Rape and abuse survivors clash with convicted mens’ rights group outside Scottish Parliament

[IwantToRetire]

Members of Justice for Innocent Men Scotland (JIMS) were met with a counter protest as they campaigned against “unfair trials” at the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday.

Members of Justice for Innocent Men Scotland (JIMS), who have been slammed for targeting women speaking out on abuse, planned a “silent protest” at Holyrood on Tuesday, campaigning against "unfair trials" in Scotland.

But the 100-strong group turned out with a piper and megaphone to be met with chants of “shame on you” from a group representing victims of abuse, led by rape survivor Ellie Wilson.

Article in full at https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rape-abuse-survivors-clash-convicted-35875960

Hi,
Around 3000 raped were reported in Scotland last year. 300 of those made it to court and less than half of those ended up in a conviction. The bar for evidence from the procurator fiscal to take the case to court is very high. Corroboration can of course be a small part of your case, for example if you told a friend after ur happened

Thank you. I want to be clear that we don’t fight against what the foundation of their campaign was about. But they’ve discredited any campaign by muddying the waters by blaming victims. Section 274/275 has nothing to do with survivors, that’s for the lawmakers. Their behaviour has been utterly abhorrent, and as JEMS we remain committed to stopping the victim blaming and horrible misogyny deeply planted in their group!

Thanks for posting this.

I was coming on to say that a family member who works as a massage therapist was accused of sexual assault by a patient. The woman felt something touch her - and assumed it was an erect penis. Without looking to clarify she complained to the health regulator. She believed her story so was utterly convincing. My cousin’s business was ruined as his associates left - not wanting to be tainted. His family believed him but bore the brunt of lost income and all the stress of financial problems. It took 18 months to get to hearing where he was eventually cleared. The woman walked away - no one knows if she feels any regret for the “misunderstanding”. A total nightmare. Since then I’m careful to remember that we are all innocent until proven guilty - I was shocked to see how his female colleagues turned on him on the basis of this allegation. They all presumed guilt because he is male. Deeply distressing - I can’t imagine how bad it would have been to also face a criminal charge over something he hadn’t done. when I saw this protest I thought those families must be desperate to come into the light and reveal the charges publicly - doing so comes with huge risk. (It goes without saying that I am also unhappy with the system from the women’s Pov)

Quite agree

Having sat through a trial where we were gobsmacked that it got to court. The bar for evidence was as low as it could possibly be. An accusation and texts to a boyfriend. The lawyers involved were open with family that this year, this has become a political football. The figures and facts from previous years I’ve discussed many times with friends and family, where getting a conviction was so poor many of us just didn’t report being SA. I don’t want to in any way suggest we should go back to that. There needs to be a way, however to allow the balance that there should be on paper.

100% agree

With all due respect, seeing how this case was handled in practice has been eye-opening. What the law looks like on paper is very different from how it is applied in reality. It is almost impossible to have crucial evidence that challenges the credibility of the accuser admitted into court.

The way the accuser was allowed to behave during the trial was shocking. Key facts that could have influenced the jury were excluded, including the gross and extreme differences in the accusers various statements over the years and clear contradictions around the events of the night. The defence lawyer had to fight to have an extremely important piece of evidence included which ultimately probably led to not being convicted of a more serious charge. The case dragged on for so long only because, in a previous trial attempt, the prosecution entered inappropriate, unagreed, and misleading evidence which led to a mistrial. This case then appears to have been caught up in what appears to be a push forward of unheard cases ( not a bad thing in itself).

Despite repeated warnings from the judge, the accuser spent days presenting a dramatic and elaborate version of events. The medical examiner flatly stated that all charges — except the rape allegation, which relied solely on the accused’s admission of sex and evidence of distress afterward — were physically impossible based on their examination.

Before witnessing this case, I would not have believed this could happen. I would have doubted such a description of events. It feels absurd, especially considering the grueling trials that my friend’s daughter and my daughter’s friend went through in truly horrific cases. While I don’t for a second think that there are a huge percentage of these cases where the accused is being unjustly charged and brought to court. This case has been a shock and an eye opener to how these changes can be applied and ruin a person's life.

Whilst I understand how hard that must have been, and genuinely do empathise, these men the protest was about have been convicted. Several of crimes towards several women. And some involving crimes towards children. I'm not sure those situations can be compared.

also I am not sure it's solely because he is male. I think many people now understand the trauma sexual abuse/assault can bring regardless of the accused gender. I worked with a woman who was accused of physically hurting a child and she experienced the same. She was later cleared and the child was left with life altering injuries. It was a sad situation for all involved and the truth has never been uncovered. But to make this a gender war is unfair.

