False rape accusation...who would you believe?

Silentcorner wrote: »

I could name 6 companies, household names that are currently not promoting men and are explicitly informing men as such...I cannot prove it for obvious reasons, but I suspect there are many posters who can relate...this is discrimination pure and simple.

Unless you’re planning on starting a #believehim movement, you can’t expect that anyone should take such claims of discrimination against men in particular seriously, and that’s not even to mention the fact that while on the surface it does appear to be discrimination - it isn’t necessarily unlawful discrimination if the companies can provide justification for achieving a legitimate aim such as promoting women with the intent of achieving gender equality as an employer.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Think of this another way, experts say, and I'd agree, that rape / sexual assault is not about sex it is about power and abuse of that power and society is well capable of producing men who will abuse that power.

I wouldn’t agree with the ‘experts’ who promote that narrative tbh, I already think of it another way, that rape and sexual assault are committed primarily by opportunists who are more concerned with not getting caught, than any nonsense about power or abuse of power, and following on from that I disagree completely with the idea that ‘society’ as a whole is responsible for producing people who commit rape and sexual assault. You appear to be thinking along lines that would support the nonsense notion of ‘rape culture’, and the evidence for that phenomenon is easily shown to be nonsense given the fact that only a small percentage of people in any given society commit rape and/or sexual assault and abuse. Society as a whole absolutely does not produce men who will abuse any power or authority they have over other people, it’s actually quite the opposite. Just to give you one example as you refer to domestic violence later in your post - most men will have understood growing up from early childhood that they should never under any circumstances raise their hand to a woman. There is no justification for it whatsoever. To try and argue the contrary to just that one example would be ridiculous, and it is ridiculous to suggest that male children are even capable of becoming men who will grow up to abuse their power or authority over other people. The idea reminds me of something that one ‘expert’ claimed recently -

Dr Cliona Saidlear said that young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


Dr Cliona Saidlear is the Executive Director of Rape Crisis Network Ireland, so would be regarded as somewhat of an ‘expert’ on the subject, so when she comes out with a statement like that, one really has to question her expertise when she makes such a ridiculous statement, not to mention the fact that it is highly irresponsible to be making such statements in her position. Would remind you of Ruth Coppinger waving her knickers about in the Dail in protest at the not guilty verdict following the trial of a man accused of rape.

Should they be taken seriously? I would suggest not, and not because they’re women, but simply because their ideas aren’t even worth entertaining.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Making a false rape accusation is also about power, albeit a different kind...and I'd agree, at this moment in time the chances are very slim...but that is at this moment in time...our society is well capable of producing women who will abuse that power...there is no deterrent to making this accusation, because the difference between an unfounded accusation and a false accusation is very virtually indistinuishable...and there are different motives to make an accusation.

No it’s not, a person making a false allegation against another person is simply vindictive, and it doesn’t matter whether they are a man or a woman making a false allegation, ultimately it’s entirely vindictive behaviour. There are plenty of deterrents to making a false allegation, not the least of which being some of the consequences I mentioned earlier, but particularly when a person is known to have made a false allegation, they can be prosecuted for doing so. World of a difference between a complaint, and a false allegation, and again - no, society is not responsible for producing vindictive individuals, whether they be either men or women. The responsibility for their vindictive behaviour lies entirely with the individual, as society has taught them quite the opposite, and that’s why individuals who commit such behaviour are rare. Nobody needs to be taught that any group in society are a danger to them, as such teachings simply perpetuate paranoid nonsense and suspicion, the very opposite of the concept of the presumption of innocence.

Silentcorner wrote: »

It is very much like Domestic Abuse, how to you discern which partner is more abusive than the other...well, we know how that industry operates.

Fairly bloody easily, is the answer to that question, and in my experience Gardaí are fairly level-headed when it comes to investigating complaints of domestic violence. A guy claiming that he was justified in knocking his girlfriend about because she was ‘constantly nagging him’ is incredibly unlikely to be viewed as a victim of domestic violence, but in some people’s opinions, he is, because they are attempting to equate circumstances which are definitely not the same as each other under the umbrella term ‘domestic violence’. It’s fairly transparent what they’re at once one looks at how certain people are defining the term ‘domestic violence’ to suit their own purposes.

