How the Home Office
Distorts the Evidence
According to the Home Office Report, some 5% of UK women have been raped
at some time in their lives. The Home Office researchers arrived at this figure mostly on the
basis of a pathetically inadequate questionnaire which asked such questions as,
"Have you been forced to have sex with anyone?" And, on the basis of
the answers, it drew its hopelessly invalid conclusions.
For example, it concluded that 0.4% of women
had been raped in the 12 months prior to the research, and that 0.5% had been
sexually assaulted (without penile penetration) during the same period.
(These are very small percentages. Indeed,
they each represent some 30 women out of the 6,944 women who took
part in the year 2000 survey.)
Well, of course, some of these
60 women might have been genuine victims, but let us look at why other women might
have falsely affirmed through a questionnaire that they had been 'forced' to have sex during
the period in question.
1. Some 5% of women have Borderline
Personality Disorder or something close to it. Features of this include the habitual
making of false accusations, the constant creation of mountains
out of molehills, and the re-writing of the past, mostly in order to wreak
vengeance upon those who happened to be close to them at the time -
usually men. For those with BDP, seeing oneself as a victim of someone else's
actions is almost a permanent state of being.
For women with BPD, boasting about the amount
and intensity of 'abuse' that they have suffered is akin to young men bragging
mendaciously about their imagined sexual conquests.
Now, if just ONE-TENTH of these women
answered the questionnaire in a manner that suggested that they had engaged in
intercourse at least once during the 12 month period because they were 'forced'
to do so, then this would account for the WHOLE of the rape figure.
And if just ONE-TENTH of these women reckoned that at least once during the same period they had ever
been 'forced' to engage in non-penetrative sex then this would account for the
WHOLE of the sex-assault figure.
Given that such women are constantly making
false accusations against people, the chances are that the vast majority of all
those identified as innocent victims of sexual assault by the Home Office were nothing
of the sort.
And this fact, ALONE
smashes the credibility of this ridiculous report completely and utterly.
It is nothing but hokum.
Furthermore, according to the The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists some 3% of women "have a severe form of
PMS called premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), characterized by depression,
anxiety, tension and persistent anger or irritability.
to be thrust against the wall by a drunken male
and to be groped hither and thither in such venues is no great deal for
2. If you go virtually to any nightclub or
student party these days you will likely discover therein women who regularly
indulge in all sorts of sexual activities, even with complete strangers - and many of these women are
also taking alcohol and drugs. And so,
for example, to be thrust against the wall by a drunken male and to be groped hither
and thither in such venues is no great deal for many women. And the fact that
they might also oftentimes be man-handled by 'force' is all part and parcel of what
they happily 'endure' on a weekly basis. Nevertheless, many such women would
probably answer the Home Office's questionnaire about having been 'forced' to engage in
a sexual manner in the affirmative - even if such an incident had only occurred once during the 12
month period in question.
Now, given that the alleged number of
women to have been abused over the preceding 12 months (according to the
Home Office) is less than 1% of the whole sample, even if a small number
of these fun-loving, alcohol-loving nightclubbin women stated that they
had been 'forced' on a questionnaire, they would have accounted for a
significant fraction of the 1%.
Many women just love to see themselves as victims of
3. Many women just love to see themselves as
victims of abuse. It is a badge of honour for them to claim or feel that they
have been raped or assaulted - and survived! They can join an ever-growing
mutual-adoration club which requires no evidence for membership.
And it could also provide them with a job,
somewhere within the ever-growing abuse industry.
4. One only has to look at the TV programmes
that women love to watch, the books that they like to read, the things that they
love to talk about, and the most popular themes of their sexual fantasies to
know just what many of them are hankering for. If just a small percentage of
these women re-interpreted any sexual activity from the preceding 12 months as
having been 'forced' upon them in any way - perhaps as a result of being
influenced by an episode of Eastenders - then the low-percentage assault
figures from the Home Office would have been significantly inflated.
Furthermore, and for example, the American psychologist Dr Nancy
Faulkner has this to say about some of the women receiving therapy at her
"I have seen women in therapy who
could no longer content themselves with a non-combative relationship. They
complained that it is "boring" and that the sexual relationship is not
exciting. These women have become so accustomed to the roller-coaster emotional
highs and lows that they appear to thrive on the thrill-ride, while at the same
time hating the assaults."