It’s interesting isn’t it - no one’s protesting for fraudsters after the Post Office scandal

I wasn’t at all trying to equate my cousin’s case to these much more serious cases, but there’s definitely a presumption of guilt. For my cousin if a female colleague had been accused of inappropriate touching I’m sure that they’d be given the benefit of the doubt in a way he wasnt. I see what you’re saying about your ex colleague who was cleared of hurting a child - except thats slightly different. The child was hurt = tangible evidence. It wouldn’t matter what sex the person was i think they would be treated the same. Whereas my cousin’s issue was entirely in the mind of his patient - who was believed by all until it came to the FTP hearing and the whole thing fell apart. Professional conduct findings were eventually made against his colleagues for harassment related to sex. They crossed the line between protecting the public and aggressing him. Anyway enough about that - thankfully all over now

Not this particular issue, but related to rape trials in Scotland:

A rape survivor at centre of the campaign to remove the not proven verdict has spoken out ahead of the final stage of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill debate.
https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/comment-miss-m-speaks-ahead-of-vote-to-scrap-not-proven-verdict/

Is one of the issues, that whatever the "rules" how courts conduct rape trials cant get the balance right?

University hosted group that claims rape survivors are police informants
Justice for Innocent Men Scotland, which has been accused of targeting and harassing rape survivors, was invited to address students at Abertay
Full article at https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/jims-rapist-rights-group-abertay-lecture-k9djb85rh and https://archive.is/0QAhV

none of that excuses men being utter cunts to traumatised women. I hope you're not bringing your son up to behave like that.

Rape is, to all intents and purposes, decriminalised. And you write all that? wobble and head pls.

Does it excuse not reading or trying to comprehend what someone has written and resorting to name calling? Nowhere have I excused that behaviour. In fact of you bothered to read I agreed that JIMS behaviour was disgusting and that it was disappointing that they seemed to be the face of what isa real issue of justice that some men and their families are going through right now. Maybe sort your own behaviour towards others before throwing stones, love.

I don't understand how what you've linked there relates to your post - are you saying you are in agreement with the suggestion of those convicted sex offenders - that someone accused of raped should be able to question the accuser in court about their previous sexual behaviour?

Rape is effectively decriminalised as PP said, we live in rape culture. Anything that ups the charge and conviction rate is good in my eyes, because by it's nature it's already very very hard to prosecute beyond doubt. Women are already very rarely believed when we are sexually assaulted and we are very unlikely to even tell someone, and fear mongering of innocent men being convicted because of a lying woman is a myth perpetuated by rape culture. It's extremely unlikely a woman would lie about rape and then persevere with the hell that is going through the police and trial process.

Disclaimer, typing on an old phone so grammar will be poor.
In what way is rape effectively decriminalised in Scotland? I am genuinely interested since the Scottish government is making progressive steps to ensure rape convictions are secured. Overall a good thing.
My issue is that at present the rules applied to submission of evidence by the accused are neither being applied consistantly or fairly. The changes themselves should mean that we have a balance where women will never be humiated and harassed or asked what they are wearing. Sex work or sexual history won't be used to discredit the accused. Evidence will only be allowed if it is deemed to be relevant to the course of justice. Excellent. That's what weve all been fighting for and as a mother of daughters and a victim of SA, I should be delighted about. However that's not what is happening across the board (although if I did not have personal experience of this I would be sceptical). Among those accused and convicted of rape, as we unhappily witnessed as a family recently, are a proportion (maybe one, maybe many) who are not having a fair trial because they have not been allowed to admit evidence which is central to the case. In the past we also had a friends son get as close as you can to conviction before the corroborating witness produced texts to show that they made the whole thing up. It happens. I believe it's a very small proportion of those accused and Rape and SA are unfortunately far too common and I would like to see every rapist behind bars. However, when you watch a loved one go through a trial that is initially thrown out due to the tampering and inconsistencies in evidence only then to be convicted in a subsequent trial that omits credible evidence and where stories and statements are wildly changed, where more than one charge is stated in court to be a blatant lie by a medical examiner leading to a not guilty on those charges and then after all that to see them face a long sentence without the opportunity to what most people would consider a fair trial. Thats also a person whose life is destroyed. That's also a family who are devastated. Everyone has a right to a fair trial. The part (the reason for the attachments) of the UK supreme Court ruling that I am interested in is the excessive restriction of evidence. Not the restriction, but the excessive restriction, which is what we witnessed in our experience. I'm not standing up for JIMS, I'm not arguing for a return to women being humiliated and grilled about their lifestyles, clothes or irrelevant questioning but I don't see what is progressive about unfair convictions that can be avoided.

