109 women prosecuted for false rape claims in five years, say campaigners

KomradeBishop

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

She didn't just say it once she said it many times and had plenty of time to clarify the position of WAR yet she chose not to. You yourself have heard the interview and anyone here can listen to it also.

See post #146, which proves that the WAR organization, accepts prosecution of proven false accusations.

KomradeBishop

newport2 wrote: »

Hidden away in the small print. Pity they were broadcasting a totally different stance on the radio airwaves for all to hear.

I'm sure the BNP state somewhere on their website that they're not racists. That's not proof they aren't though.

So you don't like the proof, and you're now engaging in special pleading to try and dismiss it.

Sorry, no - it provides direct proof that people are wrong about what WAR supports, that they actually do support prosecution of proven false accusations.

Yeah_Right

KomradeBishop wrote: »

See post #146, which proves that the WAR organization, accepts prosecution of proven false accusations.

Prosecution = proving someone did something by taking them to court and proving it. Right?

Therefore not prosecuting unless its proven, means there will be no prosecution of any false rape allegations because it can't be proven until its been prosecuted.

newport2

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Prosecution = proving someone did something by taking them to court and proving it. Right?

Therefore not prosecuting unless its proven, means there will be no prosecution of any false rape allegations because it can't be proven until its been prosecuted.

No, apparent writing something on your website* = proving something.

Irregardless of what your actions outside that reflect.

*This only holds true if KomradeBishop agrees with what is written. Otherwise it can be disregarded while further cherry-picking is carried out to support the case in hand.

KomradeBishop

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Prosecution = proving someone did something by taking them to court and proving it. Right?

Therefore not prosecuting unless its proven, means there will be no prosecution of any false rape allegations because it can't be proven until its been prosecuted.

Pretty weak attempt, at a semantic argument: Evidence = proof.

newport2

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you don't like the proof, and you're now engaging in special pleading to try and dismiss it.

Sorry, no - it provides direct proof that people are wrong about what WAR supports, that they actually do support prosecution of proven false accusations.

Now I know you're taking the p!$$.

It provides as much direct proof as the radio interview did. Less actually. But you didn't like that proof.

KomradeBishop

newport2 wrote: »

No, apparent writing something on your website* = proving something.

Irregardless of what your actions outside that reflect.

*This only holds true if KomradeBishop agrees with what is written. Otherwise it can be disregarded while further cherry-picking is carried out to support the case in hand.

:rolleyes: Yea now that your viewpoint has been totally disproven, by me showing that the WAR organization does actually support prosecution of false-rape claims, where there is evidence, I am apparently the one 'cherry picking' - not you/others, where you decide to selectively ignore proof of the organizations views.

The next step I predict: You/others will stop bothering with arguments altogether, and will then try to pan the person presenting proof - as an exercise in point scoring - rather than trying to actually counter the proof.

SeanW

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you don't like the proof, and you're now engaging in special pleading to try and dismiss it.

Sorry, no - it provides direct proof that people are wrong about what WAR supports, that they actually do support prosecution of proven false accusations.

Then what do you make of this:

http://womenagainstrape.net/resource/submissions-bwrap-and-war-harriet-harman-minister

Link from above, made very clear a rejection of the concept of, in their words "false allegations"

KomradeBishop

newport2 wrote: »

Now I know you're taking the p!$$.

It provides as much direct proof as the radio interview did. Less actually. But you didn't like that proof.

We have a train-wreck of an interview from one person, where she got so annoyed during the interview that she just hung up, versus an official document produced by the organization as a whole - pretty obvious the views in the document hold more credibility.

KomradeBishop

SeanW wrote: »

Then what do you make of this:

http://womenagainstrape.net/resource/submissions-bwrap-and-war-harriet-harman-minister

Link from above, made very clear a rejection of the concept of, in their words "false allegations"

Fixed link:
www.womenagainstrape.net/resource/submissions-bwrap-and-war-harriet-harman-minister-

"Prosecuting women for “false allegations” deters survivors from reporting. An allegation not being proven doesn’t mean it’s false."

Again, in its proper context, they are talking about prosecutions of false-accusations, where there is no proof that the accusation was false.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We have a train-wreck of an interview from one person, where she got so annoyed during the interview that she just hung up, versus an official document produced by the organization as a whole - pretty obvious the views in the document hold more credibility.

Oh you prefer documents do you...

