A very compelling reason not to report rape

[GoldenWonderwall]

www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/vulnerable-women-routinely-jailed-false-rape?bfsource=bbf_enuk&utm_term=.dqqYVQ8bn4#.xkj2yRPZQA

I feel sick. I can’t believe that the police and cps use the difficulties in securing rape convictions against women to convict them. Taking a mother away from her baby, causing a mentally ill woman to take her own life. I’m sure there is some sensational reporting here but I’m unsurprised.

What can we do? Is there anything to be done or is it just another big brick in the wall of stfu about rape and sexual assault ladies?

A false accusation can't leave you with physical injuries

Really? You really posted that?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9788265/Teenager-falsely-accused-of-rape-beaten-to-death-by-gang.html

I'd say being beaten to death is very much on the physical injuries spectrum.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816839/Woman-jailed-FALSELY-accusing-man-rape-street-encouraging-mob-bystanders-chase-beat-death.html

This guy died as well. But fuck 'em eh? Most men who rape get off so it's only a bit of collateral damage.

The cases made in the OPs article have clearly falsely accused men of rape. One was found guilty in court, the other in all likelihood would have as well.

It's quite interesting to see on this board the argument that rapists rarely see their day in court, and that if they're convicted they've very much done it.

This argument no way extends to false rape allegations though. No Siree. You're quite happy to say they're even rarer still, but a conviction? That's some sort of miscarriage of justice. These women are "vulnerable" or have MH issues, like that makes it ok.

Why the fuck shouldn't AE have pursued his claim? He had every right to.

I'd say being beaten to death is very much on the physical injuries spectrum.

Oh look, a man blaming women for the actions of a gang of men. Twice. First rule of misogyny: women are to blame for men's actions. People who take the law into their own hands are choosing to break the law, because we do not permit vigilanteism in the UK.

That's some sort of miscarriage of justice. These women are "vulnerable" or have MH issues, like that makes it ok.

No, it doesn't make it ok. What it does mean is that prison isn't the right place for them. FYI, Ian Brady who raoed and murdered several children was also not held in prison but in a secure psychiatric unit, because of his mental health issues.

Why the fuck shouldn't AE have pursued his claim? He had every right to.

Actually he didn't have a right to pursue his libel claim, which is why the judge threw his case out of court on the grounds of it being clearly maliciously motivated. As for private criminal prosecutions, I think they should be outlawed. We shouldn't have access to justice being conditional upon ability to pay.

Oh look, a man blaming women for the actions of a gang of men. Twice.

In case it's not absolutely clear: the blame for beating the accused men to death lies with the people who did the beating, not with the women who complained of rape.

Actually it IS a crime to incite violence. Albeit not a rape but a woman is facing 22 years for inciting one man to kill another. Obvs the murderers are guilty, but lying about a rape that sees a man injured or killed could be seen as having encouraged or assisted in the commission of an offence.

Oh look, a man blaming women for the actions of a gang of men. Twice. First rule of misogyny: women are to blame for men's actions

You didn't even read the articles did you? I'll call this the "third rule of feminism" just angrily type because someone doesn't agree with you, without checking any facts first.

Sadly for you, it was entirely predictable that you'd attempt to wriggle out of your nonsense previous post so I selected two examples (out of the many) where women were directly involved in the physical attack. I'll think I'll blame the women for their own actions thanks. Sadly I'm sure you'll argue the "first rule of feminism"* but it's quite clear.

As for private criminal prosecutions, I think they should be outlawed. We shouldn't have access to justice being conditional upon ability to pay.

Luckily for the rest of the population what you think doesn't matter. Legally and morally he had every right to pursue her as I said earlier.

*women are never responsible for their own actions, because umm patriarchy.

Here's the really big distinction that you are purposefully ignoring: assault is not a false accusation and incitement to violence is also not a false accusation. These are THREE SEPARATE CRIMES. So anyone who makes a false accusation and also attacks the person they accuse, the violence is separate from the accusation. If I make a truthful accusation and then assault my rapist, the assault is still a crime even though the accusation is not. When you are blaming a false accusation for causing a man's death, you are wrong: it is the assault that has caused that death, not the accusation.

I would suspect that most of the population are unaware that private criminal prosecution even exists, with it being the exclusive preserve of the rich. The CPS should have disclosed that evidence that weakened the case against her sooner, she might still be alive if they had. Bearing in mind that she was never tried nor convicted for false accusation and EA's libel case was thrown out of court for being vindictive, the least we can do is presume her innocence, something which you have so far refused to do.

For reference: the rules of misogyny

I regard neither the Telegraph nor the Mail as publishers of facts btw. Eliding two different crimes into one and then blaming the first crime for the consequences of the second is a logical fallacy.

The CPS should have disclosed that evidence that weakened the case against her sooner

What evidence was that?

I regard neither the Telegraph nor the Mail as publishers of facts

But Buzzfeed are?

4th rule of feminism. Media, statistics and anecdotes which correlate with my world view are gospel and sacrosanct. Anything else is clearly wrong.

I don’t think that’s a rule of feminism exactly, it’s a human tendency called motivated reasoning. We all do it.

@netrorider I agree that the damages caused by false accusations can be mitigated but what you suggest isn't sufficient due to the no smoke without fire mentality that many people apply to rape accusations. The only way to remove the justifications for prosecuting false accusers is to prevent publication of accusations in the first place.

