A good job there aren't many men on MN

[Truckulent]

I think men would be shocked at the level of resentment leveled at them on MN. Almost a seething mass of contempt at times.

I'm a man, been on here for years. And I was surprised by it.

AIBU to think it's a good job there aren't many men on here, or would more men posting help men and women understand each other better?

The only thing which I think is a problem is the completely different response a man would get compared to a woman about a problem.

I have seen male posters talk about how they have been verbally abusive etc and that they are trying to change and fix things with their wife. Such men normally get hammered by posters either for being abusive or for trying to look for sympathy. However if a woman posts about how she thinks she has been verbally abusive etc you get a lot of posts which basically start looking for ways to blame the husband for her behaviour or that she is stressed/depressed and this is just a problem she needs to work through.

LTW is a senior police officer responsible for rape-management policies within the Police Service. ?

You have just singlehandedly, and in the space of two shockingly blase posts, confirmed to me why successful prosecution of rape cases is terrifyingly low, and why many women find the process of going through it worse than the rape itself

Well it comes as no surprise that a police officer isn't that interested in rape.

Why do you think that the default position legally, appears to be that unless a woman says no in a clear and audible way in front of other witnesses (something we are conditioned not to do from birth), she should be assumed to be in a permanent state of consent, Windward? Why don't you think defendents are questioned about how they ascertained consent, what their attitudes are to sex, consent, rape etc.? Why d'you think that it is the behaviour, attitudes and outlook of the victim, rather than the perpetrator, which goes on trial in a rape case? Don't you think those things might have more to do with the piss-poor conviction rate, (to say nothing of the abysmal failure of most police forces to do a proper investigation) than the fact that it is usually a private act that takes place in public?

Why do you think up to 85% of rapes aren't even reported? Do you honestly think that that is an acceptable state of affairs and that we should just put up with it? Don't you believe in the rule of law, I mean, you're a police officer, this is pretty discouraging.

Well of course we can do better and I don't think there's anyone out there who says otherwise - and not just for rape cases.

Many crimes do indeed boil down to one persons word against another but not many crimes look to criminalise a behaviour that in 99% of cases is completely legal based on the opinion of one of the involved parties.

Like I say, for assault we can use physical injuries or fingerprints or DNA. For criminal damage we can use CCTV or witness statements. Physical evidence and witnesses. We don't have these for most cases of rape because the issue usually isn't "did sex occur" but "did consensual sex occur" and that consensual bit is really really difficult to establish - certainly to the standards required to achieve a criminal prosecution.

I do think there is a problem with how rape cases are handled but I don't consider it more important than any other number of issues that modern policing face. I.e. I consider the UK's policy around drug prohibition much more of a pressing issue.

I appreciate that on a largely female orientated forum DV and rape are likely to be issues close to many people here but no more than issues that any other demographic relate to.

"LTW is a senior police officer responsible for rape-management policies within the Police Service. "

No I'm not. Please read what I post and not what you think I post.

LookToWindward bloody hell you are a police officer and this your attitude to rape:

"It boils down to one persons word against another and unless we make some pretty major changes to the UK's legal system, this is very hard to establish 'beyond all reasonable doubt'."

One persons word against another.

That's what I used to think before I bothered to look into it.
Have you read the ICC reports re Kirk and Worboys?

Worboys was identified and the police could have gone round to his house and found evidence of the champagne and drugs he was using on his victims. But they just didn't believe the victims...

If the police have the attitude of "he said/she said" then they aren't bothering to look for corroborating evidence.

I am actualy genuinely quite gutted that you're a police officer.

I saw you saying you are a senior woman and quoting stats re rapes and I was thinking about how I could respond (whilst in the bath ) - and it motivated me to find the link to this interview with the Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini - the interview talks about how she's changed how sexual offenses are investigatged and prosecuted in Scotland.

(I will have to re-listen and start a new thread about this I think).

I think LTW is correct. The issue is not whether rape is right/wrong. It's clearly wrong. But the real issue is if you want to up the conviction rate, what are you willing to sacrifice?

Are you happy to lower the burden of proof?

Or how about throw away the principle that defendants are innocent until proven guilty?

I understand what your saying about proof i.e. you can prove that sexual intercourse occurred but you have to provide evidence that rape occurred in order to take to court. Which can be difficult if there is no additional evidence of the violent nature of the crime such as bruises etc.

However LTW the problem is not with conviction in court it is with the initial stages of investigation.

Look, I'm a relatively senior police officer in the North of England. My work indirectly helps to form policy for police authorities across the UK.

LTW, I just read what you typed. No more, no less. Of course, I don't think you are individually responsible for rape policy within the police force. But you say your work contributes to it.

Which leads me to conclude your downplaying attitude towards rape is rather worrying.

how about bloody well believing the victims and looking for evidence for a start.

