False rape accusation...who would you believe?

bubblypop wrote: »

There's no talking to some posters, the belief that every not guilty verdict equals a vexatious complaint, is just ridiculous.

I very much agree with you here. Some guilty people walk free because of a lack of evidence, or the jury couldn't be convinced beyond reasonable doubt and it's a tragedy for the person wronged.

But then there are the innocent men who rightfully receive a "not-guilty" verdict, but are still tarred for life.

The false accusers don't have to face that problem and are supported by their cheer leaders even when their version of events turns to BS.

iptba wrote: »

With regard to any statistics, just to point out that as well as false reports, there are also other types of cases which are in a more grey area. For example, the NI case involving rugby players I doubt would be counted as a false report.

You’re probably right, but they’d barely make a dent in the figures I posted above.

Only a faction of rapes actually get reported and only a fraction of those are false reports.

As long as unreported rapes are > reported rapes then false allegations will be < unreported rapes.

"Caquas wrote: »

The Judge's comment you quote is extraordinary:

If there was a sexual element in this case, why was he not so charged? Is the Judge saying his is a sex offender who will not be on the sex offenders register?

Let me reiterate my basic points: the facts of this case as reported in the media do not amount to the crime of coercion and, even assuming there are facts which validate the charge, this man was subjected to a sentence which was in line with those for vicious assaults although there was no violence involved.

I’ve been stunned reading some of the comments in this case. To put it bluntly, I have an 11yr old daughter, if any person, be it an adult or an older teenager approached her and asked her to go for a walk, I would see it as a threat to my child’s safety. And I would want the judicial system to act appropriately so no other child would be in danger from someone who thinks it’s ok to see children as ‘dates’.

And if I didn’t have a daughter I’d still feel the same.

...Ghost... wrote: »

Genuine question. How much weight would you give to a report showing a near reversal of those figures commissioned by a mens rights group?

Does one exist?

...Ghost... wrote: »

I'll get to that later. How much weight would you put into a similar report commissioned by a mens rights group?

How long is a piece of string, impossible to say without seeing the report.

If you have such a report post it and I’ll look at it and give you an honest answer.

It might take me a while to read it and understand the methodology so you’ll have to bear with me.

...Ghost... wrote: »

Take it as a hypothetical. A mens rights group commission a report using the same approach, only it shows 92% of rape allegations are false and only 6% are credible. Ask yourself honestly how much credit you would give to such a report. And if it's a different weighting to report you referenced, why?

I am of the view that a report which favours the agenda, beliefs or financial interests of those who commissioned it is not worth wiping your @rse with. This is especially true when the data collected cannot be independently verified.

I’d take issue with the methodology because they’ve only accounted for 98% of the allegations.

But even if 92% are false that means the ratio of false allegations to unreported rapes is still 12.5 unreported rapes for every 1 false allegation.

So even with your hypothetical made up figures you can’t refute my claim that there are far more unreported rapes than false allegations of rape.

Again I’m happy to read such a report if one exists, otherwise I’ll continue to treat your posts as the nonsense that they are.

Smee_Again wrote: »

I’d take issue with the methodology because they’ve only accounted for 98% of the allegations.

But even if 92% are false that means the ratio of false allegations to unreported rapes is still 12.5 unreported rapes for every 1 false allegation.

So even with your hypothetical made up figures you can’t refute my claim that there are far more unreported rapes than false allegations of rape.

Again I’m happy to read such a report if one exists, otherwise I’ll continue to treat your posts as the nonsense that they are.

Interesting that you would treat someones posts as nonsense simply for having a different critical view, rather than treating each post based on it's own content. That attitude shows that you wouldn't consider a similar study on its merits were it to be commissioned by a mens rights group, because you're so caught up in trying to prove the unprovable.

I don't treat your posts as nonsense. I see most of them as incorrect and at odds with my own take, but nonsense, no. While I might often disagree with certain posters in various forums, I'm not so blind as to mark them as some sort of enemy. I simply contribute and debate and ask questions such as is the point of boards.ie . I've even been known to thank a couple of bubblys posts even though we are usually at opposite ends of the spectrum.

The only nonsense is the report you have relied upon to prove a point. Despite the opening line of the executive summary outlining that the figures are unknown and are an estimate (based on an unverifiable data group) you decided to knuckle down anyway. Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, but that's no reason to write off my posts as nonsense. Perhaps when someone you know falls foul of a clear false accusation, your cough might soften.

I personally would not trust any report commissioned by an organisation with bias agenda. Had the report been independently commissioned, I wouldn't trust it anyway because the sample size is too small and the data cannot be verified. I haven't gone through the full report, because I know it's nonsense and the people making the phone calls were no doubt trained by DRCC and had a set of questions designed by the DRCC. Low figures would not have been to their favour, so it was in their interest to have such a report done in that way.

I didn't see any control measure for those who claimed to have been raped, but which were actually false. What do people have to gain by lying in an anonymised interview you might ask. Well, people do strange sh1t all the time and a lie told once is easily told twice.