Putting all this simply: A large number of
women just love the idea of being sexually 'abused'. Also see my piece Women Love Manga.
5. There are sufficient numbers of 'feminist' women, many
of who are highly politicised and/or who work in the abuse industry, who gain
much advantage from doing their best to inflate the sex-assault figures - for
example, as part of their 'contribution to the feminist movement'. And, once
again, if just a small percentage of these decided to answer the Home Office
questionnaire in a manner that would indicate falsely some criminal abuse, then the
figures for sex-assault would have been inflated significantly.
Indeed, if just 1% of women are so inclined, then this would account
for all those responses
indicating assaults both with and without penetration.
All of them!
And in an area that is highly politicised, and
also highly emotionalised, as is the area to do with sex-assault, the assumption
that the respondents are all replying honestly and without prejudice to any
questionnaire is extremely questionable to say the least.
Men have been portrayed as the devil himself for the
past 30 years
6. Men have been portrayed as the devil
himself for the past 30 years. During this time there can hardly have been a day that
has gone by
wherein most women and children have not been presented with highly-emotional
portrayals of men being abusive in some way.
Would the Home Office accept the validity of a
questionnaire about the behaviours of Jews or gypsies that had been handed out
solely to a sample of Germans in the 1930s?
No, probably not.
And yet, after 30 years of blanket
feminist-inspired propaganda demonising men emanating from both government and
the media - with a daily coverage and an intensity that Hitler himself could never
have even dreamed of - the Home Office presents what it considers to be a valid
Report about the true behaviours of men based on the testimony only of women.
7. Women often have strong direct vested
interests in making false allegations about their partners. False allegations
can serve them well in relationship break-ups, child custody disputes, divorce
proceedings and in soothing their consciences concerning why they themselves
might have behaved badly in the past. The government has also provided women
with many incentives to make false allegations. Once made (even if only
'silently' to themselves) false allegations are
more than likely to be entered on to questionnaires as if they were true, even
if only for the reason that not to do so would create what psychologists call
Putting this another way: If women were
offered a straightforward £1,000,000 in compensation for being abused by their
partners, not only would the number of false allegations soar (for obvious
reasons) but the findings even from anonymous questionnaires would reflect this
increase, even though, ostensibly, there would be no direct incentives for this
Or, if you like, liars often end up truly
believing what they actually once knew to be the product exclusively of their
very own lies.
8. The evidence arising in the area of
domestic violence (which is, after all, simply another 'aggressive' form of
'relationship' conflict) shows very clearly that the majority of women who
contact the police are not the weak and wilting types
in need of some protection. On the contrary, they are, for the most part,
the aggressive, manipulative and vengeful types who are seeking some form of
revenge - or some extra leverage - against their partners - e.g. see Only Women Are Offered An Alternative To Domestic Violence.
There is no reason to believe that matters are
any different when it comes to claims of rape or sex-assault.
some 50% of women
admit to telling lies on a daily basis
9. And, of course, we know that some 50% of women
admit to telling lies on a daily basis - which is one reason that public
'surveys' are so often worthless.
The Scruples and Lies survey was based on
interviews with 5,000 women. It found that 94% confessed to telling fibs, with
48% lying on a daily basis. (BBC News)
... Figures showed one woman in two would not tell
her man that the baby she was carrying was not his - if she wanted to stay with
... They also said four out of ten (42%) would lie
about contraception in order to get pregnant, in spite of the wishes of their
Furthermore, the evidence that women are far
more likely to lie about their sexual experiences than are men, is increasing
all the time - e.g. see Women
Fake Sex Numbers
And so, all in all, when it comes to women
filling in the Home Office's questionnaire - and with only about 1% giving the
impression that they have been unduly forced into having sex during the past 12
months - the very notion that a true picture
can be gleaned from the data about the true incidence of assault and rape is just ridiculous.
