No rape took place outside Epsom church, claim police

[PILEALLTHEPILLSONTHEFLOOR]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86ezy3qvjno

Either that or the police intimidated the victim into retracting her claims for the sake of quelling the riots.

'they now believe the woman concerned "sustained an accidental head injury" following a night out and made "a confused report".

Being gangraped is hardly the sort of thing a woman would get 'confused' about. This is absolutely outrageous.

I regretfully agree.

I'm obviously not regretting that a woman wasn't raped as she said - and make no pretence of knowing what did happen. However, I think it very unlikely that her report was accurate. It's almost impossible for the police to defend themselves here, unless they bring charges against her. I don't feel they should, yet this leaves them open to all sorts of suspicion. That's what I regret.

Entering the country via the channel after throwing your passport into the channel isn’t an asylum seeker. They are an illegal immigrant. The article about the murderer who came here from Egypt and raped - is Egypt at war?

Those brick-throwing rioters were rioting in the wrong place at the wrong people. They were bullying Muslims about a murder committed by a Christian boy. Bullying is plain wrong, no matter the motive. They weaponised a tragedy as an excuse to riot.

Calling them "demonstrators" minimises what they did. I saw the footage of them throwing bricks.

We don't know which ones are genuine and which aren't until the Home Office do their assessments. You can't claim that they all are fake because we know some get their cases granted. The ones whose cases are eventually granted are not here illegally.

Haven't RTWT, but have any DNA samples been taken?

This post has really brought out some nasty bigoted views hasn't it.

Sadly something FWR is getting a reputation for.

I happened to watch news reports from 2 different channels covering the first so called "demonstration" in Epsom. And it looked a bit over the top. A not very large group of men, who could have been taken for football fans, and a lot of police, with vans etc.. Streets closed and so on.

But what the interviewers did, and it really put it in perspective, was they interviewed women out shopping with all this macho posturing going on.

All the women said much the same. They sort of rolled their eyes at the men threatening violence claiming they were standing up for women's rights, in a sort of sigh about them men looking like idiots. But they also said as far as they knew there were no issues about asylum seekers in the area.

And all, and this was early on before today's statement, wished the woman well and that the police could get on with their job of finding who had attacked her and not have their time wasted by these knuckleheads.

I understand "the looking for a bit of a aggro" men turned up again a few days later.

What is really unpleasant is hijacking an incident that whatever the true facts are, must have and will continue to be a really unpleasant incident for the woman concerned.

None of us know and may never know what happened, but if there is to be a discussion on FWR (Feminism and Women's Rights) about this, that as feminist thought more about the woman, what it might be like to have had an experience like this. In the way some PP have been brave enough to share.

Not high jack this lived experience to soap box about a particular political view point. That's just exploitative.

As there have been threads started on FWR about the Green Party, the Labour Party, etc., why dont those who support some of the right wing parties set up a thread to talk through those politics.

That would be more honest - and for all any of us know, useful.

You mean like hundreds of young girls sexually abused over several years and covered up at the highest levels. You're right, could never happen in the UK. Our authorities are completely trustworthy and would never gaslight.

I think we all know that our police force isn't what we'd want it to be right now. There have been flaws in vetting in recent years which meant that some men were recruited who should have been rejected outright. Misogyny and sexism, together with other types of bigoted views, are commonplace.

And yet, despite the many issues, I don't believe the police in this country are a wholesale corrupt force. I still believe in the system as a whole, and in the absence of any reasonable suspicions to the contrary on an individual case, I trust them to bring criminals to justice. Sometimes they're incompetent or inefficient, but that's very different from deliberately covering up a gang rape.

I saw a report on this a couple of days ago. DP pointed it out to me as he thought it was strange when he was skimming through the headlines. At the time, it said that there had been no evidence found on CCTV but that further investigations were ongoing.

I took that to mean that the woman had been able to describe where the attack had taken place, and that the men hadn't been seen on CCTV heading into the area, or leaving it. I didn't interpret that as simply not having the attack on camera. The implication was that the area was well-covered by CCTV cameras and there was no evidence of the men during the time period when the attack allegedly took place.