Niceguy2 - please read this

That report recommends:

o Primary investigation training covering first response to rape and serious sexual
assault, to be provided to all first response officers from PCSO to Inspector;

o An obligation on boroughs to ensure that investigation of allegations of rape and
sexual assault are carried out with sensitivity ? when closing an investigation
personal contact to be made with the victim;

o Intelligence checks in accordance with revised Standard Operating Procedures to
assist the identification and linking of serial offences;

o Mandatory requirement for documented forensic intervention on all serious sexual
offences;

o Central Sapphire team to assess borough compliance with 24 hour and 7 day
reviews by supervisory officers;

o The responsibility for the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences
transferred to the new Serious Crime Directorate command in September 2009.
All investigations are now supervised by an independent crime management unit
and a new dedicated management

Really shocking that these sorts of thing were not done already.

So no, Niceguy2 it's not about what we are willing to sacrifice/lowering the burdent of proof - it's about believing the victims in the first place and bothering to investigate the crime reported.

This will up the conviction rate.

Then we need to continue to bust rape myths.

Ahh yes, the find one example and club someone to death for it because their post didn't cater for every eventuality.

From what I read, LTW has not said he doesn't care about rape or thinks its a waste of time. He is simply pointing out the practical difficulties of gaining a criminal conviction.

He's not downplaying rape itself, merely pointing out that it is in many cases extremely difficult for the reasons he's already stated.

But hey, keep poking him with pitchforks for daring to point out unpopular facts.

Yes Niceguy I'd be happy to lower the burden of proof. At the moment, unlike for any other crime, you need to have no doubt whatsoever that the rape took place. I'd be happy with the burden of proof being reduced to what it is for every other crime - beyond reasonable doubt.

Currently, even unreasonable doubt is being used to let rapists walk free. As in the case where a young woman was pulled down an alley in a classic stranger rape and the rapist's defence was that she had asked him for rough sex and he reluctantly obliged. The jury were so desperate to let a rapist walk free, that they chose to believe that that doubt, which by most people standards stretches all credulity, was reasonable.

Yeah, reasonable doubt would be good in a case like that.

How's your force doing on those LookToWindward .

Ha Ha Ha Niceguy2

"He's not downplaying rape itself, merely pointing out that it is in many cases extremely difficult for the reasons he's already stated."

You will need to cross this off the list you keep of "man-hating" on MN. .

LookToWindward said upthread:

"And I post all this as a woman holding a relatively senior job in an organisation that historically has been extremely "macho" male profession."

I guess you assumed senior police officer = man.

Stacey, well as far as I am aware, rape convictions need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt just like any other criminal offence.

It's impossible to say every case is proven as every person has a different opinion. The key opinions which matter are that of the judge & jury.

Don't forget that 50% of the population are female. Juror's who are acquitting rapists are 50% of the time women.

Niceguy...is LTW a man then ?

stupid, and pretty obvious mistake to make Niceguy

you fell right into that one

I must have missed that bit Tabouleh. Well done. I made a mistake. Man making a mistake eh? Who'd have thought! eh?

Interesting then isn't it that a woman should heaven forbid be not interested in rape? You'd have thought she'd be stood along side you in some sort of female solidarity.

Wait...or perhaps evidence is needed. Nah, surely not. The MN mafia knows best.

Ah Niceguy2 - good of you to come back. I was wondering if you would.

You said: "But the real issue is if you want to up the conviction rate, what are you willing to sacrifice?

Are you happy to lower the burden of proof?

Or how about throw away the principle that defendants are innocent until proven guilty?"

No need to sacrifice any of those and to suggest that would be necessary is to display a fundamental ignorance about the way rape trials are conducted. If you are genuinely interested in a discussion perhaps read some of the links posted above?

I would be very willing to sacrifice the fact that rape victims are the only crime victims who have their previous sexual history dragged into court as 'evidence' of their consent. If they're not a virgin they must have consented right? After all if a judge can say an 11 year old peadophile's victim was 'no angel' all women (and girls it seems) are now 'asking for it' just be the mere fact that they have previously had sex.

As I posted above when do you see a victim of a mugging asked about how careful they have previously been with their belongings; when do you see a victim of assault being asked about if they've ever indulged in a bit of consensual horse-play or a contact sport? Never - because the default position is NOT to assume consent in one set of circumstance applies to THIS set of circumstances. That's just taking each case on its facts. Even convicted rapists are entitled and able to hide their previous convictions from the jury until they have made their decision - not so for the rape victim. The jury can hear all about her sex life.

Niceguy, you just don't pass muster (on the intelligence of your arguments) I am afraid

an error like that just illustrates your stance on the whole thing, without you even saying very much at all

then you try and turn someone pulling you up on it as the work of "MN Mafia"

silly really, and not worth the screen time