The overwhelming probability is that the conclusions and the numbers will be
wildly exaggerated and will dramatically over-estimate the number of true rapes
and true assaults. And this will happen because, generally
speaking, there is far too much emotional, psychological and political noise in
As such, of the 60 women whose data suggested
that they had been raped or assaulted, my guess is that a more accurate figure
would be much closer to 5 - and it could easily even be a big fat
In summary; there are so many reasons and so
many circumstances arising within the course of normal life on
the basis of which surely some 20% of women might
falsely (or unintentionally) indicate 'rape' in a questionnaire, that the
Home Office's alleged overall 1% figure for sex-assault is likely to be
mostly made up of spurious nonsense.
As even further proof of this, it is interesting to note that about 35% of
the alleged victims in this study did not see themselves as victims of any crime
"No. We have not been sexually assaulted," is, effectively, what they
But the Home Office did not worry about this. It counted their
experiences as crimes anyway.
The UK has been positively deluged for some thirty years
with propaganda designed to make women see themselves as victims
Of course, it is possible that some women do
not actually recognise that a crime against them has happened, when it has, but
in matters of sexual assault, the UK is not a country that has buried such
matters under the carpet and hidden the ins and outs of sexual assault from
public scrutiny. The UK has been positively deluged for some thirty years
with propaganda designed to make women see themselves as victims in just about
every area where they operate - employment, education, pay, domestic violence
and so on - and especially in areas to do with 'abuse'. And so the notion that tens of thousands of
women are just too naive to recognise when they have been criminally assaulted
has no legitimate basis whatsoever.
Indeed, the very opposite is far more likely
to be true. It is far more likely that UK women will see actions as being
criminal or abusive when they are not, because women are constantly being
targeted and urged to see matters in such a way.
And, in fact, this is exactly what just about
all the evidence shows. For example, when women today make allegations of rape,
95% of the time they fail to convince people of their case.
Oh yes, the Home Office can define whatever happened
'operationally' as a rape, presumably, on the basis of some incredibly
simplistic predetermined notions (e.g. a YES to questions 1, 4, 9 and 13) and by
using 'legal' terms it can also define that whatever happened was a rape, but
neither of these could ever be counted upon to reflect the reality of what such
a 'rape' might actually be.
And this would seem somewhat crucial when
dealing with matters of serious crime - particularly when the government looks
set to corrupt the justice system still further on the basis of what these
supposedly enormous number of rapes actually are.
Did someone take £10 out of your wallet
without your knowledge in the past 12 months?
Yes. My wife.
Then that is a crime!
And your wife is a thief!
Such 'non-crimes' are simply added by the Home Office
into the pot of numbers in order to support its agenda of increasing the amount
of relationship disharmony throughout the country.
It is part of a concerted attempt to make crimes
out of non-crimes
This, in effect, is what the Home Office
Report boils down to. It is part of a concerted attempt to make crimes out of
non-crimes and to demonise men.
The Home Office actually wants
women to see themselves as victims of rape. It wants to demonise
the heterosexual male population. This is why, for example, its headline
rape figures include those situations where the women did not think that any
rape had occurred, and why, for example again, there is no consideration in the
report concerning the fact that a very high percentage of women
who report rape are known to lie and exaggerate about such things.
And here, I should add that the 'headline'
rape figures are also nothing more than a downright deception. They are not 'rape' figures at all.
They are the number of allegations
that have been made. And these are some 20 times greater than
the number of convictions for rape.
Furthermore, rape is the only
crime for which the government officials at the Home Office base the
conviction rate on the number of allegations that have been made, rather
than upon the number of cases that go to court.
The upshot is that the official 'conviction rate' for rape - publicised
to the world - lies somewhere around 5%. If, however, rape was treated as
are all the other crimes, the conviction rate would be around 50%.
So why does the Home Office wish to give the impression to the public
that the conviction rate is so low?
And the answer to this question is blatantly obvious.
By claiming that 95% of alleged 'rapists' go free, the government and
government officials can
continually justify to the public further corruptions of the justice
system in order to gain more convictions.
And why would they do these things?
To get more votes from women, and to maintain jobs, pensions and empires.
In the report there is also made the
completely unwarranted assumption that the associated research and methodology
are tainted with the possibility that many women who have been raped will,
for some reason or other, have failed to provide the correct evidence - on the
questionnaire - for their particular rapes to have been counted as 'rapes' by the
researchers. As such, it is argued that the survey's results will actually underestimate
the true extent of rape.