Speaking of the ‘domestic violence industry’, I don’t support the idea of domestic violence shelters in the first place for anyone as they’re pretty shìte places to end up in, and on that basis I wouldn’t support the idea of campaigning for domestic violence shelters specifically catering to men either. I don’t think they actually do provide good outcomes for women who enter them, and I don’t think they provide good outcomes for children either (of the number of shelters who have a policy of not permitting male children above the age of 12 to be with their mothers. I get why they have the policy in place, it’s just not one I think is particularly beneficial to those women or their children as a family).

In saying that, I don’t have any issue with organisations campaigning for funding from the State, more power to them if they can justify their claims and provide evidence of a need for their services that should be funded by the State. These places however don’t appear out of thin air, nor does their funding appear out of thin air, and so if the argument is that funding for services for men doesn’t even come close to the funding provided for services for women, then the responsibility is on those people making that argument to provide evidence that there is a need for providing those services for men, and there is a need for those services to be funded by the State. Complaining that funding should be provided for services that don’t exist is unlikely to be taken seriously, the State isn’t going to provide funding or services ‘just because’. There has to be evidence of a legitimate aim at least, beyond just ‘men should be entitled to what women have’, even though men have no need of such services, and they don’t appear to be all that willing as women are to campaign for services and funding for themselves. Again it goes back to the idea of whether what appears to be a claim of discrimination on the surface of it has any merit, and it should be obvious that if there are more organisations providing services for women because they were able to demonstrate a legitimate justification for receiving funding, they are going to receive funding in proportion to the services they provide. The reason services for men do not receive as much funding is simply because there aren’t many organisations providing services for men. If some people think that services for men are necessary and they should receive greater funding, then it should be treated as a completely separate issue to funding provided for services which cater to women. Funding won’t appear out of thin air to address a perceived need for which there is very little evidence that such services are necessary. Much as some people may wish to believe how easy it is sometimes, I can guarantee you that it’s easier to get blood from a stone than it is to qualify for funding from the State, for any reason, even if one is able to provide evidence of the necessity of their services to the public.

bubblypop wrote: »

It's interesting, but I guess traditionally males were embarrassed to admit abuse by their female partner.

I suppose I'm interested as I have been in attendance at a hell of a lot of domestic violence incidents over the years. All types, male on female, female on female & male on male but very rarely was there ever a call for a male victim of female abuse.
It's a more hidden problem. & I guess generally females commit more emotional abuse, which is extremely psychology damaging.
But hopefully attitudes are changing. I'm not sure I would go so far as the poster who claims that the domestic violence organisations are anti-male, I believe it's more likely to be because of tradionally held views that men can't be victims.

It is interesting, and I don't believe there is any kind of epidemic, but nonetheless most would agree abuse affects both genders.

You are quiet mistaken if you don't think that the Domestic Violence is Anti Male, there is a belief within this industry that Domestic Abuse is Men exerting their Power over women...which requires to completely airbrush male and lesbian victims of domestic abuse...just watch how this is premised in media....attitudes are often shaped by how issues are premised in media, take a look at the misleading Gender Pay Gap issue.

The funding Politicians allocate reflect this misrepresentation, check out Erin Pizzey the founder of the first Domestic Violence Shelter, who was hunted out of the country by Feminists....it is important that people begin to understand how ruthless Feminists can be when it comes to narratives and funding.

Silentcorner wrote: »

The funding Politicians allocate reflect this misrepresentation, check out Erin Pizzey the founder of the first Domestic Violence Shelter, who was hunted out of the country by Feminists....it is important that people begin to understand how ruthless Feminists can be when it comes to narratives and funding.

Erin Prizzey, the Mother Teresa of the domestic violence movement is often hailed as somewhat of a hero by the likes of the men behind AVfM. She set up battered women’s shelters in the UK, sure, and then proceeded to pour scorn on those same women and suggest they were responsible for their being beaten and abused by men. Whether this was due to her own bitterness and resentment towards her own mother is anyone’s guess, but she was never the “equity feminist” she claimed to be. She decided to align herself with the feminist movement when it suited her purposes, and then she decided cosy up to wealthy millionaires for funding for battered women’s shelters. Then she claims when she approached those same millionaires for funding for men’s shelters, they turned her down -


Erin: Yeah! And that’s why I tried to open a house for men almost immediately after I opened the refuge for women and my problem was—and this was a great shock to me—I was given a house at a Peppercorn Rent by the Council; and then I asked men who had actually given money for my refuge for women and children (they were millionaires) to give me some money for the men’s house, and none of them would give a penny!


