Changes in how rape will be investigated- about time!

[AWholeLottaNosy]

I just read this and I was really pleased. It's about time rape was investigated and prosecuted differently considering the appalling rape conviction rate we have in this country. Imagine there will be an outcry from all the MRAs, but, I think it's very good news...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

Great blogpost, Basil.

Has our new pet been reported yet? MN Towers seem to be a bit slow in wielding the ban hammer.

Yes he was banned a couple of hours ago, I think the reports happened before the toying

Thanks cailindana. I have been shocked today at the responses this guidance has received. I made the mistake of entering into a FB discussion about it. I tried to be calm, logical, polite, stick to the facts and all that and I have had the most horrendous personal insults directed at me. I think I need to wake up and smell the hummus because I had no idea there was that level of antagonism out there.

So what is the argument that people are making, who are saying that the do not want people who are suspects to be asked by police what led them to believe the other party was consenting?

In my very humble opinion, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the changes because of shoddy, sometimes deliberately misleading reporting. And as I said earlier, this leads to a mix-up between what people wanted, even if they had been drinking, and what they didn't. A lot of discussions I have seen seemed to be along the lines of 'don't drink and shag', which is patently nonsense.

Agree house. A lot of people don't seem to realise that no defendant is cross-examined without first being examined by their own defence lawyer. The guidance does not force men to give evidence. If a man gives evidence, his own lawyer will question him first and he will be able to put over his story exactly as he wants to. Of course he will then be cross-examined by the prosecution lawyer who will test his case. The jury will see this and the other evidence and make a decision.

There are certain defences that just don't make sense if you don't back them up with further information. For example if someone says they have an alibi but refuse to say who it was, where they were, when etc., that's not going to be very persuasive to a jury. Reasonable belief in consent is exactly the same. All this hoo-hah over men being asked why their belief in consent was reasonable. It really does show just how little many people care about women.

Millions of women being raped = "bad but there's nothing we can do about it"

A man being asked why he thought a woman wanted to have sex with him = "THE HORROR! OUR FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES ARE BEING DESTROYED. AND WOMEN ARE LIARS."

I won't link to it, but Sarah Vine has written a disgusting article in DM about this - seriously, what the fuck is her problem?

I honestly just despair

will

I saw that, it made for very unpleasant reading

That article was so full of rape myths, it was like the British Rapist Association had commissioned it.

That article earned her a #NotNorman

hideous rape apology

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but isn't this concerning how rapes are investigated? I don't think burden of proof is being altered in any way, it is just an attempt to get more complaints taken seriously and followed up.

A buddy of mine's sister is a police officer, who works in whatever unit or department that tends to deal with these cases, and she is of the opinion that a certain significant percentage of allegations is false (I've not retained the precise number as I believe it's bullshit).

Thing is there is a lottery, depending on where you live will relate to precisely how seriously the police will take your complaint. My locality is certainly not the worst, but it's up there (hence why this particular officer's opinion is likely to be indicative of a regional bias).

This focus on how rapes are investigated, should help close these regional divides, help the police do a better job, and should be welcomed.

Yes Dervel, it's just guidance to beef up what the Police and CPS should have been doing anyway, which is looking at how the accused knew he had reasonable belief in consent.

It's a real shame that it has been misinterpreted as some kind of change in the law, or that men are now guilty until proven innocent, or that, in order to have sex now, you need written consent in triplicate, or any of the other rape myths that seem to have been pedaled out.

Just clarification on the investigation stage of rape allegations(no change from how it should have been done), not in how evidence will be treated in court.

It might be illuminating to your Police friend, who, if I'm honest, shouldn't be working anywhere near women who have been raped, her lack of belief will be palpable for women who already know they won't be believed, and might even be contributing to women not going through with prosecutions. (Thus 'proving' her point)

There was a piece in The Times today too. Also written by a woman. The bit that stood out for me and had me screaming at the computer screen was where she comments that a drunk women can't give consent and therefore isn't it a double standard to expect a really drunk man to be able to follow appropriate cues.

It was mind boggling to me that a drunk driver can be held accountable. A drunk person who hits someone can be held responsible. A drunk person who decides to damage property can be charged. But of course, if you rape when you were drunk it's just one of those things!? WTF!!!!

People seem to have this blind spot where they forget that someone who has been raped has had a crime committed against them. They aren't on trial but of course they are

Good christ.

"The bit that stood out for me and had me screaming at the computer screen was where she comments that a drunk women can't give consent and therefore isn't it a double standard to expect a really drunk man to be able to follow appropriate cues. "

This is just a massive logical error though. Because a drunk woman CAN give consent. It's just that one of the ways a person can become unable to give consent is through being drunk.

If the standpoint was 'a drunk woman doesn't know if she wants sex or not' then that would be one thing, and it would then be slightly more fair to ask how a man is supposed to know whether the woman wants sex. That is, however, not the argument. The argument is about women being at a point where they cannot fight off an attacker or even are unconscious. And the fact that it is quite easy to tell when a person is at this point of drunken-ness. Especially when you're having sex with them. And even if it WAS about the woman being uncertain, where the FUCK is the harm in saying 'if you're not sure, make sure, or don't have sex.'

And yes, your point about drunk driving/other drunk crime as well.

Maybe I should get a T-shirt made saying "If I want your penis in me, I will let you know. Otherwise, assume the answer is no." But apparently that's way too complicated and will lead to lots of men being prosecuted for, I dunno, accidentally lying on the floor with an erection while I trip and impale myself on their erect penis.

It's just so bloody baffling. I've had loads of consensual, enjoyable sex in my life. Never has it occurred to me to "climb aboard" a man who was paralytically drunk, or lying there motionless and not participating, or saying "you know, I'm really not sure about this." And (because I've been lucky enough not to have been raped) none of my sexual partners have done this to me. Why are there all these people out there making out that it's complicated? I mean, I can see why a certain subset of men might be invested in defending the idea that it's all massively too complicated for anyone who isn't a rocket scientist to get their head round (the 6% that are rapists and want a useful defence to ensure they never even make it as far as court), but why are there so many women invested in defending this lunacy? It makes no sense to me.

Lurcio experience on MN suggests that if you suggest such a t-shirt on here you're likely to get the response that "you're too ugly and/or arrogant for my dp to rape you"

A buddy of mine's sister is a police officer, who works in whatever unit or department that tends to deal with these cases, and she is of the opinion that a certain significant percentage of allegations is false (I've not retained the precise number as I believe it's bullshit).

A friend of mine (who really is a lovely woman in all other respects) worked in the rape/sexual assault unit and said exactly the same thing She was very disbelieving and sceptical about the women who reported rapes. I kind of felt i couldnt argue with her as she was the 'expert' who was dealing with these cases every day.

I have no idea if this attitude was shared by her colleagues, but she didn't last very long in the unit, less than a year I think. She left to go into a completely different division, and said that working in sexual crime was 'not for her'.

I remember that thread Petula. Depressing.

Willferrell - did you ever ask your friend why she thought this. I mean, the Home Office's own estimate is about 2%, in line with false reports for other crimes like burglary.