Well how do like these apples so
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/content/why-women-against-rape-opposes-prosecutions-women


Which youll note is actually titled

.Why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation
Some reasons why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation of rape or sexual assault. Evidence given to the DPP, February 2011

It includes gems like

It is not hard for an investigation to establish when an allegation looks unfounded. It could be dropped before any harm has been done to anyone.
• Every time a woman doesn’t report, an attacker is free to attack again. Every time a victim is disbelieved and prosecuted, a message is sent to rapists that they will get away with rape, but their victim will be punished twice: by them and by the criminal justice system. The public service a victim does by reporting a dangerous man so he can be stopped from raping again is never taken into account.
• So many rapists have got away with it over the years that those who are caught consider themselves unlucky – they are outraged and blame women for their misfortune. They have had the ear of the police, the media, the courts and some parliamentarians. They have succeeded in mounting a pernicious campaign regarding false allegations which threatens to undermine any progress rape victims have made in the past 30 years.
• Sex workers who report violence are prosecuted for prostitution related offences on the information given to the police to enable them to arrest the attackers. This flies in the face of public campaigns for women’s safety and protection.
• Rape victims who are prosecuted lose their anonymity and are more vulnerable to attack.
• Men do not suffer the same malicious prosecutions. Even after women victims accused of assault or harassment by a violent partner or ex-partner are found not guilty in court, and the man lied, we never hear of him being prosecuted for making a false allegation or perverting the course of justice.
• Accused men rarely suffer more than questioning. Women may be blamed for what the accused suffered as a result of a police investigation that was out of the woman’s control. Prosecutions are then brought on that basis.

Well I guess that's OK then. Given they've presented this submission to the DPP in evidence how do you think your proof stacks up now KB?

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

It includes gems like

It is not hard for an investigation to establish when an allegation looks unfounded. It could be dropped before any harm has been done to anyone.

Again you fail to quote that in its proper context:

2. Prosecuting women for alleged false allegations is not in the public interest.

• It is a misuse of public funds and not in the public interest. It deters rape victims from coming forward. Many women who contact us now say they are afraid to report in case they are disbelieved and sent to jail.
• It is not hard for an investigation to establish when an allegation looks unfounded. It could be dropped before any harm has been done to anyone.

That is talking about there being an allegation of a false accusation - which, if there is no evidence of that, that states it should be dropped.

• Men do not suffer the same malicious prosecutions. Even after women victims accused of assault or harassment by a violent partner or ex-partner are found not guilty in court, and the man lied, we never hear of him being prosecuted for making a false allegation or perverting the course of justice.
• Accused men rarely suffer more than questioning. Women may be blamed for what the accused suffered as a result of a police investigation that was out of the woman’s control. Prosecutions are then brought on that basis.

That could easily be true - can you find one single case, of a man in the UK (since that's where the organization is based) being prosecuted for making a false rape claim?

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Again you fail to quote that in its proper context:

That is talking about there being an allegation of a false accusation - which, if there is no evidence of that, that states it should be dropped.



That could easily be true - can you find one single case, of a man in the UK (since that's where the organization is based) being prosecuted for making a false rape claim?

Seriously, you can take a long jump off a short bridge in the context nonsense, I actually quoted the whole section for you! Let me remind you of the commitment you made here a while back:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If Fiona's views (the person in the radio interview), turn out to be a true representation of the organizations views though (that was a piss poor interview on her part, so I'm going to give the wider organization benefit of the doubt on this one) - if that turns out to be true, grand, I'd agree that advocating non-prosecution of false-rape-claim offenders is reprehensible.

I've now given you a paper, entered into evidence by the organisation titled

.Why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation
Some reasons why Women Against Rape opposes prosecutions of women accused of making a false allegation of rape or sexual assault. Evidence given to the DPP, February 2011

So, do you stand by your original statement- will you concede their position is reprehensible?



BTW, in your own proof-once again you've omitted context that doesn't suit you. Page 4 of that draft research document clearly details why in WARs world even true cases shouldn't be prosected.

A harrowing, and somewhat pertinent article. A victim reading this, already suffering trauma and desperately vulnerable is likely to be even more reluctant to report a rape.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/my-partner-raped-me-and-i-was-the-one-prosecuted-9897674.html

A very difficult situation to call, one where I doubt there is a solution can can be fair or satisfactory to all parties all of the time.

qt3.14

Candie wrote: »

A very difficult situation to call, one where I doubt there is a solution can can be fair or satisfactory to all parties all of the time.

