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

Holsten · 02-12-2014 10:29pm

Don Kedick wrote: »

It's a tricky one because you don't want to stop women coming forward and reporting their assault if they're frightened they wont be believed and then have the possibility of a trial against them which would make the agony far worse.

No, as these cases would be investigated, it would be extremely unlikely this would happen to someone who was actually raped.

Timberrrrrrrr · 02-12-2014 10:30pm

batnolan wrote: »

Prosecution should only be available against those who deliberately and maliciously make a false rape allegation.

Likewise if a genuine case goes to a court of law and they find the perpetrator not guilty for whatever reason, should the perpetrator be allowed too launch a case against the victim? I don't think so.

Anonymity until proven guilty of rape or proven guilty of making a deliberate and malicious false rape allegation is fair however.

So if a woman accuses a man of rape, his wife leaves him, his name is mud for years, he loses his job, home, kids. Should he not be allowed to bring a case against the person who has cost him so much? Should he just be grateful that he was found not guilty and move on while the person who made the allegations against him are free to live an untainted life?

Holsten · 02-12-2014 10:42pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So if a woman accuses a man of rape, his wife leaves him, his name is mud for years, he loses his job, home, kids. Should he not be allowed to bring a case against the person who has cost him so much? Should he just be grateful that he was found not guilty and move on while the person who made the allegations against him are free to live an untainted life?

Exactly.

I'd sue them to high heaven as I'd expect anyone else to.

tritium · 03-12-2014 3:15pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There is already direct evidence that '2' is false, because CPS is investigating an instance where that was breached.

In '3' there, the CPS investigation above, gives enough credence to the idea, that there may have been wrongful prosecution of such cases - this is what the group is campaigning for, from what I can see, and they have people who have been prosecuted, maintaining the claim that their claim was truthful.

In your article quote "campaigners who are calling for an end to what they claim is the aggressive pursuit of such cases" - that doesn't show what you claim: The 'aggressive pursuit' that they're referring to, can easily apply solely to the alleged miscarriage of justice.

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 guess I'll do your homework for you so

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

Question 2

How might we take this forward? Give a practical measure that can be taken to make a real difference:

a) In the short-term (up to five years)

o Police officers, CPS employees, barristers, and judges who undermine rape cases by their lack of commitment or worse must be held accountable (as in other jobs) through effective and public disciplinary procedures, including sacking.

o Rape must be recognised as persecution and therefore grounds for asylum. Women fleeing rape in other countries must be given refugee status and practical support instead of being detained, deported or separated from our children.

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

I'm sure you'll find a way to talk around this one too though.....

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 3:42pm

tritium wrote: »

I guess I'll do your homework for you so

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

I'm sure you'll find a way to talk around this one too though.....

And you're leaving out context still - as above that it says:

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

In its proper context, what you quoted does not mean, that they do not want proven cases of false allegation, to be prosecuted.

That may yet still be confirmed as their policy stance, but right now it is ambiguous.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-12-2014 3:44pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

And you're leaving out context still - as above that it says:

In its proper context, what you quoted does not mean, that they do not want proven cases of false allegation, to be prosecuted.

That may yet still be confirmed as their policy stance, but right now it is ambiguous.

Yet that is exactly what the WAR spokeswoman said in the radio interview yesterday right?

tritium · 03-12-2014 3:52pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

And you're leaving out context still - as above that it says:

In its proper context, what you quoted does not mean, that they do not want proven cases of false allegation, to be prosecuted.

That may yet still be confirmed as their policy stance, but right now it is ambiguous.

No it's not! And you are frankly just being willfully obtuse at this stage. Its there in black and white -end prosecution of women accused of making false allegations. You have enough of an understanding of language when you want to to understand exactly what that does and doesn't mean. Not some women. Not women where we think there's a problem with evidence. End the practice full stop. There is no ambiguity except in your twisted spin of the message. You may want to delude yourself but please don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us

newport2 · 03-12-2014 3:54pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In its proper context, what you quoted does not mean, that they do not want proven cases of false allegation, to be prosecuted.

