to worry about the accused?

[WitchWay]

DLT for example. How is anything going to be proven? Are people jumping on a bandwagon or am I very wrong to even think that? I don't condone abuse - far from it - but surely they can't all have been sailing along in JS's wake - can they?

Well no. The item on page 31 talks about being cautious of prosecuting individuals for false allegations, where they have fabricated evidence to support a true allegation. You are misrepresenting what the report says entirely.

It says this:

"In nine of the decisions there was evidence which
demonstrated that the suspect had clearly fabricated
evidence. Plainly this would be capable of supporting the
proposition that the suspect had made a false allegation of
rape or domestic violence. However, on closer analysis it
became clear that in some cases there was at least a
possibility that the suspect may have been trying to bolster a
true allegation out of fear that s/he wouldn’t be believed. "

What is not looked at (although I have not read it in detail) is in those cases, how the victims were being treated by the police - many cases where the police say to victims that they think they are making it up, you can imagine how a vulnerable girl in that situation could start embellishing in the hope that they will listen, especially if they are raising the spectre of arresting her for lying. I suppose the investigations into that side of things are covered under the enquiries into Sapphire etc.

Oh well you could look at the no-crime figures.

From 2011 here:

here

"Data supplied to BBC News shows the proportion of rapes dismissed by the police as "no crime" varies between 2% and 30%."

From that you can work out which areas of the country are full of women and girls who are bloody liars, I think.

Or something.

Oh incidentally: from here, on no criming sex offences

"Patrick told MPs that his research showed 70% of rape allegations that were classed as not meriting investigation were wrongly dismissed. He said he had spoken to his force's crime management unit, which ran statistical and recording policies.

Patrick told the committee: "A preference had developed to try to justify 'no crime' on the basis of mental health or similar issues of vulnerability or by saying that the victim has refused to disclose to them."

Committee chair Bernard Jenkin asked: "This would finish up with trying to persuade a victim that they weren't raped, for example?" Patrick responded: "Effectively, yes.""

Also attitudes such as this amongst the police have been problematical here:

"The IPCC inquiry found individual and systemic failings in the Met. In one police report a detective constable dealing with the July 2007 victim had written: "The victim cannot remember anything past getting in the cab. It would seem unlikely that a cab driver would have alcohol in his vehicle, let alone drug substances." Other findings included:

• Officers adopting a mindset that a black-cab driver "would not commit such an offence", and failing to challenge Worboys, who was identified by his cab number in CCTV footage in July 2007, over his account.
"

The item on page 31 talks about being cautious of prosecuting individuals for false allegations, where they have fabricated evidence to support a true allegation

I don't see that it does say this. If you look in the text you have cut and pasted yourself, it says that ' it became clear that in some cases there was at least a possibility that the suspect may have been trying to bolster a true allegation'. The words 'in some cases' and 'at least a possibility' it was done to bolster a true allegation does not mean that they were all true allegations.

Oh so I guess my point is that when you think "I would like to know how many instances there are where the police suspect a false allegation but have no proof it's false." I would say, why on earth would you be interested in that information, given the appalling police track record, when you have multiple official reports, including validated statistics, telling you everything you could possibly want to know?

Why do you think it would be helpful to ask individual police officers, many of whom subscribe to rape myths themselves, for their "feeling" about how many females are lying?

The officer who dismissed the woman who reported warboys on the basis that he found her story "unlikely" - would his views interest you? Although actually, she was telling the truth.

Maria that's right.

They looked at all cases in a certain time period where people were prosecuted for making false allegations of rape and / or DV. Some of the prosecutions were against people who had totally lied, made stuff up, fabricated evidence, you name it. That is contained in the report.

What they are saying in your Page 31, is that in some cases where evidence was fabricated, it was done to bolster a genuine complaint. And that in those cases, consideration should be given as to whether to prosecute for perverting the course of justice.

Does that make sense to you better now?

Like the woman who was jailed for 8 months (I think) for falsely withdrawing a rape complaint. That is the case that triggered this report.

Because a lot of people felt it was wrong for the courts to say, we are sure you have been raped, so when you now say you made it up, you are lying and must go to prison.

So this report is about points that prosecutors should bear in mind when deciding whether to press ahead to court, as they have guidance with lots of other stuff.

Your interpretation of it that the CPS has said that women who fabricate evidence must be given the benefit of the doubt across the board. That is a misrepresentation of what the report says. It says that in some cases where evidence was fabricated, there was reason to believe the original complaint (of rape / DV) was true, and so bear that in mind.

