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?

I exercised my Victim Right to Review and had the case reviewed.

The Chief Inspect who reviewed my case states that the have been unable to view my videostatement.

They have therefore reviewed my case without...well...looking at my evidence.

I have no right to further appeal this, as far as I can tell.

This underlines that women and girls over a certain age >> there is a presumption that we are consenting at all times.

Why is this? It's such obvious shite.

Fucking hell wherever.

I agree with someone upthread (or different thread) who said they are coming to the conclusion that the police / cimrinal justice system are completely incapable of dealing with men's sex offending and a different approach needs to be taken (what?).

Off the back of the police saying they aren't going to bother with men viewing images of child sex abuse that are "low level" as there are too many and it's overwhelming the system.

You don;t give men green light to commit sex offences just because you can't deal with the volume - and this is the same approach the met are takign towards sexual assault and ?rape between people who know each other.

The bit about not bothering with historic sex offences is worrying - the football coach would not have gone to prison then, just don't bother with it?

Before someone says women do it too yes they do but in v small numbers + women have not historically run the country / justice system / police / made the laws & etc & they came out of property law so is it surprising that men have failed to put in place a system which mainly restricts men and where the victims are mainly women and children.

The law has a very male view of the world. Things that are bad that happen mainly to men are recognised as bad - things that are bad that happen mainly to women and children are much less well catered to.

And this mainly shows up around sex offences, DV, child abuse (which to be fair is committed by women a lot, minus the sex element usually).

Are the police allowed to decide to essentially decriminalise things?

Almost 3/4 of reports of rapes aren't referred to CPS

My case is an example of one that didn't make it. I've exercised my right to review. They've reviewed my case without viewing my videostatement.

The problem isn't just the cases that fail at court (though that is very understandably a big problem).

It's that only 85% get reported. Then when they do, almost 3/4 aren't referred to CPS.

So around 3/4 of cases are being screened out not by trained lawyers, but by police officers who say things like:

"he would have no reason to believe that she did not want sex again as she had agreed earlier in the evening." and the case is closed and not referred to CPS.

What happens in Court is the tip of the iceberg.

This is the thing.

They are intimating that women and girls lying about rape is a big problem in order to cover their own arses where they've fucked up investigations,

And are saying in future they won't bother.

In real life, outside the MRA forums, we KNOW that while treatment of rape victims has apparently improved, still most rapes aren't reported and of the ones that are, few go to trial.

The statement would have the public believe that the police have been "believing" witnesses to the point that they havent' investigated and have gone straight to court on her word, probably over trivial things that were actually misunderstandings. This is just not true is it.

So really she is smearing women, reinforcing rape myths, to distract from their internal fuck ups (which were across all categories of crime) and to divert budget from sex offences committed on child-bearing age women and girls by men that know them.

Awesome.

Personally, I think that if 85% of your customers aren't even bothering you with their complaint then you should attempt to deal graciously with the 15% that throw themselves into this system and count yourself lucky.

Imagine how overwhelmed they'd be if 100% of victims were reporting?

Well quite.

This is why we aren't a hate crime category as well

How does that message (re sexual assault) square with this stance on hate crime?

Because on the one hand they are saying you won't automatically be believed/taken seriously. And on the other, re hate crime they are essentially saying no proof is required?

Unfriendliness can count as a hate crime?

Well I'd have said not, but that slide is from a police training thing on hate crime. So who knows?

So in order to convict, they do not need to prove hate crime, only that the victim felt it was such. This is So much a world apart from trying to get a case prosecuted for sexual assault it's unreal.

I'm sure I'm not alone in not reporting a rape, partly because I thought (and I would say thought rightly) that it would not get taken seriously. Meanwhile, unfriendliness is a crime. What a joke.

I have been in the same situation. Didn't report cos I was living with the guy at the time. And the only reason I didn't fight it was cos I didnt want to be beaten up. Again. So there's that. Which is not a hate crime btw.

How does that message (re sexual assault) square with this stance on hate crime?

Batshit crazy.

And I have to say, I dont think anyone deserves friendliness unconditionally. Politeness yes, but thats not what it says

How do you even define unfriendliness?

No one link to a dictionary

I will do it my self

I dont like or enjoy the company of loads of people

That's actually a hate crime??

I knew i wasnt keen on FIL but still the idea i could be convicted of a hate crime is making me think twice...

No its not...he is still a twat

I don't know. I'm quite scared myself ya know not being overly friendly to strangers in real life! What's gonna happen if someone talks to us and we shuffle off? Call the police?? Ridiculous

God can you imagine bat

'I said hello and she ignored me'

Thats fine madam...we will arrest her now and charge her with unfriendliness'

Oh wait

Is this another way of getting catcalling back?

'I yelled nice arse and she completely ignored me '

Sorry dont know how to @ but yes it does sound exactly that way. She ignored me, she humiliated me. So fucking what. We all know this "hate" law is not going to be there to back up women.not at all.

Yep

Deffo agree with you there bat

Julie Bindel wrote an article over ten years ago in the Guardian about the difficulty in getting convictions for rape. One of the things she said was, 'rape may as well be legal in this country'. This appalling statement by Cressida Dick proves it's true.