Refuting 40 years of lies about domestic violence


It’s more important to understand how ruthless and manipulative some people can be when it comes to narratives and funding, and when it comes to Erin Prizzey, she makes Frank McCourt blush with the narrative which she has carefully cultivated to portray herself as a victim of feminism. I have no issue with her being an anti-feminist, but she clearly has issues with women as a whole, as opposed to just feminism, and she’s fairly bitter about her experiences, resentful of the fact that people eventually tired of her constant manipulation. It’s no surprise that she found her niche among AVfM and is now responsible for this kind of crap -

In November 2014, Pizzey became owner/manager of the AVFM WhiteRibbon.org website (since renamed Honest-Ribbon.org),[37] which has been criticised by the original White Ribbon Campaign as "a copycat campaign articulating ... archaic views and denials about the realities of gender-based violence."


It’s pretty ruthless to copycat and try to piggy back off another organisations campaign to try and mislead the public into funding a completely different type of campaign, going so far as to ape their narrative and try to portray themselves as the organisation that “really” cares about the victims of domestic violence. Unfortunately for Prizzey and the organisation she has become the public face of, their manipulative efforts are fairly transparent, and that’s why they have no popular political or public support. Only people who are bitter and resentful would associate themselves with other people who are as bitter and resentful as they are.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are no clear cut lines of responsibility for the female. Oh, the guy can be completely responsible in his behavior, but lets be honest, if his hormones are up, he won't be thinking so clearly. If anything society should be placing more responsibility on the female to establish consent than the male... but that's not going to happen.

Responsibility for what though klaz? Women can’t be held responsible for someone else choosing to rape or sexually assault them, and hormones are no excuse for his behaviour either. Once they are past childhood people are generally expected to exercise self control, and the vast majority of people do.

They already take personal responsibility for themselves and their actions (your actions to protect yourself are extreme if I’m being honest), but if someone were to sexually assault you or rape you, are you somehow responsible for their behaviour? I would argue that you aren’t, and you would have every right to make a complaint against the other person.

I can’t find it online now but the other day I was reading of a case in one of the national newspapers where a woman was facing charges of sexual assault for having sexual intercourse with a man while he was asleep (he woke up during the commission of the act), and this was after they had already had consensual sex. It’s just one example of how the authorities are taking these cases more seriously now than they would have before when I can remember walking into a Garda station nearly 20 years ago with a young man who had been sexually assaulted by another man, and Gardaí would tend to file a report under the “awkward as fcuk” pile. Thankfully that doesn’t happen any more, but it’s still incredibly difficult to encourage people to make a complaint when they have been the victim of sexual assault or rape.

Essentially it still comes down to the question of credibility.

A British teenager will appeal against her conviction in Cyprus over a withdrawn allegation of gang rape, her lawyers said on Tuesday, as the British government said it had raised numerous concerns about her treatment with Cypriot authorities.

The 19-year-old was given a suspended sentence on Tuesday after being found guilty by a court in Cyprus on December 30th of public mischief for having alleged that she had been raped by a group of Israeli youths in the holiday resort of Ayia Napa last July.

She had earlier been sentenced before a packed courtroom to four months in jail, suspended for three years.

The case has caused outrage in Britain and sparked protests from activists who say the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, did not get a fair trial.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/british-teenager-to-appeal-conviction-for-false-rape-claim-1.4132695

Die Hard 2019 wrote: »

What the point you are making? She wasn't raped and she wasn't made confess in an unfair way she was simply the sexual equivalent of a person who got high and then drove down a street where loads of cars were parked and banged into each of the cars. Then she rang the Copa and told them that the cars had banged into her and the cops said " but look at this CCTV"!
Then she confessed

Apologies if my post was unclear. I wasn't making any specific point. This case had been discussed earlier in the thread, so I thought people might be interested in the sentence she received.

An Irish case from Cyprus over 20 years ago seems more clear-cut. People lobbied for her to be released even though there seemed to be no doubt about the case.

Rape claim woman in bid for jail pardon

Eire officials are trying to win a pardon for an Irish woman jailed in Cyprus after falsely claiming she had been raped.