Pretty much. Raping someone and falsely accusing someone of rape are both horrible things to do to another human being. Unfortunately the two are intrinsically linked.

tritium

Candie wrote: »

A harrowing, and somewhat pertinent article. A victim reading this, already suffering trauma and desperately vulnerable is likely to be even more reluctant to report a rape.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/my-partner-raped-me-and-i-was-the-one-prosecuted-9897674.html

A very difficult situation to call, one where I doubt there is a solution can can be fair or satisfactory to all parties all of the time.

Tbh its an article that reads like a war propaganda piece. To insinuate that the authorities expend greater resources investigating perjury than rape is frankly an insult to the dedicated officers who deal with these cases. A cursory look at the relative number of prosecutions would confirm this. WARs approach is frankly disgusting.

Its one thing to highlight possible miscarriages of justice. But its quite another to use those cases to pursue an agenda of circumventing justice for people who have in some cases ruined lives with their actions. To war there seems to be no disconnect between the idea of adequately pursuing rapists and not prosecuting false allegations

I'd fully agree the negative impact an article like this would have on victims. However a large part of that is down to deliberate misrepresentation by War

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That could easily be true - can you find one single case, of a man in the UK (since that's where the organization is based) being prosecuted for making a false rape claim?

Damn your timing really sucks- from November 29th

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/11/uk-man-jailed-for-6-years-for-false-claims-that-he-was-raped-by-four-gay-men/

A 6year sentence for an offender acknowledged by the judge as being vulnerable

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Seriously, you can take a long jump off a short bridge in the context nonsense, I actually quoted the whole section for you!

Eh, no you didn't quote the whole section, you deliberately left out the header, which shows that what you quoted was only talking about "Prosecuting women for alleged false allegations".

You were trying to pass off "It is not hard for an investigation to establish when an allegation looks unfounded" as being about unfounded rape accusations, when it was actually about unfounded claims, of false rape accusations.

None of the paper you provided, shows the 'evidence' that you claim.

tritium wrote: »

BTW, in your own proof-once again you've omitted context that doesn't suit you. Page 4 of that draft research document clearly details why in WARs world even true cases shouldn't be prosected.

Except it does no such thing - it actually acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons for such prosecutions, only calling for 'restraint' - and then goes on to reference section IV and V, which contains the quote where they support prosecution for false rape claims, based on IACP guidelines.


You are leaving out context so regularly, and so regularly trying to put a spin on what has been said by them, that it seems completely deliberate.

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Damn your timing really sucks- from November 29th

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/11/uk-man-jailed-for-6-years-for-false-claims-that-he-was-raped-by-four-gay-men/

A 6year sentence for an offender acknowledged by the judge as being vulnerable

You're trying to use an event that happened on "November 18 [2014]", to counter a WAR claim made in "February 2011" - you'll have to find an example earlier than Feb 2011, to show their claim was inaccurate.

Another example of misrepresentation/spin from you - you don't seem to give a toss if your argument fits logically, you just seem to want to point-score.

Yeah_Right

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Pretty weak attempt, at a semantic argument: Evidence = proof.

Semantics?? Really?

Evidence = proof ?? WTF!?!

Are you intentionally or just blissfully ignorant of both the English language and the law in most western societies?

Evidence = proof??? Why bother with a defence attorney? The prosecution has evidence they're guilty!! HANG 'EM!!

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Tbh its an article that reads like a war propaganda piece. To insinuate that the authorities expend greater resources investigating perjury than rape is frankly an insult to the dedicated officers who deal with these cases. A cursory look at the relative number of prosecutions would confirm this. WARs approach is frankly disgusting.

Its one thing to highlight possible miscarriages of justice. But its quite another to use those cases to pursue an agenda of circumventing justice for people who have in some cases ruined lives with their actions. To war there seems to be no disconnect between the idea of adequately pursuing rapists and not prosecuting false allegations

I'd fully agree the negative impact an article like this would have on victims. However a large part of that is down to deliberate misrepresentation by War

The only 'propaganda' and 'misrepresentation' here is from you - once again, here is WAR stating that they support charges for false rape claims, where there is evidence:

The IACP Guidelines give further guidance on how to handle sexual assault complaints in such a way as to minimize the chances that police will dismiss such complaints as false.

Label a report as false only if evidence establishes that the assault did not happen.
A report of sexual assault can only be categorized as false “if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.” This determination can be made “only after a thorough investigation.”

In short, unless the police have actual evidence that the assault did not happen, they must not label a report as false. An investigation that simply fails to prove that a sexual assault occurred cannot conclude that a report is false but rather results in an unsubstantiated report.

