8 year old girl admits lying about rape allegations

[FlyMeToDunoon]

I felt really sad about this for more than one reason.
here

Don't you ISNT?

I don't think it's all that difficult to understand tbh. I think it's just pure, ugly mysogyny. It's what happens so often when an adult woman accuses an adult man of rape - loads of handwringing about him and how awful it is that he's having to go through this and no pity for her whatsoever. The media have simply gone down the age range and employed the same mindset with a younger female. The taliban were as nasty to girls as they were to women, why is it such a surprise that mysogynists have as much contempt for younger females as older ones?

sgb- i agree with you about this case being reported differently not being coincidental to the victim being a girl.

men = innocent until proven guilty (but we still think they're innocent really (or if not we'll blame the mother))

women = liars until proven truthful (but then we still wont believe them really and certainly wont congratulate the mother on raising an honest daughter)

I just find it such a struggle to understand that our society at large is one that would do this, and so openly.

A society that condones the rape of female children and believes that the people who do this should not be prosecuted.

What hope is there for my girls?

The thing for me is that I know all the facts and figures of rape stats, and the messages sent out by the press.

But this tirade against the victim has been so widespread, including sections of the press I would never expect to behave like this, and so vitriolic, just so blatent, it's obscene.

It's just revolting, as revolting as anything that happens abroad that people throw their hands up in horror about.

How can people get terribly upset about the rape of a child in a different country, and when it happens here say she's a liar and nothing happened, even after a guilty versict.

I don't know that our society has ever been quite so open about their attitude in recent years, i can't remember a time. the whole thing makes me feel sick.

The problem is the media and the way it has been reported. Many people (perhaps most), read the headlines and swallow what they are being fed without looking deeper into it or questioning the reporting. I'm so cynical with the media, I tend to doubt everything and try to look at it from another angle (but then, I'm just contrary). Still, I sometimes get caught out and realise I'm being drawn in. If the press had reported this differently, I believe more of the public would have had more sympathy for this girl.

But to be fair, it was sold to us as a lie, the girl lied, right at the beginning. that indeed is the title of this thread. so we were naturally against her from the beginning. how could we not have been ? because that is how it was first sold to us.
and public know that the girl lied/or changed her story. they question not, that as we have said was due to intense questioning.
and then people think, it should never have been tried in this way, subjecting the children to all of this. better maybe the scottish way.
and all these questions , seem reasonable. because we too have discussed this.
it hasn't been drilled into the public, 'they were found guilty because they really did rape her'. the public don't seem to have grasped that fact, because of all of the other hogwash surrounding it.
the defense never even tried to deny /dispute what the boys had done.

It wasn't though. The information was there in the articles. If you read past the headline it said things like the girl was exhausted, the judge said she didn't have to say yes to everything etc.

People on this thread right from the very beginning were saying that this "retraction" didn't necessarily mean anything and the way it was beign reported was odd.

It certainly is not true that "everyone was naturally against her from teh beginning". If you read the thread from the beginning it is clear that is not true. Some people were, others kept an open mind.

I think the question is, of those who were so keen to not look past the headline, and see the rest of the information that was there, on the BBC etc, why was that? Why were people so quick to say "right she's said she's a liar let's cancel the case immediately". That's teh reaction from teh meida too. Why?

i didn't phrase that well, and was trying to be too concise and lazy typing to explain what i really meant.
WE, MN'ers were questioning it, and we thought , no she can't have lied, there must be more to it than that. etc etc . we thought all of thta the beginning.but thats becasue we are inteliigent women in a very indepth discussion and debate.
i can see how others, joe public got to where they are, IYSWIM.

Yes that's true

And agree with lenin that mainstream media is no great thing here

we're never going to get rid of the likes of the BBC though are we, and I'm not sure I'd want to. and they were as bad as the worst of the red tops.

it's all really sad

I think that the reason people are so eager to jump to the conclusion that the girl was lying, was just the same as with adult cases - they want to believe that rape is incredibly rare and when it is mentioned it is because an alleged victim is lying about it.

People simply don't want to believe that rape is an occupational hazard of being a woman - far less a little girl.

I guess the consequences of admitting how prevalent this problem is, are just too large for people to want to face.

Even I don't want to think of 10 year old raping. makes me sad. as did bulger. we don't want to believe it because it confirms our society as it is today. and thats the truth, but its not a nice thought, is it.

Lenin- if people admit it, then it becomes utterly impossible, to not change it.

And no-one wants to change it. Facing up to the fact that you have been part of the problem, you have promoted rape myths, you yourself may have been a rapist and been in denial about it, you may have been raped and been in denial about it, you have to get rid of rape promoting magazines like Nuts and Zoo, rape promoting music videos, rape promoting popular culture, TV shows etc., re-educate young people about sexual relations between men and women, change the way the police, courts and prisons work, change the way we all think about rape.... phew, who the hell can possibly get to grips with that?

Much easier to stay in denial.

I don't think the entertainment media is actually half as bad in promoting 'rape culture' as the news media is. Because it's exactly this sort of reporting (that the victim, even if the victim is a little child, must be a slut and a liar) that is the most widespread, has the most impact, sends the clearest messages that females simply don't matter, that they are unreliable witnesses and that it's SAFE TO RAPE THEM because they are too stupid to say no or prove that they said no - and that whatever happens, rape is the woman's fault (for being too sexy, for being an uppity bitch who said no after a man decided he wanted sex, for being drunk, for talking dirty, just for being there).
Remember the squawkfest that ensues every time someone posts that marvellous how-to-stop-rape list which is basically: Men. If you see a woman, don't rape her. If you see an open window, don't climb through it and fuck the woman asleep on the bed etc.

Alot of generalisations are starting to creep in on the thread.

Its a shame that both sides of the the arguement don't spend more time dispelling the myths that are put about (by both sides).

Back to that Daily Mail article. I think it is in breach of the press complaints guidelines, should anyone wish to complain:

"Section 7, Children in sex cases

1. In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child -

iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child."

and also ...

"The public interest

1. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child."

oblomov

"we don't want to believe it because it confirms our society as it is today."

I don't think this is a "new" thing TBH. There have been some people on this thread who had similar things happen to them when they were growing up.

the difference is that 30 years ago the child would never have told her mum/the mum woulnd't have believed her or taken it seriously/the police wouldn't have been interested/there would have been no prosecution

i think?

Or maybe the boys would have been picked up and sent off to borstal (did they have those then?) or something like that

I don't think that things like this happening are new, the same as there isn't more DV or rape than there used to be, just more people are coming forward.

Maybe it has to get worse before it gets better? There inevitably has to be a stage where everyone starts reporting stuff, as the stigma starts to be chipped away, before the police and authorities have really got a handle on dealing with it effectively.

maybe over the next 20 years things will look worse and worse as reporting levels increase, then things will start to look better as conviction rates increase and our society and media have had time to grow up a bit, come to terms with it and start behaving in a more constructive manner.

Maybe.

boobmeister I complained on the basis that it was all lies damned lies, I struggled to find where it had breached the code. Will let everyone know thei verdict.

Section 7, 2. iv)

"Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child"

I take this to mean that the journalist is not allowed to speculate on any possible mitigating relationship between the child and the accused. Since Bel Mooney quite clearly implied that the girl was a willing participant, "for sweets", I think she's in breach.