Big Brother wants 7 years data if you are a rape victim

[OldQueen1969]

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/17/police-in-england-and-wales-dropping-inquiries-when-victims-refuse-to-hand-in-phones

Thought this might be of interest.

[ShinyFootball]

'The sad thing is a tiny minority of women do lie. Yes, it's rare. But I'm not comfortable with both side of any crime not being investigated properly and either side being let down as a result.'

Thousands of people lie about or inflate insurance claims due to theft all the time. This is well known. Everyone in the insurance pool pays higher premiums because of it. This is far from a victimless crime.

I haven't really seen anyone getting so excited about that as about rape. I doubt period who report theft Dec etc for a crime ref number so they can claim have their phones removed for X period of time.

The treatment of rape victims is wholly different to victims of other crimes. And I include victims of CSA and male victims in that as well.

[ShinyFootball]

'The searches can be done instantly at a local police station and are used by many forces for low level crime - regardless of whether or not someone is charged - and can be used on victims and witnesses as well as suspects.”'

Rape isn't a low level crime though.

Which is presumably why they take a (very) different approach.

[ShinyFootball]

Sorry for multi posts been working and catching up thread now. Have wine

I see this is the usual bish bosh between lots of people who always crop up on threads like these. I'd like to understand why the views are so polarised.

If anyone feels like it, please read the original report (and bear in mind this has not been resolved as back in the news again).

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-48086244

And tell me how it makes you feel, what points spring out at you, what you think based on the actual article, rather than other cases over the years, could be the solution? Or, other thoughts?

I will catch up on the thread and sort the kids out then I will come and reread it and post my thoughts and feelings on it and based just on that article why I felt so strongly when I first read it.

I know we all come with different positions, background, experiences etc. And we always end up in a fight. If we focus on that single piece, maybe we can move a bit closer to understanding?

Sorry had a good day at work, couple glasses wine, feeling why not let's try this...

Any takers?

[WhatWouldYouDoWhatWouldJesusDo]

shiny name me a person who's been charged with rape and imprisoned because someone else made a false insurance claim. A charge that will follow that person round for the rest of his life and may stop him having contact with his children and will pretty much out a stop to him getting a halfway decent job.

It hasn't happened has it ?

Stop resorting to being a knobhead and accept the fact that a small minority of women lie. Which is why all facts must be established.

I'm sure if you or a relative were falsely accused of a crime you'd want all avenues investigated wouldn't you. ?

Honestly. 🙄

[Gronky]

ShinyFootball, my feelings, based on those cases are that it's a necessary evil with a lot of room for improvement. I view the police asking for access to the phones of victims as an attempt to secure a conviction so they should only be resented for their indelicacy in their endeavours, rather than asking for it at all.

My best case scenario for this action would be for either the information to be securely copied at the point of interview or for an equivalent replacement phone to be offered if there's a legal issue with data integrity (I'm not an expert but I understand this is why the police hold on to computers in cases involving IT, rather than just taking a copy and returning the device). I think a fuller explanation should be given of why not providing access might hinder attempts at prosecution and that victims should be guaranteed that convictions (of them) won't be made based on the data collected.

I realise I'm straying slightly outside the bounds of the case you prevented but, in terms of how the data is used, I think a two stage approach should be adopted. That is, all data is collected to ensure integrity but the CPS should contact the victim to request the use of specific data as evidence. I'm by no means a legal expert but that seems to me like it would prevent the defence team from having full access to the data.

Beyond that, I can't really see a way that would offer the best chance of a prosecution of offenders but still preserve the rights of the innocent who are falsely accused.

[Gronky]

still preserve the rights of the innocent who are falsely accused.

I wanted to add that this doesn't specifically refer to those making false accusations of rape but, rather, in the broader sense. Women have historically suffered when the barrier for conviction is taken below 'innocent until proven guilty' (e.g. witch trials).

[ShinyFootball]

Gronky thank you for responding in the spirit of the question. It's late so I will try and answer tomorrow when I get a break from work.

To the other poster who responded and called me a ' knobhead' that's less helpful.

To answer your question 'shiny name me a person who's been charged with rape and imprisoned because someone else made a false insurance claim.' well no, obviously not. I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

FYI from ageas on motor insurance fraud 'Insurance fraud isn’t a ‘victimless’ crime. According to the Association of British Insurers, bogus and inflated insurance claims are estimated to cost more than £2.1 billion a year – adding around £50 to the premiums of honest policyholders. We try to avoid passing on that cost to our genuine customers by fighting to prevent insurance fraud'. That's a massive impact across society. Not trivial, I would think.

Anyway I get the sense that you aren't interested in trying to have a less polarised conversation so I will leave it there.

