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

KomradeBishop

CramCycle wrote: »

The article says "False rape claims".
...But having the ability to cry rape without even the threat that if proved you are telling untruths would lead to punishment seems odd.

The article does not actually show that this is what is being sought...if you go check the 'WAR' charity website directly as well (the group being discussed in the article), there is no indication that this is what they are after either.

Instead, they seem to be focusing on allegations of false rape claims.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Hyperbole on your part, does not make the quotes you've provided, back your case any better - and instead harms your own credibility, as it is obvious you are trying to use hyperbole to smear.

The quote I provided, was to show that the article is about 'alleged false rape claims' - you have provided nothing that shows it is about 'false rape claims' in general.

Will you stop, you're just getting ridiculous! From the report

The vast majority of the convictions in the last five years, 98 out of 109, involved prosecutions for perverting the course of justice – which carries a maximum life jail term – rather than the lesser offence of wasting police time, which has a maximum tariff of six months in prison or a fine.

Note that's *convictions* not allegations.

Their speakers to the commons are women who have been *convicted* of this offence. Their basically bringing up some criminals to tell parliament how unfair it wasbto hold them to account for their crime

(Interestingly the report seems to use prosecution and conviction interchangeably though it clearly states thisnos the number of convictions)

Holsten

Anyone accused of any crime should be offered anonymity.

That solves this problem.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cathy.C wrote: »

Ah, you must have taken one of the main routes past Whitehall.

Next time go the back roads and come out by Ballymun.

Easier for me to to go down Malahide road.

DoYouEvenLift

Holsten wrote: »

Anyone accused of any crime should be offered anonymity.

That solves this problem.

Especially preventing papers from publishing articles about cases like these until a person is convicted.

Venus In Furs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok so i have just been driving from the airport to the city center and on the radio comes this report about how 109 women in the UK have been convicted for false rape claims. Nothing new there says you sure it obviously happens a lot right?

I don't know to be honest. I know it happens, but whether it happens a lot that a woman will go to the police say a particular man raped her when he didn't... that I genuinely don't know.
Although doing such a ****ed up, sick thing once is too much.

qt3.14

suicide_circus wrote: »

Pack of loolaas, ignore

You can't unfortunately. Both here and in the UK legislation is often enacted based on who shouts the loudest.

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Will you stop, you're just getting ridiculous! From the report



Note that's *convictions* not allegations.

Their speakers to the commons are women who have been *convicted* of this offence. Their basically bringing up some criminals to tell parliament how unfair it wasbto hold them to account for their crime

(Interestingly the report seems to use prosecution and conviction interchangeably though it clearly states thisnos the number of convictions)

You're deliberately being obtuse now, as it is exactly that people have been convicted for 'alleged false rape claims', that is the focus of this - people are stating that they have been pressured/co-erced into retracting their claims of rape (when they still maintain that it happened), and that this was then used to prosecute them.

Here is a different article of the same story, which gives much better framing:

Lisa Longstaff, of WAR, said: “We want it known that some of these cases are miscarriages of justice. There are a number of cases we have taken on where the women are still maintaining their innocence even after they’ve been convicted.

“We’re working with them to get their convictions overturned. It’s been a long haul.”

She explained that a number of these women were pressed by the police to retract their rape allegations, and said this was “a very widespread phenomenon.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11267565/Rape-claims-109-women-prosecuted-for-false-allegations-over-five-years.html

There is also this, from the same article:

WAR's campaign comes as the Director of Public Prosecutions investigates the decision to charge Eleanor de Freitas, a 23-year-old with bipolar disorder, with making a false rape claim.

The "vulnerable" young woman took her own life in April, days before she was due to stand trial for perverting the course of justice.

DPP Alison Saunders is personally investigating why the CPS decided to press charges, despite being told by police that there was no evidence that de Freitas had lied.

That shows that this is a legitimate problem - people are being prosecuted for making false claims, when there is no evidence that the claim is a lie.


Massively different story, to what everyone in this thread is talking about - where people are assuming (because of some posters - in my view deliberately - putting a misleading spin on the story), that it is about frivolous/false rape claims, when it is about valid rape claims being turned around and leading to prosecution of rape victims.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're deliberately being obtuse now, as it is exactly that people have been convicted for 'alleged false rape claims', that is the focus of this - people are stating that they have been pressured/co-erced into retracting their claims of rape (when they still maintain that it happened), and that this was then used to prosecute them.

Here is a different article of the same story, which gives much better framing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11267565/Rape-claims-109-women-prosecuted-for-false-allegations-over-five-years.html

There is also this, from the same article:


That shows that this is a legitimate problem - people are being prosecuted for making false claims, when there is no evidence that the claim is a lie.


Massively different story, to what everyone in this thread is talking about - where people are assuming (because of some posters - in my view deliberately - putting a misleading spin on the story), that it is about frivolous/false rape claims, when it is about valid rape claims being turned around and leading to prosecution of rape victims.

I'm not the one being obtuse here.

Once there is conviction there is no *alleged*. Their is guilt in the eyes of the law. If there's an allegation of a miscarriage of justice then that is the only alleged thing here. I'm assuming you also consider Ched Evans to be an alleged rapist.


Nice quote you picked to start btw-some of these cases are miscarriages of justice! That's nice, I guess we don't have to worry about the ones that aren't miscarriages of justice then, we'll just let WAR tell is how to treat them.

Lyaiera

Spinachliver wrote: »

How do you know there was no evidence that it was a lie? Because a WAR spokesperson said so?

