Arrested on suspicion..

[Tomtom66]

I'm trying to put your stories of untrue allegations into perspective. Comparing the number of untrue allegations against the number of rape allegations shows that the untrue ones fade into insignificance, statistically.

 

 

Their is nothing to put into perspective, I never said the majority of rape cases were liars I simply said their are a few who will lie, which I proved to be true, and as I stated the ones making false allegations are doing damage to the people who have genuinely been raped.

[Suffragette1]

Their is nothing to put into perspective, I never said the majority of rape cases were liars I simply said their are a few who will lie, which I proved to be true, and as I stated the ones making false allegations are doing damage to the people who have genuinely been raped.

 

And in constantly referencing false rape allegations, posting links and accusing some of making false abuse and rape allegations, you don't think that you're also doing damage to the people who have been genuinely raped?

[quisquose]

Their is nothing to put into perspective, I never said the majority of rape cases were liars I simply said their are a few who will lie, which I proved to be true, and as I stated the ones making false allegations are doing damage to the people who have genuinely been raped.

 

... and I'm betting that EVERY prosecution of a woman that lies about rape is well documented in the press precisely because it is so rare/newsworthy, whereas most rape prosecutions go unreported.

 

The liars ARE doing damage to the chances of the genuine victims getting their claims heard, but only because people like you like to overstate the problem of false claims.

[max]

Their is nothing to put into perspective, I never said the majority of rape cases were liars I simply said their are a few who will lie, which I proved to be true, and as I stated the ones making false allegations are doing damage to the people who have genuinely been raped.

 

There you go again, using exaggeration.

 

Using the figures in the links I supplied should show you that there are not a few, there is an infinitesimal number.

[Suffragette1]

Tomtom66 has a funny way of expressing concern for genuine rape victims not getting justice seeing as his first post on this thread referred to 'gravy train' and virtually every single post (of 20) uses the word liar to describe rape and sexual abuse complainants, casting totally unfounded aspersions on those who are continuing to come forward with historic rape and sexual abuse allegations. Have there been any proven cases, Tomtom66 of "liars jumping onto the gravy train" in the recent numerous high profile celebrity cases? If so, could you please direct me to them.

 

Here is another good piece. Note, as I said earlier:

 

When real occasions of false allegations are published, they're news for the same reasons – they're lurid and exciting, and they make you feel something. But they're news because they are so rare. The Daily Mail specialises in perpetuating this narrative, with stories such as "The rape lies that ruined our lives" – it used the phrase "cried rape" in 54 headlines over the past year. Headlines such as "Wicked women who cried rape trapped by three-in-bed photos" reveal women to be the scheming harridans they always suspected, harridans who use their sexuality as a weapon, whose power lies solely in their body. These were real cases of false allegations, but the idea that it is a widespread problem, a weapon women use, is fiction.

 

And here is one of many pieces dealing with the Newsbeat article which you posted, to remind us (as if we needed reminding) of false rape allegations. And just for good measure, here is another one. Note the latter response:

 

We represent more than 60 specialist organisations working to end violence against women and girls in all its forms, and a national network of Rape Crisis centres who work directly with survivors of sexual violence.

In other words, a range of people with a vast collective expertise in the area.

[MrSmith]

There's a column in today's Observer entitled: If sex offenders are named, victims will come forward which puts the argument far more eloquently than I could.

 

Or if victims are named its more likely that someone that wasn't raped will come forward with malicious allegations.

 

The accused should face trial and be found guilty before being named.

 

Our laws don’t even allow the jury to know of past offences because it could influence their decision on guilt, yet we publish the names of the accused before they are found guilty. By the time some of these people get to trial they are already assumed to be guilty.

[Suffragette1]

Or if victims are named its more likely that someone that wasn't raped will come forward with malicious allegations.

 

The accused should face trial and be found guilty before being named.

 

Our laws don’t even allow the jury to know of past offences because it could influence their decision on guilt, yet we publish the names of the accused before they are found guilty. By the time some of these people get to trial they are already assumed to be guilty.

 

Disclosing names of the arrested to the public is all part of the investigative process, gathering evidence from witnesses or other victims who would otherwise remain anonymous. Should we also do away with Crimewatch? Or should the police just carry out door to door enquiries across the length and breadth of the whole country?

[LeMaquis]

Our laws don’t even allow the jury to know of past offences because it could influence their decision on guilt, yet we publish the names of the accused before they are found guilty. By the time some of these people get to trial they are already assumed to be guilty.

 

You like to get your facts wrong, don't you?

 

Have a look at this article from 2010 about bringing Scottish Law into line with English and Welsh Law in allowing previous convictions to be known to jurors;

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12040486

 

"In England and Wales, juries have been told about the previous convictions of defendants since 2004.

 

Last year, the jury at Peter Tobin's trial for the murder of Dinah McNicol at Chelmsford Crown Court in Essex was told that he had been convicted of murdering Scottish schoolgirl Vicky Hamilton and that both girls had been found buried in his garden.

