Met Police change rape guidelines - shocker of a quote from cressida dick

[TheDukesOfHazzard]

A few articles today - this evening standard one is not paywalled.

It's interesting. Partly because the lack of disclosure was across all crimes, but the press focus in on rape (most of us will know why).

Secondly because the "We believe you" thing was - on MN at least - never about unquestioningly believing a report at all times no matter what. It was a reaction to two things:

• Cases where women (and chidlren, probabyl men too) had reported and the police said I don't believe you go away - Saville etc Warboys had this too
• Cases where a woman had reported a rape and immediately the police had started investigating her, and not investigating the actual crime she had reported at all

So the idea that they treat victims with dignity and respect and go and investigate is fine - I mean who wanted anything else

The part that concerns me A LOT is this at the end:

"She reportedly added: "And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.""

This (to me) is a clear reference to "date rape" / sexual assault when the victim knows the assailant, and it happens behind closed doors, isn't it? I can't see another reading of it.

WTF?

Couple of posts I put on another thread:

If she has said that sexual assault / rape that happens in private, with no witnesses, and is between people who know each other, is not a police matter, then that is a serious departure.

It essentially means that while it is illegal, the police are not interested.

Now we always knew they weren't very interested in "date rape" as it's hard to evidence and prosecute and so they can't be bothered. And if the woman isn't too badly physically injured then no harm done.

This statement seems to formalise this though - that women should not report rape if it's someone they know and there's no witness.

I'm not reading too much into that am I? That is what it says, right? And these people say nothing by accident, that will have been a deliberate statement.

Add message | Report | Message poster TheDukesOfHazzard Mon 02-Apr-18 13:12:53
The idea that men who sexually assault / rape women are simply "misreading signals" and being "clumsy" is so retrograde (and a lie designed to protect men).

That the Met are backing this up is a green light to rapists isn't it? Just pick someone you know and get her alone then go for it. Met says they aren't interested.

This is like some shit you'd read from an MRA (that one who said that rape on private property should be legal) or a country that has zero women's rights.

It's equivalent to adult women not being of high enough intelligence to understand the difference between a 'misunderstanding' and rape.

Yet more rape myths being perpetrated.

Conversely, obviously children are required to know the difference between a 'misunderstanding' and rape, whilst being little tempters who constantly display their emerging sexually and who consequently deserve all they get. This innate insight of children to see the difference magically disappears when the age of consent is reached.

I assume what she has said applies to teens as well?

"Date rape" is hardly uncommon with teens.

I don't think she means young children.

I expect it's the usual line of puberty for girls.

This (to me) is a clear reference to "date rape" / sexual assault when the victim knows the assailant, and it happens behind closed doors, isn't it? I can't see another reading of it.

Oh good, that decriminalises the vast majority of rape then! I'm glad the police aren't going to waste their time on it.

Well yes but am I reading it wrong?

Having spent years discussing this and also as a person who has never trusted the police, it would be good to check that my reading isn't "off".

What in the name of god is going on in the UK? It's one thing for people in the police to think this (we know many do), but to officially announce it? Is this fucking Gilead?

"If it's a long time ago, or it's very trivial, or I'm not likely to get a criminal justice outcome, I'm not going to spend a lot of resources on it"

From the Mail.

This gets worse - not interested in any more historical allegations, even when the offender was prolific?

We have no statute of limitations here. She wants to informally put one in?

What about child abuse? This is the problem in the USA is the statute of limitations effectively means CSA is legal in some states as very few children report while they are still children. In teh USA they are moving away from this for serious sexual crime. In UK she wants to push us towards that?

What in the name of god is going on in the UK? It's one thing for people in the police to think this (we know many do), but to officially announce it? Is this fucking Gilead?

That was my thought word for word!

It's so hard for men to tell when a woman actually wants to have sex with them

Yet more licence for men to rape women they don't know and claim 'misunderstanding'.

I've had no time for Cressida Dick since the Jean Charles de Menezes killing, but had hoped she had improved since. Clearly not.

Has something gone wrong with the space time continuum? We seem to be either going backwards or I’ve stepped into a parallel universe where women’s lib never happened.

She needs to be tackled on this publically and vocally

MOST rape is acquaintance rape. Or is only ‘nasty man dragging innocent nun into an alley’ counted as ‘real’ rape now.

I’m increasingly disturbed and angry with these constant events that seem to be part of a concerted attack on he very basics of decency and equality and safety in society. What the fuck is causing all this???

I think the message is clear, albeit so very carefully worded.

Well, it's not like the cases this is aimed at ever got anywhere. At least now we're being upfront. I posted a day or so ago that I'm annoyed at the psni message encouraging women to still come forward. If there's only ever a successful prosecution in certain types of cases it's misleading, patronising, cruel.. to tell women they should still report.