Do you NOT want them to do that, then?

OK, thanks for what you have said about the fabrication of the evidence. That does make sense now, and it is reassuring to know. I know I am not reading all of the information as clearly as I should be because my views have become clouded by the experiences of the person close to me who has been accused.

when you think "I would like to know how many instances there are where the police suspect a false allegation but have no proof it's false." I would say, why on earth would you be interested in that information?
Because, following recent experiences, I have come up against the viewpoint that the police are under such massive pressure to meet targets on rape detection/conviction that they will seek to charge even if an allegation seems suspect.

Why do you think it would be helpful to ask individual police officers, many of whom subscribe to rape myths themselves, for their "feeling" about how many females are lying?
I do not think this would be helpful, I guess I can see that the stats I am after will not be available as they are uncollectable. Within the dedicated units though, I do not think it necessarily follows that the officers will subscribe to rape myths themselves (and I do see that as a good thing!)

The officer who dismissed the woman who reported warboys on the basis that he found her story "unlikely" - would his views interest you? Although actually, she was telling the truth.
Well this is where I cease to be able to think clearly on this issue. I know from my own experiences that I only reported the elements of my own sexually violent relationship that seemed 'most believable'.

Ah I see.

Yes I can understand your perspective, that must be very difficult.

Please do take heart in the fact that while people do make false reports of rape, they are a very small number against the genuine ones, and of a % that is in line with false reporting of other (non insurance related) crime.

Additionally, the possibility of being convicted on the basis of a false allegation is pretty much zero - not seen any stats but not heard of any cases where people have been pardoned lately. Only 6% of genuine rape complaints reported to police result in a conviction. I think the chances of people falsely accused going down is pretty much zero.

I understand your personal interest and perspective on this subject. Please do understand though that MN is made up of a group who are hugely at risk of rape and / or have been raped. Hence on this site the focus is on the (huge) number of rapists going unpunished, the (huge) number of victims who don't even feel they can come forward, looking at systemic reasons for this in society (We Believe You) and having little tolerance for anything that smacks of rape apologism / victim blaming / rape myths. The idea that women / girls routinely lie about rape/sexual assault is pernicious and damaging and untrue so on a thread where some people are not very subtly propagating that view, people will respond strongly.

Well thanks for being kind about that and not reacting too strongly to me asking these questions on this thread. tbh there are very few places where these kinds of issues can be raised.

Although this is the first thread I have posted on under this name, I have been on MN a while and I do appreciate how sensitive a subject false allegations are. I would not normally dare make the points that I have made on this thread anywhere else on MN (admittedly though I have namechanged!) but I have made these points here seeing as this particular thread started out as being very focused on the accused as opposed to the victim. But I do completely and utterly take the point that the real focus should be the many, many victims.

That is brilliantly put NT.

Oh thanks

I'm glad we all kind of got to a less combative place in the end on this thread

i think people should remain anonymous they can always try them if they are proven guilty of other offences the reason they do it is so they can get loads of convictions all at once but they don't serve time for all of them they only get one sentence so what is the point? if it were me i would release their name when they are found guilty then wait till they were just about to be released and charge them again that way they would serve it all

i just think it encourages trial by media and that to me is sickening

Sarah Green, the campaigns manager from End Violence Against Women, says protecting the identity of the accused go against fundamental principles of the British justice system.

"We name suspects as part of an open justice system, to protect the community. When you look at rape in terms of research and what’s known about it, men who are inclined to commit these offences have a sense of how they can get away with it, and who won’t report it, and even if they did are unlikely to be believed.

"You just have to refer to the cases of Jimmy Savile or the Rochdale case to see the planned and strategic targeting of vulnerable victims. There are often multiple perpetrators and multiple victims.

"Is it really a good idea to conceal the identities of these men? Police often release the names of those accused for investigative reasons too, to allow other victims to come forward. It is important that the men who commit this type of crime are not allowed to get away with it."

It was an argument used by Bob Satchwell, the executive director of the society of editors after the revelation that Stuart Hall has admitted to a string of sex offences against girls and young women.

Satchwell said: "With the recent upsurge of calls for offenders to remain anonymous until convicted, it is worth noting that if Stuart Hall had not been named when he was arrested he might never have been brought to court. None of his victims knew one another.

Source

"And once again, Suzanne, nobody has said the accused shouldn't get a fair trial"

At the moment they are also getting an unfair trial by media, which IMO needs to stop.

The police are just trying to look good after the JS cockup.