...

1. CPS should adopt the IACP Guidelines and Model Sexual Assault Policy.
2. CPS should set up a procedure to document that a full and thorough investigation is carried out in each rape case. The policy should state and ensure that no charges of any kind may be brought against a rape complainant without first documenting that a full investigation of the complaint was conducted and that evidence proved that the assault did not happen.

http://womenagainstrape.net/sites/default/files/final_paper_for_war_9-23.pdf

This directly contradicts the smears you're trying to spread here.

KomradeBishop

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Semantics?? Really?

Evidence = proof ?? WTF!?!

Are you intentionally or just blissfully ignorant of both the English language and the law in most western societies?

Evidence = proof??? Why bother with a defence attorney? The prosecution has evidence they're guilty!! HANG 'EM!!

The Dictionary wrote:

proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're trying to use an event that happened on "November 18 [2014]", to counter a WAR claim made in "February 2011" - you'll have to find an example earlier than Feb 2011, to show their claim was inaccurate.

Another example of misrepresentation/spin from you - you don't seem to give a toss if your argument fits logically, you just seem to want to point-score.

You really don't like being wrong do you

Shame, because you're wrong here and long ago it started to look a bit ridiculous. I see no value in arguing with you, you have no interest in anything but your own warped ideology on this. If I say black you'll say white and argue about the quality if the light we perceive. Then you'll claim it was white back in 2009

Pretty pathetic


Tell you what, Just for sh!ts and giggles, here's a few more examples

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10929853.Man_made_false_rape_claim_against_friend/
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/local/man-who-made-false-sexual-assault-claim-due-back-at-aberdeen-court-1.247141
http://www.courier.co.uk/Man-lied-Otford-rape-claim-jailed-Tonbridge-time/story-21754546-detail/story.html

And my crowning glory on this, a January 2011 example!

http://www.cotwa.info/2011/01/man-made-false-rape-claim.html

Yeah, pretty clear from this that they're just out to get the women. I mean its not like these guys are being charged in the same way and to the same severity...Oh, hang on, they are!

{you really should give up on this before it gets any more embarrassing}

SeanW

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Fixed link:
www.womenagainstrape.net/resource/submissions-bwrap-and-war-harriet-harman-minister-

"Prosecuting women for “false allegations” deters survivors from reporting. An allegation not being proven doesn’t mean it’s false."

Again, in its proper context, they are talking about prosecutions of false-accusations, where there is no proof that the accusation was false.

So you read that page?

First of all, the title, in bold face. Look at the second item "improving the way we deal with women who commit crimes:"

Priority 2: TACKLING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND IMPROVING THE WAY WE DEAL WITH WOMEN WHO COMMIT CRIMES

Couldn't possibly be any clearer.

First of all, everyone agrees that there is a difference between a rape claim that is not strong enough to convict, vs. one that is simply made up, or the product of a nutcases imagination.

Furthermore, if you finished reading the page there are many more such gems, on just that page alone.

End prosecution and media witch-hunting of rape victims accused of making “false allegations”; including full anonymity in these circumstances.

There it is, in black and white, makers of "false allegations" should not be prosecuted and should never be named. So not only would a liar be protected from prosecution for framing a man, but she would never suffer any of the consqeuences that might follow from being exposed as a slimeball of the lowest order. Meanwhile, men falsely accused would continue to have their lives destroyed. Context my *ss, they couldn't be any clearer.

But it goes on:

Combined with housing and benefits to escape from violence, compensation reflecting our real economic and emotional losses and labour, and financial independence – including from exploitative employers and from the fathers of our children – this would radically change the relationship between women and men: the only way to end rape.

That couldn't possibly be any clearer: a man who is the primary breadwinner in his family is prepetuating rape, as is any employer who gives a woman a job but does not give her sufficient pay and conditions to raise a family on her own, also prepetuators of rape. Also telling is how fathers are put on the same level as "exploitative employers." Also telling is how only women deserve protection from "exploitative employers" presumably men are fair game.

The only way to "fix" this as I see it would be to have the State destroy families en-masse, enact massive transfers of wealth from men to women, and multiply employment legislation to such an extent that the country resembles the worst excesses of the Soviet Union.

How can any sane person defend this entity?

tritium

Jurassic World wrote: »

You asked if he could find one single instance where a man made a false rape claim, he provided that, you didn't ask for false rape claims before 2011.

