More police sexism

[GJABS]

This is a truly awful thing to suggest. It's incredibly difficult for rape victims to speak up, imagine what it would be like if they have the threat of punishment if they can't prove it?

r.

This went far beyond being unable to prove it - the woman was proven to have lied about it.

[FrontEnder]

We aren't talking about punishing someone for not being able to prove a rape allegation. In this example the women lied for 2 years, told her friends how much she enjoyed sex with him and sent him a number of messages saying she wanted sex. It should never have got to court.

She had the option to stop lying and hold her hands up. At some level there needs to be personal responsibility.

I understand that isn't anyones intention. However I firmly believe that would be how some rape victims would perceive things.

Black and white cases are rare. False allegations are rare. I don't think it's worth changing an important law that provides absolute protection to victims to counter a practically non existent problem.

In this example the women lied for 2 years, told her friends how much she enjoyed sex with him and sent him a number of messages saying she wanted sex. It should never have got to court.

It's quite possible to withdraw consent at any time you know.

[vetran]

Actually the defence gets the evidence the police gives them so it is definitely not their fault.

The problem here is with the police and the system of handing over evidence.

In an ideal world a neutral party would decide what evidence is crucial for a case, so both parties have it and not leave it up to an individual police officer to decide in an allegation of rape that evidence of a relationship between both parties which involved sexual fantasies was not relevant.

The defence are also supposed to check evidence.

The idea any teenager / twenty something didn't discuss their life electronically is almost impossible to believe nowadays. The defence should have insisted as they did under new management.

[vetran]

I understand that isn't anyones intention. However I firmly believe that would be how some rape victims would perceive things.

Black and white cases are rare. False allegations are rare. I don't think it's worth changing an important law that provides absolute protection to victims to counter a practically non existent problem.



It's quite possible to withdraw consent at any time you know.

The only suggestion we made with regard to the anonymity rule was to extend it to both parties unless there is sufficient evidence to convince a judge that the accused name needs to be released. Seems reasonable to me. It would also move things along.

The lady committed a crime, she was not raped, she made it up to hurt her ex partner. She lied and made rape convictions less likely. Her behaviour will now be referenced on any marginal cases. She is still not being named.


Should we not prosecute divorcees that falsely accuse their partners of domestic violence to get advantage in case we upset rape victims? Or shoplifters or muggers?

[unixman]

When did you become a pro-rape activist? Is it part of the whole F4J misogyny thing?

One of the worst comments I have seen on CUK.

Hate blossoms on the Internet when people can't just say "I disagree". Brillo posted a news story along with his own robust views on the matter. I agree with some of those, except this bit: "Women are allowed to get drunk, consent to sex, then retrospectively change their minds of course". I disagree with that, because I think it is an exaggerated generalisation. So I just say "I disagree". It is enough.

Calling someone a devil because they have an alternative view is wrong and leads nowhere, except to a horrible place where people dare not speak, or to the "culture war" that blights modern discourse. Our own views are just views, no more. If you disagree with someone, don't use smears and labels, just say "I disagree".

[northernladyuk]

One of the worst comments I have seen on CUK.

Hate blossoms on the Internet when people can't just say "I disagree". Brillo posted a news story along with his own robust views on the matter. I agree with some of those, except this bit: "Women are allowed to get drunk, consent to sex, then retrospectively change their minds of course". I disagree with that, because I think it is an exaggerated generalisation. So I just say "I disagree". It is enough.

Calling someone a devil because they have an alternative view is wrong and leads nowhere, except to a horrible place where people dare not speak, or to the "culture war" that blights modern discourse. Our own views are just views, no more. If you disagree with someone, don't use smears and labels, just say "I disagree".

Welcome to the right wing politically correct world where to be misogynistic or racist is freedom of expression but to call them out it one of the worst things on CUK. And you could have just said 'I disagree.'

[BrilloPad]

It's quite possible to withdraw consent at any time you know.

Any time. So after the event then. And we have our HMRC mole!

[BrilloPad]

This went far beyond being unable to prove it - the woman was proven to have lied about it.

And in doing so has undermined all women.

[BrilloPad]

One of the worst comments I have seen on CUK.

Hate blossoms on the Internet when people can't just say "I disagree". Brillo posted a news story along with his own robust views on the matter. I agree with some of those, except this bit: "Women are allowed to get drunk, consent to sex, then retrospectively change their minds of course". I disagree with that, because I think it is an exaggerated generalisation. So I just say "I disagree". It is enough.

Calling someone a devil because they have an alternative view is wrong and leads nowhere, except to a horrible place where people dare not speak, or to the "culture war" that blights modern discourse. Our own views are just views, no more. If you disagree with someone, don't use smears and labels, just say "I disagree".

I disagree.

[FrontEnder]

Any time. So after the event then. And we have our HMRC mole!

That's not what I meant. After the fact is obviously ridiculous.

The point I was making is that you can consent 99 times, but if you say no on the 100th time and are forced into it, it's rape.