Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

More than one “woman” a week prosecuted for rape?!?!

492 replies

Cwenthryth · 27/09/2021 23:07

I just saw this on Twitter

twitter.com/profalices/status/1442415750497509380?s=21

Between 2012 and 2018, 436 individuals prosecuted for rape in England and Wales were recorded as women.
www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-citizen-participation-and-public-petitions-committee/correspondence/2021/pe1876_h-professor-alice-sullivan-submission-of-27-august-2021

I’m shocked at this statistic. Yes, a small proportion of these may be women charged with rape by joint enterprise. Prof Sullivan posted on Twitter she has requested to separate out those cases. But, as under the law in England and Wales, rape is a crime committed with a penis….. so these (alleged) rapists are “bodies with penises” being recorded as women in crime stats. So transwomen, right? So what does this mean….436 (alleged) transwomen rapists in 6 years? That is more than one a week. In England & Wales.

Have I misunderstood that? I’m really shocked.

OP posts:
Helleofabore · 27/10/2021 11:20

The line is building I see, waiting for any evidence that robin has any credibility at all.

And then maybe robin can inform the MoJ the correct figures that they have not been able to collate. Or to at least provide them with the reason why they have no stats to answer the questions they are asked.

And maybe, just maybe the people that have gone through and researched the actual number of trans people committing crimes recorded as female might be onto the right information and robin has nothing to support their credibility but fat fingers and tin foil hats…

InspiralCoalescenceRingdown · 27/10/2021 11:16

Entering something correctly 97 times out of 100 is actually a really really high rate of accuracy. 436 errors in ten thousand cases is good, not bad.

Have you got any evidence for this, or is it just something you made up?

Helleofabore · 27/10/2021 11:14

And fuck! Those feminists can only focus on one thing at a time!

You all should be looking at this squirrel

—>

Helleofabore · 27/10/2021 11:12

Actually I am waiting for you to tell us what direct experience you have with the finalization of the crime stat records.

CorrBlimeyGG · 27/10/2021 11:12

There was I thinking that the concern was about the real life impact on women.

Indeed. These 'feminists' are not in the least bit interested in the impact of austerity on women, about discrimination in the workplace, or even about the 98+% of sexual offences committed by men. They're more focused on the

Helleofabore · 27/10/2021 11:11

It is a grey squirrel… but let’s ignore the influence of those squirrels…

robinr66 · 27/10/2021 11:11

Please, tell me what my intention is. I assume you think its to engage in some kind of trans AstroTurfing, courtesy of my secret Trans United Nations World Government paymasters?

Helleofabore · 27/10/2021 11:10

Also I think you need to put your tin foil hat back on.

Shall I post the MoJ statements in one of the latest court hearings about how they have no idea which prisoners are trans and which are not? It seems you have missed quite a bit of the MoJ admitting their own policy loopholes.

But yes, fat fingers, tin foil hats and loons…. Keep on going!

robinr66 · 27/10/2021 11:07

I assume you're being facetious but, yes, this exactly how government data works.

Helleofabore · 27/10/2021 11:07

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Refers to deleted post

Cailleach1 · 27/10/2021 11:07

Well, you are the only poster to mention tin foil hats and loons in your posts. Also, confidence in your own opinion despite the lacking evidence you also mention. Yes, you also prejudice and ignorance in your posts too. Freudian slips, maybe?

robinr66 · 27/10/2021 11:00

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Cailleach1 · 27/10/2021 10:54

There was I thinking that the concern was about the real life impact on women.

What about the impact on women who are being locked up with male rapists and sexual assailants? Maybe the 'administrative error' could be corrected so that incarcerated women aren't made fair game adversely impacted.

I would also boldly suggest that it needn't be an either/or scenario. Adverse impacts on women, whether they are incarcerated or not, could all be addressed. Certainly if judicial and legal systems have now been skewed and are being run in such a way so as to disbenefit women. The inbuilt disbenefits to women need to be removed.

Or are human rights uniquely finite when it comes to women?

robinr66 · 27/10/2021 10:53

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

TheWatersofMarch · 27/10/2021 10:52

@Babdoc it would be interesting to see if the numbers of increased between 2012 and 2018. I would take a guess that they have.