That may yet still be confirmed as their policy stance, but right now it is ambiguous.

But if WAR advocate that "Prosecuting women for “false allegations” deters survivors from reporting.", then surely what they are pushing for is for proven cases of false allegation not to be prosecuted? Why else would they raise the concern that they feel it deters women from reporting?

Jay D · 03-12-2014 3:54pm

I'm still waiting to hear what happened with the Brazilian case here. Obviously slightly off topic though.

These women are simply evil. Hopefully they go away and don't falsely accuse anyone of rape any time soon.

edit: found out
complete tramp, why wasn't she deported?
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/suspended-sentence-and-fine-for-student-who-made-wicked-false-rape-claim-650224.html

Also is the crime here for making false allegations of rape or wasting police time which is the main or only crime here?

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 3:58pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yet that is exactly what the WAR spokeswoman said in the radio interview yesterday right?

As I said yesterday, her interview last night was so terrible on her part, I'm going to give the wider organization benefit of the doubt for the moment - I'm looking, and I haven't found anything yet directly from that organization, which doesn't state 'alleged false accusations', before talking about ending prosecuting of false accusations.

If that really is their stance as an organization, it should be possible to find a statement from them, which does not mention 'alleged' false accusations, but which says they are definitely talking about all false accusation prosecutions.

Yurt2 · 03-12-2014 4:01pm

Rape is a heinous crime, and rapists are rightly regarded in society as the lowest form of criminal. This is the thing about so called 'rape culture' that I don't understand, the standing of rapists in society couldn't be any lower.

Being accused of rape is not the same as being accused of being a bicycle thief, it should not be done lightly. If a court or a jury of peers finds an allegation to be substantially untrue and malicious in its intent then there should be repercussions for the malicious accuser including custodial sentencing.

The problem is, campaigners and activists wish to create a climate where everything and anything is evidential of 'rape culture' and all men are potential rapists. Witness California's new 'affirmative consent' laws. Scores of innocent men will go to prison labelled as rapists under this new law, the standard of evidence required to convict has been lowered so much that such an outcome is inevitable.

We're being led around the nose by people with a dogmatic axe to grind, and laws are being drafted to satisfy their misplaced mirth. If such a law ever came to pass in Ireland, men would be well advised not to have one night stands at all.

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 4:02pm

tritium wrote: »

No it's not! And you are frankly just being willfully obtuse at this stage. Its there in black and white -end prosecution of women accused of making false allegations. You have enough of an understanding of language when you want to to understand exactly what that does and doesn't mean. Not some women. Not women where we think there's a problem with evidence. End the practice full stop. There is no ambiguity except in your twisted spin of the message. You may want to delude yourself but please don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us

You're pretty deliberately leaving out context, every time you quote any of their stuff - if it's as black and white as you say, find an article of theirs, which does not talk about people being falsely-imprisoned, for alleged false accusations, before then mentioning ending prosecution of false accusations (a very important context...).

That's what I'm looking for at the moment - without being able to find it - and without that, the organizations position is still ambiguous.

newport2 · 03-12-2014 4:04pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

As I said yesterday, her interview last night was so terrible on her part, I'm going to give the wider organization benefit of the doubt for the moment - I'm looking, and I haven't found anything yet directly from that organization, which doesn't state 'alleged false accusations', before talking about ending prosecuting of false accusations.

If that really is their stance as an organization, it should be possible to find a statement from them, which does not mention 'alleged' false accusations, but which says they are definitely talking about all false accusation prosecutions.

All "false accusations" are "alleged" until they are brought to court. So if you want all "alleged false accusations" to not be prosecuted, then that means all "false accusations".

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 4:05pm

newport2 wrote: »

But if WAR advocate that "Prosecuting women for “false allegations” deters survivors from reporting.", then surely what they are pushing for is for proven cases of false allegation not to be prosecuted? Why else would they raise the concern that they feel it deters women from reporting?

Again, context. If they are talking about rape victims being prosecuted for alleged false accusations (where they really were raped), then that does deter survivors from reporting.