For example, given that the survey was
ostensibly about 'crime', it is argued that many rape victims might not have
considered past rapes by their partners to be 'crimes', and so they will not have
associated their particular 'rapes' with a 'crime survey'. As such, these women
will not have made
responses to the questionnaire that would allow the researchers to count their
Well, the idea that 'rapes' by partners might
not readily be viewed by some women as crimes seems a reasonable one, but, surely,
if anything is to be deduced from the fact that women might have excluded their
incidents from a crime survey, specifically on the grounds that it was a crime
survey, then it is that these women do not think that a crime against them has been
Indeed, knowing that this was a
'crime' survey, it is quite possible that a huge percentage of women simply
refused to cooperate with the view that their sexual 'tussles' should be counted
And if, indeed, this was the case, then it
follows that the whole survey is tainted by the fact that there must have been a
great deal of game playing and 'strategy' going on while the women were
completing the questionnaire. In other words, this research was virtually
Indeed, the Home Office can have no idea at
all how many women actually failed to see their 'assaults' as crimes on the
basis of this research; and who therefore
failed to mention them in such a 'crime' survey.
NO IDEA AT ALL!
In fact, there could have been thousands of them!
Indeed, it is quite possible that a monumental 99% of
the women in the survey had been 'raped' according to the way in which the Home
Office appeared to be defining it in its 'crime' survey. And it is quite possible that most of these
women simply refused to pander to this definition because it was a
'crime' survey and because they did not see themselves as being victims of a
the Home Office tries to spin the various complications
only in one direction
But the Home Office tries to spin the various
complications only in one direction - a direction that suggests that there were
more rapes than their questionnaire actually revealed.
This spin becomes much easier to see when the
Home Office finally extrapolates the survey findings to the real world. Here,
estimates that about 61,000 UK women were 'raped' in the year 2,000 alone.
However, only some 8,000 actually ended up reporting these incidents to the
Here is what the Report says about the 53,000
alleged victims who did not report the matter to the police.
"Rape victims may not wish to identify
themselves as such since they may perceive that this has associations of
stigmatised and degraded status. It may also be difficult for women raped by
somebody they know, perhaps even somebody they liked or loved, to label this
person a rapist."
"The highly personal and traumatic
nature of sexual victimisation means that apart from often not reporting their
experiences to the police, victims will also be reluctant to share their
experiences with anybody."
the most likely reason that these alleged 53,000 victims did
not go the police is because, quite simply, they do not exist
This is pure spin. There is no real evidence
for this. On the contrary, the most likely reason that these alleged 53,000
victims did not go the police is because, quite simply, they do not exist - or,
if you prefer, they did not see themselves as being victims of anything.
53,000 of them.
To cloud the issues even further, 45% of alleged rapes were said in the
Report to have occurred in situations where the alleged rapist was actually the
partner of the victim. But this large percentage alone suggests very strongly that
the research which gave rise to it is highly suspect. After all, how does a
simple questionnaire attempt to sort out the complex interactions and ups and
downs of people who are intimately involved with each other? - particularly when
it seeks the views of only one of the partners.
And how is it that these alleged rapists
actually had 'partners'?
Were these relationships going exceedingly well
and then, suddenly, one day, the male partners just turned into rapists?
No, of course not. The chances are that the
relationships that these women had with their rapist partners were
full of ups and downs, with lots of turmoil and much in the way of heavy
emotional hurt and aggravation, but the Home Office questionnaire tapped 'evidence'
only from the women.
And this research is supposed to be valid?
The whole notion is ridiculous.
Furthermore, whenever one studies closely those
cases that are highlighted to the public - often the 'best' of cases chosen by
the women's groups themselves - most of them seem to be utterly spurious, with
most of the alleged female victims demonstrating a clear history of self-harm,
self-delusion and downright fabrication, and/or one of sexual 'negligence' and
Furthermore, one of the main private
complaints of police officers who specialise in these areas is that it is
usually very difficult to get alleged victims to press charges, despite being put under
considerable pressure to do so.
And so, again, it seems that despite the
enormous amount of effort being put in by the police and the Home
Office to encourage victims of sexual assaults to contact the authorities over
them, the vast majority of them simply refuse to do so.
