 30 days ?- No.

So you may say - charge or no charge ? so what, sawdust you silly sausage ? - well its commonplace for post-charge person to be held in prison. The prison reform trust has published numbers in relation to these remand prisoners - here is a link to the report . As you will see 30 days is not at all unusual for remand prisoners, with the average time being more than double that.....so if the Police in the Prof's narrative are in a tizzy then we must be imagining somebody thats not been charged - as she says so herself....

Anyway back later, my work beckons for the moment, more to follow obvs - any questions so far ? (try to keep it relevant if possible)

Borisbike747

Maybe lets get started with a bit of background with a link to bail from the CPS website, to whet your appetite - and there's also a link there on Custody Time Limits (CTL). You know what they say - the devil / crock is in the detail.

Borisbike747 I think at first glance it does appear a convincing account especially if one doesn't have a background as to the sequence of events that occurs between the Police, the CPS and the Courts. But then I started thinking something isn't right here - the more I thought about it the more a 'crock of shite' came into focus. I'll put my criticism in a later post (I fear it might be lengthy) and explain the above sequence and how the Professor's narrative and hypothesis as to why Brooker was charged is...err...open to doubt.

But I'll give you one minor spoiler - the Professor quotes DI Janice Pearson as saying in an interview that the suspect had been on Court bail - but the Courts can't impose bail if there's been no charge - so which is it, does DI Pearson get it wrong or the Prof ?

Tulips, thank you for posting the links - fascinating reading!

Goldenwonderwall, I agree - shocking how police/CPS don't even follow their own guidance. And it sounds like these prosecutions are politically motivated at times, to placate the men's lobby and satisfy them that the CPS is willing to prosecute allegedly false allegations of rape and not just rape. Scary since there is a lot more rape than there is false allegations of rape.

sawdustformypony, I've read that article and I thought that section on Rhiannon Brooker that you mentioned was especially good and convincing. I don't see any merit to your criticism because the author is mostly drawing directly from police documents there, and grounding what she concludes on those documents. According to the documents the author quotes from, Rhiannon was actually charged because the police were scared that the man she accused would make trouble for them since they locked him up for a bit without bothering to collect enough evidence to convict him. I've noticed in other articles that Avon & Somerset Constabulary has one of the worst records when it comes to prosecuting rape so it shouldn't surprise us that this was one of their botched cases.

So sorry for what has happened to Rhiannon, Eleanor, and these other women. And that American girl, Danielle Hicks-Best, she was only 11 years old when charged with a false report! That is well below the statutory age of consent so they definitely had no business charging her! It took a journalist to uncover the wrong done to her.

tulips

And the relationship board has loads of posts asking 'was this rape?' Sometimes the posters is asking about something that happened days or weeks ago

I've read quite a few compilations of statistics, and I've never come across anything that would back that up.

@ReliefOfChaos Wed 04-Jul-18 07:57:00Where on Earth could you possibly get that information from bewilderness?

My employment. But you need not take my word for it. There are compilations of statistics and records of investigative procedures that bear out what I said.

GoldenWonderwall, I was pretty shocked and horrified by those social media posts by AE too. It really makes you wonder. Glad you are finding the links helpful!

FuckLush, you obviously have not read the articles at the links I posted as the professor debunks each of the arguments you raise. E.g. it is common for rape victims to blame themselves after being raped, particularly when an acquaintance rapes them. The articles address all of the other issues too, so you might begin with them.

GoldenWonderwall - did you read the 2nd link ? I read the part about Rhiannon Brooker pages 492-494. It put it politely - she doesn't know what she's talking about when it comes to police/cps/court procedure in England - shocking thing is she appears to be making a living from it. wow.

It doesn't harm Rich men's

Rich men like Alexander Economou.

Unfortunately, that mahogany bellend in the White House is proof that allegations (false or true) do not harm men’s reputations

It doesn't harm Rich men's, No.

Actually this is pretty pointless. I'm wasting everyone's time here. This board is far more interested in politics than any semblance of justice. I'm out.