"despite being told by police that there was no evidence that de Freitas had lied"

It's right there in the article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11267565/Rape-claims-109-women-prosecuted-for-false-allegations-over-five-years.html

tritium

Lyaiera wrote: »

"despite being told by police that there was no evidence that de Freitas had lied"

It's right there in the article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11267565/Rape-claims-109-women-prosecuted-for-false-allegations-over-five-years.html

Given its an active enquiry I'd be slow to prejudge. Generally cases are only taken where there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. Its quite disturbing how there's a dual campaign going on here though- the we think she didn't do it, but even if she did she was vulnerable so that's ok

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

I'm not the one being obtuse here.

Once there is conviction there is no *alleged*. Their is guilt in the eyes of the law. If there's an allegation of a miscarriage of justice then that is the only alleged thing here. I'm assuming you also consider Ched Evans to be an alleged rapist.


Nice quote you picked to start btw-some of these cases are miscarriages of justice! That's nice, I guess we don't have to worry about the ones that aren't miscarriages of justice then, we'll just let WAR tell is how to treat them.

Conviction doesn't turn an allegation into solid proof - which is exactly why there is a campaign trying highlight miscarriage of justice here.

Regardless of whether or not you think the idea of a miscarriage of justice is credible or not, that is what they are campaigning on - and that alone, changes the whole context of the story this thread is based upon.

This entire thread is based upon a misrepresentation of their campaign - a misrepresentation you're trying to perpetuate.

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Given its an active enquiry I'd be slow to prejudge. Generally cases are only taken where there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. Its quite disturbing how there's a dual campaign going on here though- the we think she didn't do it, but even if she did she was vulnerable so that's ok

Yea you're not slow to prejudge the entire campaign though are you - only slow to prejudge where it doesn't back the misrepresentation you're trying to push.

jackofalltrades

The_Captain wrote: »

Standing up in court and admitting that you were raped, subjecting yourself to physical examinations and having to defend yourself against cross-examination can be a very traumatising scenario.
If you add the fear that a woman could end up with jail time if she can't prove she was raped, all you'll do is make legitimate victims terrified to come forward.

But this is a completely irrational fear that could easily be explained away.
Legitimate victims would have nothing to worry about in this regard.

What kind of situation are you thinking of when you say women who are proved to make false accusations should be jailed? Something nice and easy where she was actually in Majorca on the night she claims she was assaulted in Dublin?
It doesn't work like that.

Any case that I've heard about where there was a successful conviction for making a false rape claim, was based on irrefutable evidence, eg. phone records, CCTV footage.

If you make it so a woman making a false accusation will be imprisoned if she admits she was lying, all you'll do is create a situation where they never admit that they are lying, making innocent men more likely to go to jail when falsely accused

You have to weight this against the deterrent that sending people who make false rape accusations to prison would create.
In a just society people who make false accusations need to be punished.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Conviction doesn't turn an allegation into solid proof - which is exactly why there is a campaign trying highlight miscarriage of justice here.

Regardless of whether or not you think the idea of a miscarriage of justice is credible or not, that is what they are campaigning on - and that alone, changes the whole context of the story this thread is based upon.

This entire thread is based upon a misrepresentation of their campaign - a misrepresentation you're trying to perpetuate.

I have in three separate posts demonstrated with quotes from the article itself how:

1. The WAR representative themselves have conceded that they only believe some cases may be unsafe

2. The CPS position that a case will only be brought when there is clear evidence of a case of false allegation

3. The women WAR are highlighting have been convicted to a beyond reasonable doubt standard of this crime- they are guilty, not alleged as you keep wanting to spin

Not even WAR themselves are spnning the nonsense you're trying to spin here- from the opening lines of the article

campaigners who are calling for an end to what they claim is the aggressive pursuit of such cases.

And

A US law professor, who will be speaking at the Commons, said the UK’s stance on false allegations is more aggressive than in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Prof Lisa Avalos, of the University of Arkansas, said false allegations in the US were dealt with as a misdemeanour offence, not a felony –

No amount of distortion on your part changes any of the above. You can your standard approach of nitpicking on semantics as much as you like, the simple fact is you're wrong here and that is brutally apparent to me, you and anyone else who's read the article

KomradeBishop

Radio interview is up:
http://classichits.ie/category/podcasts/

The woman in the radio interview the OP heard, did dig herself into a hole and refuse to acknowledge the validity of prosecuting people who make maliciously false accusations of rape.

That's inexcusable - though I'm going to give benefit of the doubt to the organization, that she's just an incredibly poor spokesperson; was a very poor interview on her part.

batnolan

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.

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

I have in three separate posts demonstrated with quotes from the article itself how:

1. The WAR representative themselves have conceded that they only believe some cases may be unsafe

2. The CPS position that a case will only be brought when there is clear evidence of a case of false allegation

3. The women WAR are highlighting have been convicted to a beyond reasonable doubt standard of this crime- they are guilty, not alleged as you keep wanting to spin

Not even WAR themselves are spnning the nonsense you're trying to spin here- from the opening lines of the article



And



No amount of distortion on your part changes any of the above. You can your standard approach of nitpicking on semantics as much as you like, the simple fact is you're wrong here and that is brutally apparent to me, you and anyone else who's read the article

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.

Don Kedick

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.

Hoboo

batnolan wrote: »

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.

Where's the justice and equity in that?

If they're found not guilty they haven't perpetrated anything. They are innocent, or certainly have found to be.

Why shouldn't they be allowed present evidence to attempt to prove the original case and claim was false?

Holsten

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.