People just need to be educated re: how courts function, because of the burden of proof just because a man is found not guilty does not automatically = that the woman lied about it.

Women do not tend to lie about being raped, and besides given how few rapists see the inside of a jail cell it’s probably quite an inefficient way at trying to get at men. That said some do and when it’s malicious I’d say it’s criminal. It also occurs to me that just because some is mentally unstable it does not automatically follow they aren’t malicious.

There probably needs to be a wider conversation on how we treat anyone accused of a crime, especially those with mental health issues, and not just in relation to false accusations, but generally. I think just restricting the discussion to just women with mental issues is counter productive, and paternal. The idea that women god bless em can’t handle being held responsible as defendants in court cases is pretty insulting to women actually.

The rate of false reports are not different whatever the crime, and yet false rape reports have an entire mythology established around them.
I wonder if prosecutors charge a higher percentage of women for reporting rape than they do rapists?

The only way to remove the justifications for prosecuting false accusers is to prevent publication of accusations in the first place.

That would certainly be a boon to the serial rapists among us.
Women could go back to writing the rapists names on the walls in the loo like we used to when I was a teen. Are you old enough to remember when men argued there was no such thing as real rape if the victim survived the attack?

The only way to remove the justifications for prosecuting false accusers is to prevent publication of accusations in the first place.

No one has actually said we shouldn't. What we have said is that the standard of evidence and level of being "in the public interest" needs to be sufficiently high. The buzzfeed article indicates that it sometimes isn't. All the things in the buzzfeed article can be verified. As I said, when all the false accusation cases had to go through the DPP personally, the levels that went to court dropped because Keir Starmer was applying the CPS guidance strictly. That it went up after he stopped doing that tells you that others in the CPS are not so strict.

Which is what the thread was about before @iloveirnbru came along and derailed it.

Previous post errata: "No one has actually said that we shouldn't prosecute false accusers."

@iloveirnbru asked what evidence was withheld from de Freitas's defence until three days beforehand. It's listed in the article, but seeing as you prefer the Torygraph, I have your preferred source:
"Although the majority of the material was provided to the defence, Ms de Freitas’ police interview was only provided at a late stage.”

Because clearly, not giving the defendant and her counsel enough time to prepare is a really fair way to run a trial.

If there’s no evidence that x raped y then how can the same absence of evidence prove y lied about x? There’s nothing to say one way or another. So many cases are dropped at this stage I’m very unclear as to why some are seemingly pursued at random to get a conviction one way or another.

To use a history of obvious injuries on a woman to say that she is of Machiavellian intent, hurting herself for years in order to create a compelling trail of false evidence that her partner is an abusive rapist is straight out of fiction. No logic or reason holds up to it.

The narrative that women in general lie about rape to get back at men is insidious and patently untrue. I can’t say I’m reading these stories and thinking that justice was served.

If he wanted people to think he was a nice guy who wouldn't harm anyone, he was taking a strange approach to it.

This. And he's still got a blog about his "ordeal" and has bought google ads so that when you search for Eleanor, his blog is the first thing you see, above all the search results. This is a vendetta against a dead woman, serious red flag behaviour, and doesn't do anything to convince me that he's a nice guy who would never ever harm a woman.

@thebewilderness, I'm too young to remember loo wall lists of rapists but your insistance that the women's loo be female-only, no exceptions, gets some context.

Can I ask TransExclusionaryMRA why you didn't respond to the post I made in direct response to your point about rape reporting?

As I said, when all the false accusation cases had to go through the DPP personally, the levels that went to court dropped because Keir Starmer was applying the CPS guidance strictly

Hang on a rooting tooting moment. I thought false rape claims were made at the same rates as all other claims? Did Mr Starmer review all false burglary claims? All false assault accusations? All PCJ traffic offences? No, these false rape claims are artificially kept low because there was a political will to do so. Fucking patriarchy eh?

(8th rule of feminism. Even when a feminist presents evidence which directly contradicts their assertion of a patriarchy, they will desperately hold on to the belief it exists in the face of any logic or reasoning.)

Hang on a rooting tooting moment. I thought false rape claims were made at the same rates as all other claims?

How do you know that false rape accusations made at the same rate as other claims weren't assessed wrongly as false? What do we consider a "false rape accusation"?

You are trying to compare two different datasets without knowing the parameters.

“I really hate that fucking family,” Alexander told BuzzFeed News. “He’s got all the feminists into a frenzy thinking that she’s some kind of victim.”

“I’m the victim,” he said, “not them.”

Rapist or not, Alexander Economou is a cunt of the highest order.
She killed herself ffs. Yet, he still feels so outraged that a woman dared go against him that he went for her family after her death.

He is no victim.

This. And he's still got a blog about his "ordeal" and has bought google ads so that when you search for Eleanor, his blog is the first thing you see, above all the search results. This is a vendetta against a dead woman, serious red flag behaviour, and doesn't do anything to convince me that he's a nice guy who would never ever harm a woman

Again this is baffling. He's just supposed to forgive and forget? Why should He?

Try and assume for one minute he's innocent (clearly difficult for most on here) but just try. Why shouldn't he, as a victim be angry? Why shouldn't he set the record straight. It's utterly bizarre that you think he should just roll over.