To be sad and horrified that rape convictions have dropped to 1.7%

[darkriver19886]

I am utterly horrified. This article came up on my newsfeed and I am shocked that it has dropped so low and it's likely it will be dropped even further with the move to take victims phones.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-police-investigation-disclosure-forms-cps-a8888376.html?fbclid=IwAR00s8kr5yRHXzqN1xQqeoL95A6u1VYidBaPV-T0RPAe8sclst-b6b5aiFk

And you didn’t make a sweeping statement?

Read what I wrote, and you might figure out your mistake

Yes, I know you used “they” not “he”, but that’s
no more than semantic wordplay.... it’s a rape trail, “they” are not on trial, “he” is.... If “they” didn’t consent in the context of a rape trial, it could only conceivably mean it is the woman who hadn’t consented.

It follows therefore that proving “beyond reasonable doubt that they had consent” is the same as proving “beyond reasonable doubt that she had given consent to the man”, and unless and until that it is proven, logically the man is guilty.

@Nicknacky

No. I am basing my post on the utter fucking shower of useless shit who 'investigated' the rape of my DD. Hardly a sweeping generlisation is it.

No. That's for the jury to decide. If they find that the defendant's explanations of why they thought they had enthusiastic consent when the victim is clearly stating that they did not are unconvincing.

Myworst It was a sweeping statement about the commitment of the police. So don’t criticise another poster when you did exactly the same thing.

Myworst It was a sweeping statement about the commitment of the police. So don’t criticise another poster when you did exactly the same thing

Explain how I made a sweeping statement when I suggested she should perhaps reconsider the commitment of the police to investigating rape.

Can you honestly not see yourself that’s a sweeping statement? If you have said that “some” police are not committed then that would be completely fair to say rather than saying “the police” as one collective group.

It's not realistic to insist that all police are excellent. They're human and some will be lazy/work shy, some will be misogynist, a few will be criminal or criminally negligent. Most won't be. All are likely to be overworked and understaffed.

You said yourself that you know some shit SOLO officers.

My apologies. There are examples of police forces who have been utterly fucking inept and useless at investigating rape cases. Better?

Sorry assassinated was that post for me?

Yes, partly. I appreciate that it's not you that are suggesting that the police are all doing an excellent job.

There are some shit SOLO (sexual offence liaison officers) officers around I grant you that, but sometimes we need to ask hard questions

Obviously it was for you.

Myworst Sorry, what do you mean?

No. That's for the jury to decide. If they find that the defendant's explanations of why they thought they had enthusiastic consent when the victim is clearly stating that they did not are unconvincing

If the man is required to prove that he is innocent beyond all reasonable doubt, that is the very definition of being guilty until proven innocent.

It would be an illogical absurdity to claim he’s innocent until proven innocent

Should be guilty until proven innocent with rape.
My DD has to prove she WASN'T attracted to her rapist.
The police on her case also partook in a nice bit of victim blaming.

Looking at this “Figures released last week show that only 1.7 per cent of reported rapes were prosecuted in 2018, and 40 per cent of cases were closed with the marker “evidential difficulties – victim does not support action”.”

Does the last part mean 40% of them are closed because the victim has said they won't testify? (and that doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen plenty can't face the idea of being cross examined and blamed)

Oh Myworst if you are trying to imply that I find it difficult to ask questions, then no, I don’t.

It’s my job and I have been doing it for years so it’s not difficult at all to ask and it’s certainly far harder for the victim than it is for me obviously.

@assassinatedbeauty

@Myworstnightmare123 has followed your “proving beyond reasonable doubt that there was consent” to its logical and only conclusion. I can’t bring myself to agree with it as I don’t see how it could actually work, but I respect it for being intellectually honest, and understand why she believes it.

@iolaus I think your interpretation is correct. I can well believe there is that percentage of victims who can't bear the thought of having to go through a court case.

@Nicknacky I have made no reference to questions you may have to ask so a bit confused by your post

So what were you meaning by your post at 20.35.54?

Oh I know..
I meant a PP was directed at you

Hideously depressing. What can we do? As a group of concerned ppl I mean?

Myworst Can you stop posting in riddles please? What was it you were asking?

Unfortunately it’s a reflection on the modern dating scene and the court system. The former makes it very very difficult to prove. The latter can’t afford to proceed unless a conviction is likely.