Interesting thought.
If someone levies a claim of rape against you, if you make the same claim back at them immediately as soon as you find out the claim has been made, would that then provide anonymity to both parties?
GD is going to love this one - Rape case collapse
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
Interesting thought.
If someone levies a claim of rape against you, if you make the same claim back at them immediately as soon as you find out the claim has been made, would that then provide anonymity to both parties?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,711
- Location
- ST4
No, because in this world of equality a woman can't be charged with the offence of rape.
"an offense covered by the anonymity section"
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Which is totally inconsequential.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Only one thing for it, we men will have to start videoing all of our conquests just to be on the safe side. Wonder how long it'll be before we're forced to carry something like this?
And that's completely pointless. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. This really doesn't help anything.
But it would be a valid way to keep yourself anonymous?
"sir, shes accused you of rape"
"nope, she sexually assaulted/penetrated me with an object"
Ding ding, anonymity.
Well, you see your honour, I was halfway through stealing that car then decided I wasn't going to when those fellas with the blue lights showed up. No harm, no foul, am I right?
Possibly the only circumstance where changing your mind halfway through something changes the legality of the act.
That's not even close to being true.
The requirement isn't for support. It's for belief. If X accuses Y and X must be believed, Y must be presumed guilty. Also, of course, it requires prejudging who is the victim. When judgements about guilt are based solely on a person's sex, that's sexism. When they're based solely on a person's "race", that's racism. Etc.
In the same way, people who aren't "white" focus on themselves when discussing whitism. Etc. People who are the targets of ideologies of irrational prejudice are bound to focus on themselves when discussing the ideology of irrational prejudice, and they should.
Replace "men" and "women" with "blacks/Jews" and "whites" and you have something a KKK member could have said in the days of segregation. Bigots usually blame their victims because it's useful to do so.
I am well aware that there is more than one strain of feminism. I used to be a feminist. I have read millions of words of feminist material and spoken with numerous feminists. Depending on how finely you divide it, you could come up with hundreds of strains of feminism. But they're all feminism, so they all share the same fundamental beliefs that define what feminism is - biological group advocacy and therefore biological group identity. Feminists see sex as the biological group identity. Racists see "race" as the biological group identity. Etc. Different sexists differ on some details about the best way to promote the sexism they're devoted to. Different racists differ on some details about the best way to promote the racism they're devoted to. That doesn't make them fundamentally different. Same ideology, different strains of it.
It's like flu. There are different strains of flu, but they're all flu. Some are worse than others, of course, but they're all bad.
Last edited:
No, it isn't.
The difference is consent. The correct comparison would be being halfway through stealing a car when the owner of the car turned up and gave you the car. That would change it from illegal to legal because it changes the act from not consensual to consensual.
The more accurate comparsion would have course be the other way around. So sticking with the car theft analogy, it would be something like this:
X goes to a car dealer and a test drive is agreed. X drives off and doesn't bring the car back. That changes the legality of the act because it changes the issue of consent.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
The right to victim anonymity isn't just for rape, it's for the majority of sexual offences. Like I said, it's completely inconsequential.
100% this. 100%.
Unfortunately, when good ole Theresa May was in charge of the Home Office and police, she changed things around crime recording and introduced the victims code.
The long and short of it is that police officers are now to believe everything the "victim" tells them - no ifs or buts. Then in the same breath, the police are expected to act as impartial investigators because this is what our justice system demands? But the politicians and policies they have created say that the officer *has* to believe the "victim"? So which one do you do?! Right now, the Police are trying to do both and sometimes making a big hash of it because they are conflicted by moronic policies on what they should be doing. What politicians don't understand is that victims lie. "Victims" lie every bit as much as "suspects". The difference is that, to get to the truth, you're allowed to challenge the suspect though and try and catch them out, but not the victim - with the victim you have to smile and nod. And what makes the difference between a "victim" and "suspect"? 9/10 it's as simple as whoever picks up the phone first and calls the police.
As a sign of how ridiculous it's become - if a "victim" says they were robbed at gunpoint you have to create a crime report and start an investigation. Fair enough. If you then subsequently uncover 10 witnesses and have HD CCTV footage showing that the victim wasn't robbed at all - you would expect this crime to be cancelled without issue. Nope, what you have to do is go to the victim and ask them if they would agree to the police cancelling their crime and that 10 witnesses and HD CCTV contradict their story. 9/10 they say no because when you get people making this sort of stuff up they are utterly mental - so a crime stays on the system for an unsolved armed robbery. Which then comes out at the end of the year when the crime stats are release as POLICE FAILING VICTIMS OF ARMED ROBBERY!!1!1!