Stephanos Stephanou, Eire's honorary counsul on the Mediterranean holiday island, is to make representations to the Cypriot attorney general on behalf of Dublin computer factory worker Annette Mangan, 22

She was jailed for four months on Friday after accusing three Irishmen, two of them soldiers on leave from United Nations peacekeeping duties in Lebanon, of raping her in an apartment in the resort of Ayia Napa.

She changed her story after being interviewed by detectives and said she had implicated the men because they allegedly took pictures of her in the nude.

Ms Mangan was on holiday in Cyprus with her sister Avril and two friends. They were all due to have flown home yesterday.

The Honorary Consul said he was confident a clemency appeal to Cyprus President Glafcos Clerides, via the attorney general, would be granted.

The move could be delayed until later this week, though, as both the President and the attorney are away in Geneva

Mr Stephanou said: ''There is no reason why the pardon should not be granted as I consider the sentence to be a little harsh.''

The consul added he had made arrangements to ensure Ms Mangan was as comfortable as possible and for her to be visited by her sister and their friends.

<H1>Sharp division of opinion on sentence in Cyprus rape case
Quote:

Sat, Aug 16, 1997

Annette Mangan sat in her prison cell in Nicosia Central Prison in Cyprus this week "confused and terrified", according to her sister. Back home, hours of air time were being devoted to the divisive question of whether or not the 22-year-old Dublin woman should be there at all.

Her accusation of rape against three young Irish soldiers and her subsequent retraction have been debated with a passion normally reserved for the build-up to abortion or divorce referendums. The four-month sentence she received when medical evidence contradicted her claim of rape has been criticised and justified in equal measures.

For the most part, female commentators are remaining cautious and adopting the "two sides to every story" approach. Anne O'Neill, a solicitor specialising in family law, has a firm view that the four-month sentence was "innappropriate".

"How has society been bettered by putting her in prison?" she asks.
Some might be inclined to believe there is more to the story than claims about lurid photographs taken in the aftermath of a drunken binge. But speaking on RTE radio this week, the father of one of the soldiers said police found nothing in film seized from the camera of the falsely accused men. Then there are others who just shake their heads at Mangan, who in their eyes has dragged the Defence Forces and the country "through the mud".

These two separate factions are split right down the middle. Olive Braiden, director of the Rape Crisis Centre, was "amazed" by the number of people who vilified Mangan while commenting on the case. "I found it incredible that ordinary people were calling radio stations criticising her [Mangan's] behaviour on the night in question. As far as I can see a lot of it is to do with their set views on how a woman should behave," she says.

As the controversy unfolded, Braiden was presented as taking Mangan's side in the incident, but she claims her comments were taken out of context. "I always stressed that a false accusation was a very serious matter, that the whole episode was very damaging for the men involved, and damaging in that it may discourage others from reporting genuine cases of rape.

"But I thought the publicity about it was disproportionate to the actual incident. There are men in this country who have pleaded guilty to rape and have not served one day in prison," she says. "Where is the media furore over that?

"If what has been reported is true," she adds, "I think four months in prison was very harsh."

Tommy Spooner of the Men's Network and Resource Centre in Dublin, a co-ordinating body of 40 men's support groups around the country, does not agree. His view is typical of many who say Mangan does not deserve the presidential pardon it is understood she will receive.

"Four months is too lenient for what that young girl did," he says. "If a man had made such an accusation the retribution would have been much harsher." Spooner claims the law is weighted more in favour of women when a complaint of this nature is made. He has come across "several" examples of false accusations during the course of his work, he says.
If the Cyprus case had gone ahead, the lives of the three Irish soldiers would have been "destroyed", according to John Lucey, general secretary of PDFORRA, the representative body for enlisted men in the Defence Forces.

The fact that Mangan "had a few drinks, met this guy and went home with him" is "her own business", says Lucey. "In a way I feel sorry for her . . .but then again if she had stuck to her story she would have destroyed the lives of three young men. The Defence Forces enjoy great respect internationally. It would have been terrible for the country . . . but even with what's happened the mud will stick."

Those who display a sympathetic approach to the situation are interpreted as wholeheartedly condoning what Mangan did, says Noreen Byrne, chairwoman of the National Women's Council. "If you don't completely leap on the condemnation bandwagon then you are accused of being soft on her.

"To falsely accuse anyone of such a serious crime is unnacceptable. But the media coverage, all this talk about her state of undress, is part of her punishment. We shouldn't forget that she has to come home to all that."
False rape claims are "extremely rare", she says, citing an American study where only 2 per cent of claims were found to be false. "We should put this in perspective," she says.