I think as women, many of us are angry with how our sex is treated. We are sick of not having parity. Sick of having to fight for the most basic rights. Just sick of the patriarchy overall.

This isn't about not believing a woman. I agree it's a very strange case but the wording in the article is very careful. This could well be a woman who's vulnerable in other ways. I don't think engaging in wild conspiracy theories helps any of us. We're not party to the full details, and nor should we be. In the absence of anything that suggests otherwise, I think it's reasonable to accept the police are telling the truth here. There's nothing to be gained from a cover-up, and everything to lose.

Do the posters here who are claiming the police are lying have insider knowledge to prove it?

It's hardly a common event but it does happen
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Williams_(criminal)

Yes, that’s pretty much what we’re being asked to believe. Or she was drunk, fell and banged her head and hallucinated a crowd of men attacking her.

Because otherwise, it’s the very common reality of a male gang attacking a young woman, who is then shamed into keeping quiet. Or in this case, retracting her complaint because she’s being blamed for people’s angry response.

I can't see how this is a cover up. If this had happened there would be CCTV and witnesses of the people involved. Do people really think the police would be able to suppress all of that in this day and age of SM?

I admit I thought the wording about the head injury is strange. It's badly worded and seems like it's a 'get out' for the woman. But I don't like the implications that a head injury can result in a false rape claim. Seems pretty unlikely and will just be added to the reason to doubt women.

So do I and that isn't my experience at all.

Or very under the influence of social media / other racists. Wouldn't be the first.

This thread is proving a very interesting mix of attitudes- entrenched attitudes, as well. I feel I sit a bit oddly here.
I basically believe women, pretty much every time. I don’t yet trust the police to handle abuse and sex assaults well. I am concerned about men entering the country who view women as objects or second class citizens, because we’re adding to the number of misogynistic men and boys we already fail to deal with.

That said, I have no hesitation in accepting this as a case where a woman’s distressed and confused and mistakenly reports an incident that didn’t happen- on this occasion. Something may have happened, or this may have happened to her in the past. But the pattern of information release, the issue about describing the assailants feels right.

I was heartened in the otherwise the dreadful case of Christopher Trybus, that the police attempted to bring three cases against him. They appear to have been very persistent in their attempts to prosecute him, even if the prosecution ultimately failed.

Except in many of those cases there were people who were not complicit in the cover up and were causing a fuss. There’s more avenues now for those people, and in this case there’s clearly public interest in them whistleblowing, they know they can speak out to the public, even if it is anonymously, because whatever the agenda people turned up to demonstrate. If there had been demonstrations against the abuse of the girls at the time and a larger internet interest I believe individuals like Sara would have been listened to and had more avenues for their concerns.

In this case at least at this early stage everyone involved seems absolutely complicit.

I’m assuming you mean Rotham etc rather than our dear former Prince Andrew and his friends.

I did. It’s not clear enough.

What would they have to gain by hiding the facts?

No, it sounds like she had an accident, then fabricated an assault. The reasons why are not known but such incidents are not unheard of.

No riots to manage?

There is a real human being at the centre of this, a woman you know nothing about, from her mental health on. No you are not entitled to the gory detail to help you form an opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant. She is what’s important. She’s allowed a statement to come out, and that’s the end of it.

i am absoltely shocked at the conspiracy theorists. If this woman had been gang raped she’d have worn the impact of that, it would be visible on her body. She clearly was not. The police did not en masse decide to force her to retract.

None of us know her mental health, her head injury, of drink or drugs were involved, it is none of our business. She may or may not have believed it at the time, she was confused, for reasons we are not fully aware of.

but demanding details thay invades this woman’s privacy so you can form an opinion isn’t ok,

It’s very unusual for such a definitive statement to be made. I’m a journalist. What I take from that statement is that there was clear CCTV of her near the church, not being raped. The statement isn’t that “no rape took place”, it’s that “no rape took place outside the church”. That, they can come out and say with confidence.