Smee_Again wrote: »

That's a very long winded way of saying the report you alluded to previously doesn't exist.

So in the absence of any contradicting evidence, real or hypothetical imaginary, I'll stick to my original statement, backed by evidence, that there are far more unreported rapes than false allegations of rape.

Of course it is your choice to stick to whatever "evidence" you wish. But if that is all you have to rely on, i'll stick to my belief that the "evidence" put forward is at best, biased and manipulated. At least they have enough integrity to point out themselves that the report is essentially fairytale figures and can't be relied upon. In fairness, had they not included that, the report would have been attacked and rubbished at every level. They are basically saying it's a fiction piece.

...Ghost... wrote: »

Here is a more recent report I gleamed https://web.archive.org/web/20180101025446/https://icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf . It's more recent and shows that 2-10% of false allegations that are investigated were PROVEN to be false. We don't have a more recent Irish equivalent, but given the incompetence often seen with our Gardaí and the DPP, I wouldn't hold much value in their willingness to tackle false allegations.

It's fair to assume that many were unproven, but were still false.....same as it is fair to assume that some rapists go free because it could not be proven. Oh and these are only figures reported to authorities, so there weren't any anonymous phone calls made by activists employees of rape crisis organisations.

Although not based in Ireland, I see no reason why the figures would not be comparable.

I read this before and it is referenced in the second report I linked earlier, footnote 31 if you're interested.

So, lets go with 10% are false. That puts the ratio of unreported rapes to false allegations at 110:1.

...Ghost... wrote: »

Well, no, let's not. If we are to work off the 10% proven, then it's only fair to work off the percentage of proven rapes and that wouldn't work very well for you at all. The proven false allegation figure compared to the proven rape figure would have heads spinning.

I'll stick to my assertion that the DRCC commissioned survey is b0llix, because that's essentially what they say themselves in the executive summary, first line.

Post a sourced figure of the % of rapes that are reported.

I already have but you seem reluctant to, it doesn’t have to be from Ireland.

You alluded to a report yesterday but then posted imaginary figures that didn’t actually refute or contradict my points

We'll leave it there so, I've given you ample opportunity to present some figures and the best you could do was to make some up. Everyone can take from that what they want.

...Ghost... wrote: »

Like the DRCC did?

Yeah, best leave it there.

If you don't like the DRCC report I'll use the estimates from the report you helpfully linked above.

It said that estimates put the number of reported rapes and sexual abuse at between 36% and 4%.

Using these figures, and 10% as the number of false allegations (again provided by you) that puts the range of unreported rapes to false allegations at between 18:1 and 240:1.

That higher range is much worse than I previously thought, so thanks for highlighting that.

...Ghost... wrote: »

So much for leaving it there eh?



I don't trust the report from the DRCC and wouldn't put much weight in the report I linked to either. The point was to show the figures are all over the place. But when investigated, the PROVEN false allegations is far higher than you thought.



:pac: Try again.

I'll say again that these reports are fantasy and the wildly fluctuating figures show this to any person with comprehension skills. I could direct you to the report and point out that a cited report within it showed a false allegation rate of just below 64%.

The thing is, I personally believe (unreported) false allegations are above 60% and I don't care to guess how many reported allegations are false. The fact is, I don't know, the DRCC doesn't know and neither do you. By all means, keep working the ratios, but in the end, the result is a complete guess.

What is an unreported false allegation. Surly a false allegation needs to be reported to make it a false allegation?

And how can you come up with a figure of 60% when you say statistics are not reliable..... is this from your own observations in life?

ittakestwo wrote: »

What is an unreported false allegation. Surly a false allegation needs to be reported to make it a false allegation?

And how can you come up with a figure of 60% when you say statistics are not reliable..... is this from your own observations in life?

An unreported false allegation is one not reported to the Gardaí, but instead is spread among the accusers friends/family/community to smear the innocent person accused.

I was pretty clear when I said the figure of 60% was my own belief. There is no way to back up ANY figures and if I were to by my own observations, I would have to say 100% are false, because I know of a couple of false accusations which were made and I know of zero rapes that happened within my own extended circle over the years.

Whether a false allegation is reported or not, damage is done and I believe it's far more common than the like of the DRCC and its cheer leaders on here would like to believe.

Smee_Again wrote: »

Don't waste your time. I've shown, using facts and figures provided by that poster, how rare false allegations are but when faced with that he relies on personal beliefs.

It's impossible to actually have a discussion when facts are dismissed for beliefs.

And now you're talking nonsense. I've put forward my views and said several times why I would not trust figures you linked, but you are willfully ignoring the fact that the report self cancels by its own admission to the fact that their figures are an estimate.

It's impossible to have a logical discussion with someone who claims biased, unverifiable data is the same as fact. At least I have the decorum to clearly state that the figures I may put forward are my own guess and i'm not trying to back them up with data I wouldn't wipe my @rse with.

If you seriously hold the DRCC funded report up as some beacon of truth/fact, I don't think anyone can or should take you seriously.

Your only hope is to open that report you hold so dear and write the first line of the executive summary 100 times. It's not too late.