Months of "metoo", several high profile horrendous historic abuse investigations....and here we are, a massive fuck you to women.

Feeling rather fed up, I should probably step away. Sorry to rant on your thread.

I would say the misunderstanding bit at the end is in response to the myriad of comments about a clumsy grope or pass made at someone now being treated as sexual assault and now being reported to the police as such.

"now being reported to the police as such"

Has this happened?

The point of #metoo is that most of it was never reported.

When misogyny was added as a hate crime in notts, I think it was, the crimes they had reported vast majority were serious ie already illegal not trivial.

Also, where does one draw teh line between a "clumsy grope" and sexual assault. They are the same thing aren't they, and most women never report it.

An unwanted grope, whether clumsy, or Olympic level in finesse, is assault. Most women experience it and very few report.

Or must women’s bodies be open for all hands now? Just in case men’s feelings get hurt?

I read it like bluetoo too.

Not loving it but I don't think she's talking about rape. Maybe the police have had a myriad of accusations of someone putting their hand on someone else's knee in 1983.

Doubt it.

Bluetoo1

I would say the misunderstanding bit at the end is in response to the myriad of comments about a clumsy grope or pass made at someone now being treated as sexual assault and now being reported to the police as such.

I know! I mean what production company would re shoot a three episode series due to accusations of sexual assault allegations against one of the major actors - Ed Westwick?

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/apr/01/ordeal-by-innocence-review-saga-seamlessly-sifts-truth-from-lies

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42577505

Not loving it but I don't think she's talking about rape.

Then she needs to clarify. Because that is what it will be taken as. And I think is a fair reading.

I think there are a lot of issues at the moment with cuts to police budgets meaning specialist units are increasingly being disbanded. These kinds of public comments can be viewed as the police trying to show the impact of the cuts.
It's not OK but equally if there isn't enough resource to go round they have to prioritise somewhere.

"Maybe the police have had a myriad of accusations of someone putting their hand on someone else's knee in 1983.

Doubt it."

Well, quite.

Certain - I think she is talking about "date rape" which many people still don't see as "rape-rape". And from a police perspective, is it really a crime? Violent crime is framed very much in the sort of thing that men do to each other. the type of crime men do to women - often leaving no physical damage - seems to be hard for at least 50% of society (including women like cressida dick) to understand as "real" crime.

So bottom line is, if I go home with a colleague and he punches me in the face and breaks my nose >> crime
If I go home with a colleague and he pins me down and rapes me but does not also beat me up - so maybe there are no lasting physical injuries or they are "minor" (considered these days to include bleeding for 48 hours afterwards apprently) >> no crime

If he does BOTH then the nose breaking my act as evidence for the rape as well >> it might make them inclined to see the rape as non trivial as there is proper violence in there as well.

Not sure. Certainly there has always been a real issue around rapes that don't contain better recognised "violent" aspects as being recognised as "bad" in any way.

If there's only ever a successful prosecution in certain types of cases it's misleading, patronising, cruel.. to tell women they should still report.

With most crimes, you lose nothing by reporting. Bike pinched? Report. Car vandalised? Report.

Possession, or rather property, has always been said to be nine tenths of the law. In reality it's closer to ninety-nine hundredths - and that's why rape was ever even illegal. But as women and children have gradually attained personhood and are no longer considered property, society and the law haven't really caught up in considering CSA, rape, DA etc as crimes against the person rather than crimes against possession.

It can't be rape if your mate's already had a go and passes her over, because she's temporarily his possession. It can't be rape if she took your money, because she's given herself to you so she's temporarily your possession. Etc etc.

What we've seen from actual cases of sexual assault and rape coming to court is that if there's the slightest sniff of doubt, the prosecution will fail, and the victim will be considered a perpetrator of The Greatest Lie Ever Told.

The faintest sniff of doubt and would I fuck report anything at all.

Which is why a woman shares her stories quietly instead. Because #WeBelieveHer.

the "We believe you" thing was - on MN at least - never about unquestioningly believing a report at all times no matter what.

I’m afraid that for some on MN it was exactly that.

Quentin - disagree

"These kinds of public comments can be viewed as the police trying to show the impact of the cuts."

We have seen what they say when compaining about cuts - they say things like "These cuts mean that we havehad to halve our burglery reponse team by 50% and this will result in an increase in burglery" type thing.

This comment is in no way related to that - it is the latest in a smattering of statements from various forces that say in a mealy-mouthed / roundabout /euphemistic way that they want women to stop reporting crime of a sexual / historic / dv nature. Unelss there is a body, or at least some really meaty physical injury, they don't care.