But the Report seems concerned only to
promote the view that tens of thousands of men annually are simply getting away
with serious rape and assault, and that tens of thousands of women are just too
intimidated to report them.
Every if, every but, and every piece of
uncertainty is stitched together in such a way as to demonise the maximum number
And this 'twisting' of the evidence has
no valid basis whatsoever.
It is deceitful propaganda through and
As further evidence of the invalidity of this
particular piece of research by the Home Office is the finding that the number of women who claim to have been
sexually assaulted without
being raped in the preceding year (0.5% of the survey) is just about the same
as the number of women who allegedly were raped during this same
it is just not credible
that the number of actual rapes is so close to the number of sexual
assaults without rape.
But it is just not credible
that the number of actual rapes is so close to the number of sexual assaults
without rape. Life is just not like this. More extreme things happen far less
frequently than less extreme things in real
life. And, further, given that sexual assaults without rape will encompass a
very wide range of behaviours, including such trivialities as being forcibly groped in the nightclub by a drunken
lout, a piece of research that
shows rape to be just as prevalent as other kinds of sexual assault is clearly
just not credible.
There must have been something very wrong
indeed with this research for it to give rise to such preposterous figures.
Further, throwing out the whole notion that
defendants should be seen to be innocent until proven guilty, the authors do not
even bother to emphasise that reports of assault to the police are not proof of
Here is what the authors say ...
In 1999 the police recorded 7,707 incidents
Well, NO THEY DID NOT!
They recorded 7,707 allegations of
And this point is not trivial, because it
provides further evidence to help describe the mindset of those who wrote the
Report. This mindset simply presumes that every allegation of rape is
the true recording of an actual rape.
And it is alarming, to say the least, to
discover that a Report of such considerable national and international
importance should contain sweeping statements that are decidedly FALSE.
Here is another example of this.
As Table E.1 shows, although the number of
recorded rapes has increased more than four-fold since 1985, the proportion of
recorded rapes resulting in a defendant being convicted is lower than it has
Notice the phrase, 'recorded rapes'.
Well, they are not recorded rapes. They are
recorded allegations of rape. As such, the fact that the proportion of
convictions is going down does not mean that more rapes are going unpunished -
which is what the Report clearly implies. What is just as likely - if not more
likely - is that the number of false allegations is going up!
But the authors of the Report do not mention
Imagine, for the moment, that you were a pathologist peering
down a microscope at a piece of tissue
Imagine, for the moment, that you were a
pathologist peering down a microscope at a piece of tissue, and you wanted to
determine how many cells were cancerous.
125 cells are brought to your attention as
possibly being cancerous.
The first 25 cells you reject straight away,
because they are very clearly not cancer cells. They are 'no-crimed'. The remaining 100
investigate very closely with all your colleagues, as best as you can, but you
can determine that only about 7 of them are cancerous.
Would you then write a Report claiming that
you had, in fact, discovered 100 (or 125) cancer cells?
Well, if you did do this, then you would be being highly
manipulative and thoroughly dishonest.
They are being manipulative and dishonest.
But this, in effect, is what the Home Office
researchers are doing with the assault data. They are being manipulative and
dishonest. They are claiming that they have found 100 rapes when, in fact, they
have found 7.
Let me put all this another way because it is
very important to get this across.
Despite the three-decade long, nationwide,
wholesale encouragement of women 'to come forward', some 30% of the survey's
respondents did not see their 'rapes' as crimes - as judged by the questionnaire
- but the Home Office, nevertheless, counts them as crimes.
Some 80% of women
(about 53,000, apparently) did not report their 'rapes' as crimes by going to the
police - but the Home Office also counts these as crimes.
And when the Report
refers to the 7,707 women who did make a report to the police in 1999, it refers to
these as incidents
of rape, even though only some 7% of them gave rise to convictions.
And so this highly-influential Report turns
out to be far more of a conjuring trick than a serious investigation into the
world of sex-assault.
Also, so simplistic and crude was this
particular piece of research into complex behaviours that it could well be the case that the
numbers of rapes and sexual assaults (as defined by the Home Office) are well in
excess of even their very own figures!
Yes, in excess!