 

However, the jury at the Vicky Hamilton murder trial, which was heard in Scotland, were not able to hear of his earlier conviction for the murder of Angelika Kluk".

 

As your argument against publicising the names of those accused of rape is a factual inaccuracy you must now support publicising the names of those accused of rape. Or are there no limits to your support for sex offenders?

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 13:43 ----------

 

By the time some of these people get to trial they are already assumed to be guilty.

 

By whom? Judges are quite strict in telling jurors what they can and can't take into account when deciding on guilt or otherwise. Just because the flaming torch and pitchfork brigade have decided on someone's guilt doesn't affect a jury's decision at all. And if it did the defendant could ask for a mistrial to be declared.

[Suffragette1]

You like to get your facts wrong, don't you?

 

Have a look at this article from 2010 about bringing Scottish Law into line with English and Welsh Law in allowing previous convictions to be known to jurors;

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12040486

 

"In England and Wales, juries have been told about the previous convictions of defendants since 2004.

 

Last year, the jury at Peter Tobin's trial for the murder of Dinah McNicol at Chelmsford Crown Court in Essex was told that he had been convicted of murdering Scottish schoolgirl Vicky Hamilton and that both girls had been found buried in his garden.

 

However, the jury at the Vicky Hamilton murder trial, which was heard in Scotland, were not able to hear of his earlier conviction for the murder of Angelika Kluk".

 

As your argument against publicising the names of those accused of rape is a factual inaccuracy you must now support publicising the names of those accused of rape. Or are there no limits to your support for sex offenders?

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 13:43 ----------

 

 

By whom? Judges are quite strict in telling jurors what they can and can't take into account when deciding on guilt or otherwise. Just because the flaming torch and pitchfork brigade have decided on someone's guilt doesn't affect a jury's decision at all. And if it did the defendant could ask for a mistrial to be declared.

Why would anyone wish to make it even harder for rape and sexual abuse victims to come forward? It is already worryingly underreported, as Rape Crisis statistics evidence. Why on earth should we be supporting a system which would leave even more rapists and child sex abusers at large, continuing their crimes?

[Tomtom66]

Tomtom66 has a funny way of expressing concern for genuine rape victims not getting justice seeing as his first post on this thread referred to 'gravy train' and virtually every single post (of 20) uses the word liar to describe rape and sexual abuse complainants, casting totally unfounded aspersions on those who are continuing to come forward with historic rape and sexual abuse allegations. Have there been any proven cases, Tomtom66 of "liars jumping onto the gravy train" in the recent numerous high profile celebrity cases? If so, could you please direct me to them.

 

Here is another good piece. Note, as I said earlier:

 

 

 

And here is one of many pieces dealing with the Newsbeat article which you posted, to remind us (as if we needed reminding) of false rape allegations. And just for good measure, here is another one.

 

 

Again distorting my posts and picking words out, hmm like the daily mail do ?

As I have said many times on many posts some/will have and do lie its fact get to grips with it, nowhere at all have I said every woman who claims rape is lying, so please don't make out like I have, you are posting on here attacking me now because I haven't folded to your views, and it's becoming quite pathetic now.

 

Show me a single one of my posts where I have said all rape victims are liars to jump on the gravy train, please show me ... But you can't, it's false allegations like that that cause problems you know like I have said.

 

I love it how you need someone to come on here and make a post that you agree with or that goes against the one you are discussing with and instantly start attacking again, are you trying to belittle me infont of others on here ?, or just need some back up to try and make me leave the thread ?

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 13:59 ----------

 

There you go again, using exaggeration.

 

Using the figures in the links I supplied should show you that there are not a few, there is an infinitesimal number.

 

 

But you agree it still happens,

If it was the other way and their were lots of rape allegations but only an infinitesimal number were true would you hold the same view that it didn't matter ?

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 14:01 ----------

 

You like to get your facts wrong, don't you?

 

Have a look at this article from 2010 about bringing Scottish Law into line with English and Welsh Law in allowing previous convictions to be known to jurors;

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12040486

 

"In England and Wales, juries have been told about the previous convictions of defendants since 2004.

 

Last year, the jury at Peter Tobin's trial for the murder of Dinah McNicol at Chelmsford Crown Court in Essex was told that he had been convicted of murdering Scottish schoolgirl Vicky Hamilton and that both girls had been found buried in his garden.

 

However, the jury at the Vicky Hamilton murder trial, which was heard in Scotland, were not able to hear of his earlier conviction for the murder of Angelika Kluk".

 

As your argument against publicising the names of those accused of rape is a factual inaccuracy you must now support publicising the names of those accused of rape. Or are there no limits to your support for sex offenders?

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 13:43 ----------

 

 

By whom? Judges are quite strict in telling jurors what they can and can't take into account when deciding on guilt or otherwise. Just because the flaming torch and pitchfork brigade have decided on someone's guilt doesn't affect a jury's decision at all. And if it did the defendant could ask for a mistrial to be declared.

 

 

Read one of my earlier links, about the chap who was wrongly convicted and was attacked with boiling water etc even though the rape claim was false .