[squeekums]

If I were raped there is no way on God's earth I would ever report it.

20 years and still not reported it
Why bother then
Why bother now

[Molana]

This is, incidentally, why no woman should EVER use Slack. We had this issue in a Slack group (free tier) and there's no way to delete messages on the free tier. So you are then in the position of having to potentially endanger all your friends who have been innocently 'private' messaging you. It costs thousands to convert to a paid account even just to delete things, so they hold your data hostage, basically.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

20 years and still not reported it
Why bother then
Why bother now

Same here

[ChurchOfWokeApostate]

A charge that will follow that person round for the rest of his life and may stop him having contact with his children and will pretty much out a stop to him getting a halfway decent job
People always say this, but it doesn’t ring true to me. Men accused of rape always seem to have a bunch of cheerleaders behind them calling the victim a slag, or whatever, even when they haven’t heard the allegation fully

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

What are they actually looking for on the victims phone? Proof (e.g. messages) where she has confirmed that she is lying?

That's the only thing I can think.

[TehBewilderness]

What are they actually looking for on the victims phone?
An excuse not to investigate further, or an excuse to prosecute the victim.
There were two high profile cases in this area of serial rapists not being pursued because the police refused to believe the victim and invested a great deal of time in convincing her that she was lying. Then they prosecuted her.
When they finally caught the serial rapist they found her trophy among the rest.
You would think they would have learned there was a problem when the first instance came to light, but nope. Another municipality with misogynist police officers let yet another serial rapist terrorize a community while they prosecuted one of his victims for not being victimy enough.

[Gwynfluff]

Small number of women lie against how many men lying about whether they have raped? Basically you can rape now and get away with it. Virtually impossible to get to court or get a conviction. Keep talking about the tiny number of women who falsely accuse and In the meantime have a culture in which you and your female kids are not safe.

[Gwynfluff]

What are they actually looking for on the victims phone? Proof (e.g. messages) where she has confirmed that she is lying?

Did she phone and tell people immediately. Did she have a prior relationship. Her past sexual history. Anything at all that implies she ‘Asked for it’, basically. No understanding of trauma responses or even right to redact consent at any pointb

[slipperywhensparticus]

Someone close to me was accused of sexual assault on a minor child twice in fact he still had access to his children throughout the investigation supervised by his mother who was in the house during one of the alleged assaults on his own stepchild social services crucified the mum even though she was in hospital at the time and didn't know a fucking thing the man was treated like a poor victim despite the fact that this made it his second arrest for the same offence of course because he wasn't convicted the first time no one thought to tell his wife about this she was fucking oblivious

[slipperywhensparticus]

This is why I wouldn't bother reporting it's not worth it

[ShinyFootball]

Bernadette -

'12:28vampirethriller

The police still have my phone. They took it 8 years ago.
Held against me in court:
I was on antidepressants
I had an abortion
I was a prostitute
I had photos of myself dressed up for a night out on my phone
I'm tall (so could have fought harder)'

So that's the sort of thing the info is used for

[ShinyFootball]

We used to talk about how only 'perfect victims' stood a chance of getting to court/ a conviction etc.

This is perfect victim +++++

Because your phone holds so much info which we consider private.

So if they find anything, anything at all, that can be used against you, game over. Not interested. And in the meantime they keep your phone sometimes for years because the amount of data is so vast on each phone they don't have the resource to go through it (and suspect rape is not that high a priority). How many women have, in the last 7 years, not done anything at all on their phone that could be used to paint them in a bad light by the defence.

The medical records stuff is v worrying as well.

[ShinyFootball]

This is a good article from June last year

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-medical-records-met-police-cps-a8949636.html%3famp

'Jane, now 32, said she was presented with consent forms enabling investigators to access records from her primary and secondary schools, universities, GP and therapists.'

When they had DNA evidence to show who it was.

[ShinyFootball]

Sorry gronky I didn't reply.

First thing is 'Women have historically suffered when the barrier for conviction is taken below 'innocent until proven guilty'. This has not been suggested on this thread that I can see.

That said, quite a few women who have had the strength and means to take rape cases to civil court after a not guilty verdict in a criminal court have won. The bar there is on the balance of the evidence, rather than beyond all reasonable doubt. Which is a lower bar.

On the phones.

I think it should be looked into why they are analysed more in rape cases than other crimes, when the collapsed cases that brought this about were across the range of crimes. Also, the media is an issue. The collapsed cases were across many crimes, why was rape focussed on in the reporting? The fact it was happening at the same level as other crimes was not mentioned or a footnote. Why? This skews public perception. Ditto that false accusations are reported very disproportionately to convictions. Why do they do this? It hardens attitudes towards rape victims as the public get a skewed picture.