This erroneous recording happens thousands of times a day up and down the country - because the police have to believe everything the victim says with no ifs or buts. This is also translatable to rape and domestic abuse crimes - but unfortuately you never get 10 witnesses and HD CCTV showing that a victim has lied, you just get things which....don't really add up or things which badly contradict what the "victim" has said. Police really aren't allowed to challenge a "victim" on domestic abuse/rape cases unless they have a very good reason for doing so. This means when it reaches someone who isn't constrained by the BS of Home Office policy, and can look at a case with complete impartiality (normally CPS, but always a court) - it gets thrown out/NFA'd. Rapes are notoriously difficult to prove anyway, because the majority of people who report them have other severe "issues" anyway. It is also common that attention seekers in society (which there are a lot of - and I mean proper serious attention seekers who have reported more rapes, armed robberies, attempted murders than the rest of the population put together, not mere everyday "drama queens") report rapes because it gets them this attention they seek. They also seem to frequently get reported when couples are going through a child custody battle (particularly domestic abuse) or when a couple has broken up. This is proved from the recent collapse of many rapes cases and the issues with disclosure.
The saddest thing about the whole thing is that these horrible women who make up rapes steal the time and resources away from the genuine victims of rape. You've got detectives with 20 rapes on their workload and their time is being split between all of these - which means the genuine ones don't get anywhere near the service they deserve and get looked on with a degree of scepticism. And that really is the worst part of it, and it has become that way because the police have broadcast that you can go to them and say absolutely anything you like and it'll be believed - which is great for us level headed individuals who wouldn't dream of reporting false crimes to the police - but is a red rag to a bull for someone who craves attention or wants to get back at someone in a sick and twisted way.
TLDR - the police need to stop believing what one person is telling them and become impartial investigators again. This will only happen when someone with a clue becomes the Home Secretary and changes the policies.
Last edited:
In your example though there is the formation of a typically verbal contract before the test drive if not a written one that the vehicle may only be used for a test drive. This protects both parties.
With sex nothing changes other than one party, halfway through, changes their mind.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
What if on the back of a condom wrapper, there was a miniature contract which both parties sign?
Don't worry guys, just solved inequality
Don't worry guys, just solved inequality
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Whilst I agree with most of what you said, there are two points I'd like to address.
I talked about this relatively recently with a DC friend. His view is that if he has conflicting evidence about a crime, he will ask and challenge victims about this, nothing has changed there. You're right, victims do lie and part of that challenge is making sure that they are a credible witness in court. If they can't explain inconsistencies that have come up in the course of the investigation, then the CPS need to know this before making a charging decision. Like I said, this hasn't really changed post the introduction of the victim code, well, not where I am anyway.
This may be down to force policy, but this is not part of the Home Office Counting Rules. You do not need to consult with the victim, although you should inform them of the decision to cancel the crime and record rationale. The only exception to that are Rape crimes which can only be cancelled with the authorisation of the Chief Officer for crime recording. If your force aren't using a bit of common sense, then the blame should lay at their doorstep rather than the Home Office.
Similar thing happened round here a few years ago, a footballer named Ched Evans ended up spending over two years in prison and lost his career due to a fake rape claim, the police never investigated it properly at the time.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Lets be clear, he was found not guilty at a retrial, that doesn't mean the rape claim was false. This is not a zero sum game.
The claim was false.
He was convicted because the case was never properly investigated so he was found guilty by a jury because he was in court for rape and couldn't prove his innocence, then he was denied an appeal for no reason. Finally after serving over two years his new defence team was able to get access to the evidence needed to get his conviction quashed (the police say they didn't bury the exculpatory evidence they just never looked at it, not sure which is worse in all honesty lol). There was then a retrial which resulted in a not guilty verdict just like the original trial would have if they case had been properly investigated in the first place.
The sad thing is, his footballing career was pretty much destroyed, he lost over two years of his life, and never even got an apology from the police. While the other hand aside from being outed as a liar his accuser has walked away without any comeuppance.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Nothing you have said precludes the initial allegation being true. Unless you were in court and know more than I do, I haven't seen anything to prove the allegation was false.
I live in the village where it happens and things were leaked pretty spectacularly, there was video footage of the girl getting out the taxi and walking into the hotel sober (despite later claiming she shouldn't remember doing so), there were text messages exchanged between her and friends where she detailed her plan to goldmine herself a footballer husband and if it didn't work blackmail them, and there were guys sleeping with her in the days after the alleged "rape" that she laughed with about it and the big payout she was expecting.
Of course none of that was made available at the original trial (despite the police having the CCTV tape), it didn't become available to the defense until after Evans release from prison and the hiring of his new team who were able to force it out of the police. Once they had that it was easy to get the original sentence quashed, get a retrial and win the retrial in a week.
*EDIT*
IIRC you're a police officer so may be taking exception to the implied police negligence/incompetence, don't worry it was North Wales Police, we know they're not the same
