John Worboys' victims win human rights case against police

[Xenophile]

Apologies for the Guardian link

Some justice at least. And feminist activism at it's finest.

"areas such as fraud "

Lets apply the worst possible lens to this statement.

It could be a sly linguistic wink to the millions of men who feel 'witchhunted' by suggesting policeMEN still believe that most women crying rape are frauds making fraudulent claims as most men believe.

It could be a nod to the fact that fraud is the crime women statistically commit the most; theft by deception hangs at around 30% female perpetrators and 70% male perpetrators. Men's rights activists know all the statistics that prove women aren't perfect angels to employ when trying to deflect responsibility for male violence off men.

Me too Upabit 104 more women that we know about went on to be raped because the Met didn't believe or investigate the first allegation and then have to fight all the way against the Met and the Home Office to get their complaint taken seriously - what were they meant to do - quietly scurry away and not dare to question what went wrong or cost the Met money "needed" for fraud investigations?

It makes we want to scream!!! It felt like yet another non apology - of which there have been many regarding the abuse of women recently

The older I get, the more I hate men. And I know NAMALT and I am the mother of sons but still. As a class, I fucking hate them. Because, as a class, they hate us

CapnHaddock I have reached the same conclusion. When I was younger I thought that the attitude of men would change but it hasn't and I notice the misogyny more and more. I often have a very strong feeling that among the so called "decent" men I meet that there is a deep rooted resentment and dislike of women (as a class) even if they purport to be good fathers to their daughters and love their wives and say they believe in equality.

Upabitlate thanks for your posts, I'm going to look at this more tomorrow

I'm wondering why they specifically mentioned fraud. I was thinking of business fraud but I guess I was wrong.

CapnHaddock, I'm honestly relieved to hear that from a mother of sons. I have been accused of being a man hater on here after daring to suggest someone's teen boy might not be as naive as the mother thought.

I have a varied range of stuff in my life and work which brings me into contact with new people a lot. I have made two lovely female friends recently but I don't think I'll make another male friend for the rest of my life frankly. It's not worth the accompanying risk and hassle.

I thought business fraud as well.

Did he really have false accusations of sex crimes in his mind? That seems incredibly crass under the circs.

I think he meant business fraud probably. The police are under huge pressure.

This is the other side of the same coin as the non-disclosure stuff affecting men going further through the process than necessary.

The police need to prioritise investigating thoroughly and documenting decisions AND the government need to make sure they are properly resourced to do that.

I'm over the moon about this decision, proper accountability for investigating at last. Well done those women.

Also hopefully it will open the door to women being more creative in pursuing justice through the civil courts.

Yeah @Kikashi - I used to think the majority of men liked the majority of women. But now I think the minority of men like the minority of women.

And the rest of us are mere cannon fodder

I admit, I thought business fraud too - and I thought it was a strange comparison. The other interpretation is just too awful.

Why not 'other violent crime' - it's more directly comparable to rape. Except - I suspect - to them it isn't. They're probably of the 'Judy Finnegan' persuasion that he didn't beat them up, or hold a knife to their throat (just drugged them!) so it's 'not violent'.

My god, I don't know why we're even surprised. They probably thought the women shouldn't have out alone, and brought it on themselves. Or made it up. Or it was consensual and then they regretted it

They thought the women were imagining it,I think, as a black cab driver "couldn't do something like that".

In fact I don't think they get as far as whether she's lying on purpose, on unstable, or a fantasist, or a time waster, or whatever... They just think "that's not true go away".

One of the reports had a VERY generous interpretation of what that police officer (policeman) said - that he's said that police would have to divert resources from less serious crimes such as fraud.

That is not what he said AT ALL.

Again, the media support the police and subtely re-interpret what they say to put a better spin on it, even in situations where they have been proved to have been intrumental in essentially allowing over 100 women to be attacked.

I wonder if the other 102 victims have any recourse in the light of this judgment?

These serious failings apply equally to them, surely? Given that Worboys was at liberty to attack again precisely because of the serious failings?

I wonder if that is what the Met is worried about, rather than the settlements awarded to the two women.

Why not 'other violent crime' - it's more directly comparable to rape.

Because failure to prevent other violent crime could also lead to compensation in the same manner as this case. This case says that where someone is subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, there is a duty to effectively investigate and prosecute. The violence has to be bad enough to count - rape clearly is, but other forms of bad violent crime could too.

I can see why they chose fraud because it’s a classic example of non-violent crime. But equally when the response was effectively “Oh dear, we might have to start prioritising rape more instead of fraud”, my thoughts were “Shouldn’t you already be doing this?!”

Someone else on the thread was worrying that men might use this to get compensation where they have been wrongly accused of rape (or claim to have been...) and don’t think the police investigated properly. I don’t think it could be, because there is no torture/inhumane treatment etc. I’m a lawyer although this isn’t my area of practice.

I can see why the police fought this because it’s been a long-standing principle that you can’t sue the police where they fail to investigate properly (even where they could have stopped a murderer or rapist), but I’m very glad the women won as I think this unfortunately might be the only way to change police priorities.

Yes, presumably this opens to the door to other claims for compensation in all of those serious cases where the police failed to investigate properly, not just in this case.

Wouldn't the Met have been better to settle this years ago, rather keep appealing the original compensation award (and racking up their legal bills) and then risking setting a precedent with this judgment?