The time. 7 years? Why? If it was a bloke you met in the pub 3 weeks ago, surely only communications after meeting him are relevant. 7 years is a really really really long time. What are they looking for?

Slight aside but medical records. Why? If not medical records related to the assault? The poster earlier said the fact the had depression was raised in court to cast doubt on her credibility.
Quick Google gives govt stats 'antidepressants 7.3 million people (17% of the adult population'. '
That is now, over last 7 years how many? And women are on them more than men.

It just feels hopelessly stacked against us.

A litany of terrible failures from warboys to Reid to the girls in Rotherham show that there is a real issue. Prosecutions are at an all time low. And yet, whether people like it or not, this is a common and terribly under reported crime. This is accepted by the police.

My take is
Funds are short
The general public/ society don't really care (they say they do but the reality is they don't, people say rape is a terrible crime but when actual cases come it's all, why did she go there, what was she wearing, well she kissed him etc etc)
If police took this seriously they wouldn't have time to do anything else (reason sex is a protected characteristic but strangely omitted from hate crime laws)

In short. And I know I've written an essay. Our system was set up by men for men to tackle the sort of crime that happens to men. It was mainly around property, or obvious punch in the face type violence. It is hopeless for the sort of crimes that are more common for women and children (and of course men are raped too).

Other countries have a system where it's more of a discussion (forget what it's called) rather than our adversarial system.

I would like to see an acknowledgement of the frequency of these crimes, that they are under reported, that the nature of them combined with social attitudes makes them very difficult to prosecute.

And a genuine look at what they can do.

And I do not want to see women's phones taken for years, 7 years data, their medical records, counseling records, school records, trawled through when she reports that a man she met 3 weeks ago raped her. What is the relevance?

[Gronky]

Thank you for taking the time to reply, ShinyFootball, especially at such a late hour.

On courts and the barrier for conviction, I realise it wasn't specifically mentioned in this thread. However, it is mentioned reasonably frequently when the low rate of conviction is brought up in this discussion. For civil courts, I'm less sure that their barrier for prosecution is broadly beneficial; I understand its necessity and that it is slightly more justifiable on the basis of the limited penalties which can be imposed but, equally, I feel it puts too much power in the hands of those who can afford large numbers of solicitors.

Regarding 7 years for phones and medical evidence; the police are investigators, not prosecutors. In addition to the previously discussed metadata (I think that's the right term) for location, I understand that data which is not there is equally important (e.g. abuser claiming they had contact with the victim). This is why I'd advocate a broad initial data collection, followed by specific access requests which the victim can grant or deny. The key purpose here being to maintain data integrity since, if the accuser does fabricate an exonerating story which involves information from further afield, there is securely held evidence which can hopefully be used to disprove it. I think the alternative system to adversarial you're thinking of is inquisitorial; I believe what I describe incorporates elements of that.

I agree that alternate systems should be explored but, given that this would take a long time to change (if it could be changed at all), I think the parallel re-engineering of the current systems would also be beneficial. In an ideal world, I wouldn't want women's phones taken from them and their private data scrutinised either but, in the world we live in, I want every opportunity to collect information which might ensure a correct legal decision to be taken advantage of.

You originally asked
"I'd like to understand why the views are so polarised."

I believe it ultimately comes down to whether an individual believes the data is being collected for the benefits of the prosecution or the benefit of the defence.

[aliasundercover]

What are they actually looking for on the victims phone?

Phones hold all sorts of info. It can prove (to some extent) you were where you said you were, for example.

[Gwynfluff]

Phones hold all sorts of info. It can prove (to some extent) you were where you said you were, for example.

Do you need to have the phone for that, let alone years? As the medical records case shows, they are looking for evidence that the women is not reliable or consented or ‘asked for or’. It would be relatively easy to set parameters about when a phone needed to be taken, for how long and what sort of data could be accessed.

[DandyMandy]

If I was raped, there's no way I would report it. Women who do report it are so brave and I support them all the way because they're about to go through even more hell. It's scary to think that a large percentage of police officers are domestic abusers/rapists themselves and that absolutely is one of the reasons for the shitty conviction rate. Officers and the higher ups don't view rape as a big deal because chances are they've done it themselves.

You can guarantee that they will want the victims phone to see if she was into "rape fantasies"🤢 even though it's more likely that men into that type of thing are one step away from committing the crime.

Look at how the guy who raped all those men in Manchester was classed as "the worst serial rapist in British history" and how the government was going to look into GHB even though it has been used against women and girls for years, suddenly because men were raped it was a big deal? There's still a serial rapist on the loose in Bath I believe. The man who committed those atrocious crimes has never been caught but it's highly likely he was in the army.