Anne O'Neill acknowledges that the three Irish soldiers did not deserve to be accused of rape. "But my sympathy for them is tempered somewhat by the reports. They are being hailed as these brave lads, when really they deserve a major kick in the arse."

Meanwhile, says Olive Braiden, Annette Mangan will need to be handled delicately when she returns home. "She will need a lot of help and care from her friends and family when she comes back. Prison is a very high price to pay for what appears to have been a thoughtless and stupid mistake."

Silentcorner wrote: »

I wish I could share your sentiments, I really do....

A drunk girl can now claim she was too drunk to consent, now, how she would secure a conviction is another thing...but the accusation is what will do the damage....and in the absence of any such crime on the statute books (I am aware that it is covered under Perversion of Justice, but that is a very broad term, a man isn't convicted of assault when he sexually assaults a woman) there is no deterrent...

This is very much a male v female thing unfortunately, such are the times we live in...and it is a very deliberate male v female thing...the Domestic Violence Industry has been very much male v female since it's inception a few decades ago.

If I was a young woman I'd be starting to wonder how she is supposed to meet a bloke, the workplace is now not appropriate, the pub/nightclub scene will begin to reflect new realities.

If I was a young man or rearing a young man, I'd be petrified for him...I am very familiar with how cold the one night stand culture is, someone more often than not gets rejected....

Not really a male v female issue. You would not think it from reading this thread but both male and females can be raped. Both male and female can make false allegations of rape.

For every place you have written "man" or "women" in your post you could just change to "person" No need to presume all people raped and making false allegations or of one gender.

Also both male and females can be the subject of domestic violence. I know statistics will clearly show what genders are statistically more likely to suffer from a crime but why stereotype like only one gender is affected by crimes when we know differently

https://twitter.com/Rich_Cooper/status/1216031782853861376

joeguevara wrote: »

From a purely legal academic standpoint the whole issue of intoxication is very interesting. I will preface this by saying that a real case will always come down to he said/she said optics and who the jury believes unless in the rare instance of CCTV footage.

If a girl says she was too intoxicated to consent, the guy has to demonstrate that he took reasonable steps to consent. Intoxication to that degree means the brain’s inability to put short term memory into long term memory but in a lot of circumstances you will react as if in the full capacity. So if a guy then says he asked her was she ok, is she comfortable, is she happy to proceed she would not be able to argue she didn’t. So although there is that extra protection it will still come down to who is believed making the reasonable steps irrelevant. Precedent of this working in trials is definitely tested in the US.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/man-jailed-for-rape-of-victim-he-found-lying-unconscious-on-dublin-street-1.4117122

Lucky for the victim of this rape when intoxicated in Dublin last year there was CCTV and witnesses so there was no problem proving it. If they had made an allegation of rape and could not prove it a lot of nutters on this thread would say they should be imprisoned for a false allegation and ruining the accused life.

Silentcorner wrote: »

The victim was unconscious...can you quote the nutters you are referring to as I don't recall seeing anyone post anything as daft as that....

One quote I remember from a member ''ASCOT''

''Ched Evans Wins Appeal
Finally some justice for Evans, the girl should get prison time for ruining his life''

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-36099522

Potatoeman wrote: »

That was a weird case where the police brought charges on behalf of the woman without her agreement.

UK police were notorious for it, but have pulled back a bit on it. They collect statements from the accuser and the accused, and then move forward if they think they can make it stick. Usually the accused convict themselves by being honest in their statements and saying "I can't remember" or "I was too drunk".

Lots of pressure on cops over there to secure sexual assault convictions, so they've been very aggressive about it.

The goal was to increase confidence that rape accusations would be taken seriously and not swept under the carpet- a worthy cause - but on the ground this was translated into bare numbers and statistics, and the larger goal was lost in the pursuit of numbers.

Paddy Holohan has been suspended from Sinn Féin over his claims that "scum" underage girls were having sex with men and blackmailing them
https://www.joe.ie/politics/paddy-holohan-disciplinary-action-sinn-fein-691115

Not exactly the same as a false rape allegation. But it may be interesting that highlighting that men could be a victim of a sort isn't seen as acceptable.

bubblypop wrote: »

Where was his proof?
& I think there was a lot of unacceptable things said on his podcast, mostly about women.

Not even women, his comments were about children