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?

BelleDeJour, here is the Home Office crime statistics that includes data on "intimate violence" (starting from page 57) for 2007/08 which is the most recent I've found.

This particular report actually suggests 30% of women and 20% of men have been victims of domestic violence.

I don't know how long you have been on mumsnet, LTW, but your personal attack on dittany is unacceptable and shows you to be misinformed.

Ooh yuk - just saw LTW's 'compliment' ditto what Tabouleh said. No thanks, lady - patronising big-ups I can do without. I don't always agree with Dittany but am always happy to discuss/debate with or read Dittany's views because there's logic, consistency etc - so it's always a worthwhile argument even if I'm on the opposing side.

Contrast with coy references to I might do parking policies, I might not - sure, no one wants to out anyone, but then no one wants to argue with someone who claims a superior knowledge of a subject based on their job (or journals they can't be arsed to look out but can be arsed to quote) and then starts back-tracking on what their job might or might not be. Weird. A 'straw job' perhaps?

From Wikipedia: "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." I really have not seen that happening LTW - perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

"Dittany, she is now saying she said no such thing (about contributing to policy-making)"

Oh fuck me. My work is related to policy. I have not stated whether that policy refers to how police forces handle rape victims or accusations. However I do see the data and I am involved with the decision making process.

You specifically stated that I was responsible for policy around rape (if such a thing existed). This is not true.

Dittany, my point is I don't believe her nor disbelieve her

I just wonder why she felt it necessary to say she contributed to policies within the police force on a discussion about rape, if not to add gravitas to her arguments ??

Anyway, no matter, she is gone.

LookToWindward - have you read this and this - recent threads in the feminism section about rape and sexual assaults.

I think they would inform you!

Also I'd like to ask you if you've read Baroness Stern's report?

I've just had another quick look at it and found the link to the CPS Policy For Prosecuting Rape booklet.

So in there it says:

The police will always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence, or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident) but it is not essential and a prosecution can still go ahead without it.

However, the prosecution must always prove the defendant's guilt. Cases may fail because a jury cannot decide between what the victim says and what the defendant says.

This is why it is essential to obtain all possible forensic and scientific evidence as soon as possible.

The earlier a rape is reported, the higher the chance of this CPS Policy for Prosecuting Cases of Rape being done, and the higher the chance of building a strong prosecution case.

So I go back to the fact that I was that you brought up his word against hers without saying, e.g.

Of course it can be tricky investigating rape when it is he said/she said but of course we always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence,or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident.

I want to hear the police focussing on looking for corroborating/supporting evidence rather than oh it's so difficult - it's he said/she said.

"This coming from a police officer who believes rape is a "behaviour around sex" not a violent crime."

One strawman among many.

PMSL at our standard of debate as being judged as very very poor by LTW.

We are disagreeing with you, robustly. Fair enough not to like it but it is just silly to start throwing your weight around as to the standard of debate.

If we are too thick for you, why bother?

Not gone.

I have answered you in my last post, LTW, and also agree with BDJ

You are being disingenuous and there are only so many ways I can state it.

How is that a strawman? You said it, and clearly believe it.

LookToWindward - I find your "joke"

"Anyway, enough. I have to go in to work tomorrow and find ways of trivialising more crime against women so I'm off to bed."

extremely offensive. .

I wish I could type faster though

Why has this thread turned nasty

Well it seems to be a fairly standard; dittany expresses herself clearly, consistently and uncompromisingly and then another poster attacks her and tells the rest of us not to listen to her.

Lots of us on here have great respect for dittany and all she has brought to discussions about women's issues, so we're a bit pissed off (also we get the hump at being patronised).

I think that's about the long and the short of it.

OK LookToWiwndward - I think you are being very pedantic and as you seem to "prefer" me, try this:

I think you believe rape is a violent crime.

However I find your use of the phrase "behaviour around sex" to be deeply deeply disturbing.

Are you willing to admit that the use of this phrase may be preventing the police force from adequately investigating rapes?

Wht are your thoughts on "believing the victim" being of the utmost importance (and no this does not mean the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

It means that the victim's story is properly investigated and the victim supported on their journey to recovery.

In fact I suspect that if you really think about it this concept of "believing the victim" is not required for other crimes as it is automatic.

However when a rape is reported I think you should get your internal checklists off and item #1 should be "remember to believe the victim".

Was she not being a bit clumsy with her wording. I really don't think its fair to slam the police on one officer being careless with her description

The flashing of 'I know more about this than you lot' credentials, whilst telling us our standard of debate is poor, is probably what is making us not very indulgent of what you are terming 'clumsy wording' huddspur.

hudd, you have it the wrong way around

the police are already slammed, and her comments just added fuel to that particular fire

I too think the comments were clumsy, but her being a senior officer'n'all there really isn't any excuse for it, is there ?

LTW - for sake of clarity I repost your entire post of 22:18

"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. Figures like this are my bread and butter.

I don't have the figures to hand and given the increasingly addled state of my memory I'm willing to accept that I might be referring to old or just plain inaccurate numbers but I'm not seeing anything other than "I don't believe you" to suggest otherwise.

I'm posting here for entertainment, I have nothing to prove and I'm certainly not going to hunt through a filing cabinet for sake of some random on the internet. If you chose not to accept what I say then that's fine but I'm flattered that you think I care.

Rape is a very tricky subject in general. Sex is - most of the time - completely legal and engaged in by most adults on a regular basis. We (rightly) criminalise a very small section of behaviour around sex but because most other criminal acts are just flat out illegal, it's not like drug possession where the kilogramme of coke is physical evidence or aggravated assault where we can use the physical injuries as evidence. We can use forensics to prove what physically happened but we can't prove what goes on in peoples heads.

Unless we make some sweeping changes to the nature of the criminal justice system we're always going to face this issue because jurors are unsurprisingly reluctant to convict someone when it boils down to one persons word against another. I don't see how we can change this without changing society and behaviour."

I understand your point LTW - and I hope I paraphrase correctly lest I be accused of straw manning - but I think you are trying to say because rape cases can often focus on proving/disproving consent, and little other physical evidence (e.g. no evidence of a struggle does not mean consent was given and evidence of sperm/DNA does not mean consent was not given either) then it is difficult to prove mens rea or intent to rape with evidence.

And I agree that society and behaviour need to change - what I can't understand is if your work indirectly forms policy for police authorities across the UK (huge remit, huge responsibility albeit indirect as you say, sounds like you do a lot of reviewing and analysis of statistical data) how are you challenging the data? You seem to think there is not much you can do yourself - Freakonomics is a good read for digging behind statistics (which despite quoting stats away on this thread always think of the Mark Twain quote on there's lies, damned lies and statistics). If you are approaching the data with views like rape is a criminalised behaviour around sex, it sounds like you haven't really engaged with the problems a successful rape prosecution has to overcome? E.g. no response on my question re flagrant disregard for not allowing victim's previous sexual history before juries despite Criminal Evidence Act 1999? Perhaps you haven't had to indirectly form policy on this because you haven't been provided with data on this? Gosh - all makes me glad no more working for CPS. Had to deal with these kind of attitudes day in, day out.