When rape is as prevalent as it is and rape convictions are as low as they are, it is effectively decriminalised. I'm baffled any woman and past SA survivor would really be concerned that of the miniscule amount of men who are held to account and charged and/or convicted there is a large proportion of them being falsely found guilt or accused. You really do need to give your head a wobble.as PP advised, you sound like a man or a woman unwilling to accept your relative is a sex offender who raped a woman. I'm sorry but that's just significantly more likely than this large conspiracy you believe took place to convict your relative involving several investigations and trials swaying in favour of the victim... even though it's hard for you to accept.

I'm confused if you're not supportive of women who have reported rape being grilled on the past sexual behaviour why you posted the examples you did or convicted sex offenders arguing they didn't get a fair trial because they didn't get to question the victim on her past sexual behaviour?

Furthermore, I'm still more than puzzled by this assertion of a trial not being fair because presumably evidence wasn't included that wasn't supplied to the police investigation. You're typing as if women report rape willy-nilly to the police and the police just believe us and take it to trial. What you're arguing as being the excessive restriction of evidence, in most cases I've read about, is exactly the kind of rape culture "evidence" that tries to discredit a woman's claim to be raped i.e. texts about past sexual activities, flirtations etc which actually have nothing to do with whether unconsensual sex took place on the occasion being investigated and luckily courts are realising this.

Wanting fair trials and for women who have been raped to be able to convict their rapists is not mutually exclusive. People who see everything in black nd white are exhausting. I am both a rape survivor and a person who has personal experience of an unfair trial. I'm sorry that you have no room in your perspective to understand that both of those things are very wrong. On that note. Have a nice life.

Wanting fair trials and for women who have been raped to be able to convict their rapists is not mutually exclusive

Agreed, however I've asked twice why you posted convicted sex offenders claiming their trial was unfair because they couldn't question the victim on their past sexual behaviour and you haven't commented on why. You haven't posted anything evidentiary to explain that your relatives trial was unfair, especially to expand on that to worrying that unfair rape trials are happening on large when they really aren't. I'm sure your relative is entitled to appeal his conviction with so much evidence in his favour. And no as a rape survivor I don't have any space to be concerned about those accused of raped, I just don't. They seem to have enough people on their side as it is.

What in the name of God does this woman not understand about “convicted rapist guilty of attacks against four women and a child”?

Anything that ups the conviction rate is good?

I mean, we could switch to guilty until proven innocent for sexual assault cases, or simply not have a trial, and that would up the conviction rate, quite a lot I would think.

It's entirely possible for it to be true both that there is a very low rate of conviction, and the rules are such that some of the people being convicted are not being able to present their cases in a fair way.

You're being obtuse unless you can quote where I said either of those things. The example PP posted of a convicted sex offender not getting a "fair trial" was being unable to personal quiz his accuser on their last sexual behaviour and a story of her own relative who has been found guilty by due process and she hasn't mentioned an appeal or such finding his trial was unfair 🤷🏻‍♀️ If you want you can give actual examples of unfair practices convicting innocent men being a large problem, you're welcome to, but so far it isn't.

A police rape investigations team has been asked to speak at Abertay University after the contentious lecture there last month by a controversial men’s rights group.

It is understood that members of Dundee Women’s Aid and Dundee Women’s Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre will also attend the “counter lecture”.

The Courier has also learned that a peaceful student-led protest against the lecture will be held later this week.

The moves come after Justice for Innocent Men Scotland (Jims), which represents men it claims have been falsely accused of rape, was invited to speak to fourth-year criminology students last month, by senior lecturer Dr Stuart Waiton.

Meanwhile, university students are making three demands of the university after what they have described as the “tortuous ordeal”.

.... https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/5373405/abertay-police-counter-lecture-rape-row/

Update:

Abertay University issues response after 300 complaints over controversial rape laws lecture

A protest was later held by Abertay students, who demanded that the results of an investigation be made public as soon as possible.

They also asked that the lecturer’s course material be reviewed urgently “due to a lack of free speech within the course”.

Dunfermline-based Ms Sturgeon – whose real name is Marzena Paszkowska – later came under fire after it emerged she had mocked rape survivors for lacking the “victim vibe” on social media.

Her partner, John Sturgeon, was jailed for eight years in 2024 after a jury found him guilty of a campaign of abuse against two women.

More than 300 complaints made after controversial rape lecture at Abertay University

The outcome of Abertay’s investigation, led by two members of the university’s senior management team, has now concluded.

The probe found the session – titled ‘Victim’ Feminism and Trauma Informed Approach – with Ms Sturgeon was “appropriate in the context of this criminology module”.

A report seen by The Courier has revealed that more than 300 complaints or pieces of feedback were received from external sources, students and staff members following the lecture.

However, none of these has been upheld.

Full article at https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/5462428/abertay-university-response-rape-lecture-investigation/

And at https://archive.is/bMZ30

So you were there and saw what happened?