Oh don't worry, if I dig up sonething pre 2011 I'll be told it has to be female on male rape. If I get that one I'll be told it has to be in the month of October. And believe it or not it will go on like that.....
Forever......

Quite unbelievable!

edit: But hey, see earlier - I got a pre Feb 2011 example! do I get a prize?

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

You really don't like being wrong do you

Shame, because you're wrong here and long ago it started to look a bit ridiculous. I see no value in arguing with you, you have no interest in anything but your own warped ideology on this. If I say black you'll say white and argue about the quality if the light we perceive. Then you'll claim it was white back in 2009

Pretty pathetic

Another good example of how you try to engage in smears rather than actually debate: Anyone who points out your misrepresentations, is apparently motivated by radical feminism or such.

You're the person twisting this campaign, to try and make it another bit of ammo for pushing anti-feminist views - misrepresenting the campaign, to try and make it out as something radical, when it is not.

KomradeBishop

Jurassic World wrote: »

You asked if he could find one single instance where a man made a false rape claim, he provided that, you didn't ask for false rape claims before 2011.

He is claiming the article from 2011 was inaccurate (by highlighting a claim in the article, saying claims of men making false rape accusations, have not lead to prosecution), and as evidence of that, he is using a prosecution from 2014.

The claim made in the article is, if repeated today, false - because there has been a prosecution for that, this year.

There is nothing to show the claim made in the article was false, when the article was published; there is nothing to show that, when published, the article was misleading/inaccurate.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Another good example of how you try to engage in smears rather than actually debate: Anyone who points out your misrepresentations, is apparently motivated by radical feminism or such.

You're the person twisting this campaign, to try and make it another bit of ammo for pushing anti-feminist views - misrepresenting the campaign, to try and make it out as something radical, when it is not.

Hey KB, relax! check my edited post, I've got your pre Feb 11 example what's the next move of the goalposts?

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

He is claiming the article from 2011 was inaccurate (by highlighting a claim in the article, saying claims of men making false rape accusations, have not lead to prosecution), and as evidence of that, he is using a prosecution from 2014.

The claim made in the article is, if repeated today, false - because there has been a prosecution for that, this year.

There is nothing to show the claim made in the article was false, when the article was published; there is nothing to show that, when published, the article was misleading/inaccurate.

http://www.cotwa.info/2011/01/man-made-false-rape-claim.html

There you go! Game over I think!

(this is the bit where you concede based on your last post on this that the claim by WAR is in fact inaccurate.....)

KomradeBishop

SeanW wrote: »

So you read that page?

First of all, the title, in bold face. Look at the second item "improving the way we deal with women who commit crimes:"

Couldn't possibly be any clearer.

Priority 2: TACKLING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND IMPROVING THE WAY WE DEAL WITH WOMEN WHO COMMIT CRIMES

Where it comes to allegations of rape accusations being false, that bolded part covers innocent accusors, who have wrongly been prosecuted for making 'false' rape claims.

SeanW wrote: »

There it is, in black and white, makers of "false allegations" should not be prosecuted and should never be named. So not only would a liar be protected from prosecution for framing a man, but she would never suffer any of the consqeuences that might follow from being exposed as a slimeball of the lowest order. Meanwhile, men falsely accused would continue to have their lives destroyed. Context my *ss, they couldn't be any clearer.

And again you leave out the context, that they are talking about people being wrongly accused of making false accusations.

I mean just look at what you're quoting:

End prosecution and media witch-hunting of rape victims accused of making “false allegations”; including full anonymity in these circumstances.

How can someone be both a rape victim, and also make a false accusation of being raped? Obviously, they are talking about people being wrongly accused of making false accusations.

SeanW wrote: »

But it goes on:
That couldn't possibly be any clearer: a man who is the primary breadwinner in his family is prepetuating rape, as is any employer who gives a woman a job but does not give her sufficient pay and conditions to raise a family on her own, also prepetuators of rape. Also telling is how fathers are put on the same level as "exploitative employers." Also telling is how only women deserve protection from "exploitative employers" presumably men are fair game.

The only way to "fix" this as I see it would be to have the State destroy families en-masse, enact massive transfers of wealth from men to women, and multiply employment legislation to such an extent that the country resembles the worst excesses of the Soviet Union.

How can any sane person defend this entity?

How you've pulled all of that, from "...financial independence – including from exploitative employers and from the fathers of our children..." I don't know - you're just making stuff up; even get in a bit 'reds-under-the-bed' style Communist scaremongering there.