If a single article of theirs can be found, which does not discuss false prosecution like that, before calling for an end to prosecution for false accusations, then that will settle it, and show that they do mean all false accusations (including proven ones).

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 4:08pm

newport2 wrote: »

All "false accusations" are "alleged" until they are brought to court. So if you want all "alleged false accusations" to not be prosecuted, then that means all "false accusations".

'Alleged' includes prosecutions where there is no proof that the claim is false - and the CPS (I assume 'Crown Prosecution Services') in the UK have a policy that prosecution should not be sought in these circumstances, but prosecutions have been sought when there was no evidence.

SeanW · 03-12-2014 4:09pm

Just from one paragraph on that site:

Prosecuting women for “false allegations” deters survivors from reporting. An allegation not being proven doesn’t mean it’s false. The Corston Report concluded that prison is inappropriate for women

That seems pretty clear to me, they don't recognise the concept of a false allegation, which is why they put it in quotes.

Further:

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

Again, "false allegations" is in quotes, because they obviously consider the concept bogus.

newport2 · 03-12-2014 4:11pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Again, context. If they are talking about rape victims being prosecuted for alleged false accusations (where they really were raped), then that does deter survivors from reporting.
.

And how would they distinguish these from those who made alleged false accusations (where they really weren't raped)? Or are we just to assume all allegations are true? In which case they are saying none should be prosecuted.

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 4:12pm

SeanW wrote: »

Just from one paragraph on that site:

That seems pretty clear to me, they don't recognise the concept of a false allegation, which is why they put it in quotes.

Further:
Again, "false allegations" is in quotes, because they obviously consider the concept bogus.

Give me a link to the full article, so I can check you're not leaving out context - which has been the case for every single article anyone has posted in the thread so far.

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 4:14pm

newport2 wrote: »

And how would they distinguish these from those who made alleged false accusations (where they really weren't raped)? Or are we just to assume all allegations are true? In which case they are saying none should be prosecuted.

Evidence, to start with. As my other post said, there have been prosecutions and imprisonment for false allegations, when there has been no evidence, and when this is against CPS policy.

newport2 · 03-12-2014 4:14pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

'Alleged' includes prosecutions where there is no proof that the claim is false - and the CPS (I assume 'Crown Prosecution Services') in the UK have a policy that prosecution should not be sought in these circumstances, but prosecutions have been sought when there was no evidence.

I don't think anyone is going to push for women who make a rape allegation and cannot prove it to be prosecuted.

What we are talking about here is cases where a false allegation was made and there is a case to be brought to court, ie evidence available, otherwise it would be thrown out.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-12-2014 4:18pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

As I said yesterday, her interview last night was so terrible on her part, I'm going to give the wider organization benefit of the doubt for the moment - I'm looking, and I haven't found anything yet directly from that organization, which doesn't state 'alleged false accusations', before talking about ending prosecuting of false accusations.

If that really is their stance as an organization, it should be possible to find a statement from them, which does not mention 'alleged' false accusations, but which says they are definitely talking about all false accusation prosecutions.

So in the op i said

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Now here's the bit that had me perplexed, There is a group called WAR Women Against Rape who are tryng to say that women who make false allegations of rape should not be prosecuted!

You come steaming in saying

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Uhm OP, they are campaigning against wrongful sentences where people were pressured/co-erced into retracting rape claims, and then prosecuted as 'lying' for that - where they have not actually lied.

Way to take the article out of context, in an inflammatory way...

Now that you have listened to the interview and heard for yourself the woman saying they don't want prosecutions you still try to defend her. Does not matter if she gave a bad interview the fact is she is the spokesperson for WAR and therefore her words (unless retracted) are the stance for WAR.

You can huff and puff all you like about what you THINK she meant but the fact is that she is the spokesperson and not only did she say this but no one from the organisation has come forward to refute what she said.

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 4:22pm

newport2 wrote: »

I don't think anyone is going to push for women who make a rape allegation and cannot prove it to be prosecuted.

What we are talking about here is cases where a false allegation was made and there is a case to be brought to court, ie evidence available, otherwise it would be thrown out.