PlanDeRaccordement · 27/10/2021 10:50

@NecessaryScene

But, as under the law in England and Wales, rape is a crime committed with a penis….. so these (alleged) rapists are “bodies with penises” being recorded as women in crime stats. So transwomen, right?

You can't necessarily conclude that purely from the letter of the law.

For whatever reason, in the 2000s (I think) there was a drive to make the law sex-neutral here. But it appears they decided it was easier to have that effect by changing sentencing guidelines than the law itself.

So the guidelines say that for all practical purposes any form of "sexual assault by penetration" is sentenced the same as rape ("sexual assault by penis"), and the two are grouped together in the stats, despite "rape" still being a different offense.

If you look at the small print for the "rape" stats, you'll probably see that it encompasses offense codes 14 ("rape") and 21D ("sexual assault - penetration"). (Not sure of the code numbers - that's just an illustrative example. I've looked at this in the past, so recall how it worked).

HOWEVER, yes, given male/female offending behaviour it seems likely to me that a large number of those recorded for rape/penetration will be transwomen, most of the rest will be female accomplices, and there will be very few female perpetrators. But I don't know that we can see the data to be certain.

Great post. This is most probably the reason imho.

Besides, everyone is ignoring the fact that even if 52 women a year ARE doing “sexual assault by penetration” or female equivalent of rape that it is still less than 0.1% of the rate at which men rape....

We all know that a woman can sexually assault a man...the real point is that it’s very rare.

robinr66 · 27/10/2021 10:47

Because, as I said, rape can and is committed by women.

robinr66 · 27/10/2021 10:46

You misunderstand. Assuming I'm right (and I'm confident I am, based on my experience of large databases) this isn't a question of men being prosecuted as women. It's simply the wrong box being ticked on CPS systems. The only effect it will have is to make the data wrong. Names and titles will be entered separately so it will be obvious what the person's gender is supposed to be and that will be used for the prosecution. But there'll be a tiny box on gender that has the wrong option ticked. And that box is what's reported on in their MI.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 27/10/2021 10:41

So why didn't we see these data entry errors before? Why hasn't anybody senior reviewing them said go back and check, rape can only be committed by a bio male, these stats don't seem right?

robinr66 · 27/10/2021 10:41

I agree that its an interesting question but I don't see that it has any crime prevention value - why do think it does?

I'd prefer the CPS spent the time prosecuting rapists than chasing down tiny data errors.

Helleofabore · 27/10/2021 10:40

And these so called errors are never picked up during the process of investigation to the point of prosecution?

Please tell us what direct experience do you have in this instance robin.

Because it sounds to me like further minimising of the effect that male crimes are deliberately recorded as female as per the policy of the organisation doing that collation.

Cailleach1 · 27/10/2021 10:40

@MrsOvertonsWindow

Good to see this thread being kept bumped - thank you robinr66 for your interesting "thoughts" about fat fingers. Grin
This has put the notion in my mind that some people are maintaining that the forms must be completely hit and miss because of the 'fat fingers' syndrome.

There could be loads of British people listed as Bulgarians instead of British as they would be nearby on any list. Mind you, the Bulgarians could be listed as British.

What else, Londoners down as Lutonians and vice versa?

How many British males resident in London are listed as Bulgarian females residing in Luton? Very easy mistake due to 'fat fingers'.

Goodness, the details form must be pot luck from beginning to end.

robinr66 · 27/10/2021 10:34

Of course they should do - but people are human. Entering something correctly 97 times out of 100 is actually a really really high rate of accuracy. 436 errors in ten thousand cases is good, not bad.

In terms of the direction of the error, as the vastly overwhelming majority of rapes are committed by men, the error will always be from male > female.

ScreamingMeMeSawUs · 27/10/2021 10:16

Whatever the reason for these numbers is, surely it's essential to drill down and see what's going on? Isn't that useful for crime prevention?

MrsOvertonsWindow · 27/10/2021 09:54

Good to see this thread being kept bumped - thank you robinr66 for your interesting "thoughts" about fat fingers. Grin