Right - I think that, because WAR always prefix mentioning "ending prosecution of false rape allegations", with discussing cases where the claim was not false, that it is not clear that they are talking about the situation you mention.

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 4:23pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So in the op i said

You come steaming in saying

Now that you have listened to the interview and heard for yourself the woman saying they don't want prosecutions you still try to defend her. Does not matter if she gave a bad interview the fact is she is the spokesperson for WAR and therefore her words (unless retracted) are the stance for WAR.

You can huff and puff all you like about what you THINK she meant but the fact is that she is the spokesperson and not only did she say this but no one from the organisation has come forward to refute what she said.

No, I'm not defending her, her views are reprehensible - her interview was so terrible, that I'm giving the wider organization (WAR) benefit of the doubt, that the person on the radio show, may not actually accurately represent their own views.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-12-2014 4:30pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, I'm not defending her, her views are reprehensible - her interview was so terrible, that I'm giving the wider organization (WAR) benefit of the doubt, that the person on the radio show, may not actually accurately represent their own views.

But the fact is that SHE is the spokesperson for WAR and therefore speaks for them! You in the meantime are someone on the internet claiming that NO NO NO that's not what she meant at all.

As i said already until she or someone else from the organization refutes what she said and clarifies their stance then the fact stands that they don't want ANY women prosecuted for ANY false rape allegations.

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 4:35pm

Ok, I've found definitive proof that the organization, does accept prosecution of proven cases of false accusations.

In this document, they say that they support the IACP guidelines, and that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service - I assume), should adopt those IACP guidelines - which state:

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 is proof, directly from the organization, that people in this thread are wrong about what WAR are advocating.

Yeah_Right · 03-12-2014 4:37pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, I'm not defending her, her views are reprehensible - her interview was so terrible, that I'm giving the wider organization (WAR) benefit of the doubt, that the person on the radio show, may not actually accurately represent their own views.

Wow. Just wow. The logic behind this stance is simply baffling.

Spokesperson for an organisation is interviewed about the organisation.

The interview is awful and the views expressed by the spokesperson are "reprehensible".

Ah sure, its grand. The spokesperson wasn't speaking for the organisation they are the spokesperson for so their views do not represent those of the organisation.

Have I got that right???? :rolleyes:

KomradeBishop · 03-12-2014 4:42pm

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. The logic behind this stance is simply baffling.

Spokesperson for an organisation is interviewed about the organisation.

The interview is awful and the views expressed by the spokesperson are "reprehensible".

Ah sure, its grand. The spokesperson wasn't speaking for the organisation they are the spokesperson for so their views do not represent those of the organisation.

Have I got that right???? :rolleyes:

See my post above yours - I've now proven that I was right to give the organization benefit of the doubt, and to dismiss the person in the radio interview, as being a poor/unrepresentative spokesperson.

newport2 · 03-12-2014 4:43pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Right - I think that, because WAR always prefix mentioning "ending prosecution of false rape allegations", with discussing cases where the claim was not false, that it is not clear that they are talking about the situation you mention.

I think it is pretty clear what they mean. That it's better a small percentage of people who make false allegations get away scot free rather than deter any future victims from reporting. Irregardless of the consequences this has for those falsely accused and their families. Or the temptation it creates for people who want revenge on someone with no consequences for them if they are found out.

You say you heard the interview last night and because the spokeperson for WAR said stuff you didn't like, you have decided to disregard it and pretend that the spokesperson does not reflect the people she was hired to speak for. Sorry, but that's rubbish. You can't accept you're wrong.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-12-2014 4:44pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

See my post above yours - I've now proven that I was right to give the organization benefit of the doubt, and to dismiss the person in the radio interview, as being a poor/unrepresentative spokesperson.

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.

newport2 · 03-12-2014 4:48pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ok, I've found definitive proof that the organization, does accept prosecution of proven cases of false accusations.

In this document, they say that they support the IACP guidelines, and that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service - I assume), should adopt those IACP guidelines - which state:

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

This is proof, directly from the organization, that people in this thread are wrong about what WAR are advocating.

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.

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

Comments