Perhaps, for example, it is simply not the
case that just 5% of all UK women have been sexually assaulted without penile
penetration during their lives. The true figure might be nearer to 90%!!!
For example, here is one of the questions ...
Since age 16, has someone, either a
stranger or someone you know, ever attempted to force you to have sexual
intercourse or make you do sexual things against your will?
Well, most young men seem to spend most of
their free time trying to 'force' women to do sexual things against their will.
And this is no doubt a ritual that has gone on for many thousands of years, in
one way or another.
But the Home Office seems completely unaware
Did it not surprise the Home Office researchers
to discover that only 5% of UK women have ever - in their whole
lives - had to deal with an attempt at some kind of 'force' to do non-penetrative 'sexual things' against their will?
Well, it surprised me.
And the fact that the Home Office figures were
so low when it came to this particular issue suggests to me that
very many women who answered the Home Office questionnaire were simply not willing to
play the Home Office's game and call such things 'crimes'.
Indeed, in my view, there is only one
worthwhile lesson to be learned from this Report, and this is that the Home
Office is trying to disseminate a piece
of malicious propaganda.
What is so sickening about this Report is not so
much the figures themselves - which are worthless - but the blatant attempt to maximise the amount of
male-hatred that can be squeezed out of them.
There is no attempt whatsoever to look at the numerous
important real life
factors that might colour what they mean.
It is demonstrably
a one-sided prejudicial piece of propaganda
It is demonstrably a
one-sided prejudicial piece of propaganda that seeks throughout to propagate the
view that there are, annually, tens of thousands of UK women who are being badly
victimised despite the fact that the weight of evidence currently clearly suggests, firstly, that the vast
majority of women who are 'sexually victimised' - 'sexually victimised'
according to the Home Office, that is - do not consider that their incidents are
even worth reporting, and, secondly, that of those women who do report such
incidents, the vast majority of them, on close inspection, appear to be
This is what the Home Office data really show.
'women', on the whole, are a pleasant bunch.
Finally, one of the main reasons that
feminists and women's groups have successfully bamboozled the public for so long when it comes to allegations
of domestic violence and sex-assault, is that when most people think about
'women', they mostly recognise that 'women', on the whole, are a pleasant bunch.
What they do not realise,
that there are many women who are virtually impossible to deal with and to cope
with, women who can almost literally drive their intimates insane, women who are emotionally
quite unstable and/or hypersensitive, and women who are highly prone to aggression, manipulation and deceit.
If only 5% of women have such problems (which
is, in fact, the case, and which equates to about 1,000,000 UK women) then these women
are highly likely to account for MOST of the allegations
concerning domestic violence and sex-assault.
Now, whether or not this is, in fact, true -
and I believe that it is - one might have expected the Home Office researchers at
least to have discussed this highly likely possibility
given the enormous consequences and costs that are likely to arise
from its Report.
But this has not been done because too many
Home Office staff are completely dominated, deluded and controlled
by pernicious feminist propaganda and ideology, and the academics who wrote the
Report are simply not up to the job - in my view.
The truth of the matter is this.
Neither the Home Office nor the police have the
foggiest notion how many real rapes occur every year in the UK.
Neither the Home Office nor the police have
the foggiest notion how many real rapes occur every year in the UK. There might be
1000. There might be 1,000,000. And the figure mostly
depends on how rape is actually defined.
But the overwhelming evidence
suggests very clearly that the vast majority of rape
allegations that are actually made to the police are very decidedly FALSE;
e.g. see my piece entitled The Truth About The
Also see my piece Ignoring Relationships In Rape
to see how Home Office researchers use data from highly dysfunctional women in
order to evaluate the difference between Stranger Rape and Relationship Rape.
recorded a 27 per cent increase in rapes - with the number exceeding 10,000 for
the first time, a trend the Home Office said could be a result of encouraging
women to come forward to complain. Daily Telegraph
And this was in the Times ...
RAPES of women rose by more than a quarter
to more than 10,000 annually for the first time in the history of
police-recorded crime, according to figures published today.
However, the 10,000 figure does not represent
rapes at all.
This figure is for allegations
of rape made to the police.
Readers should ask themselves why the
Home Office is purposely disseminating downright lies to the media
and to the public with regard to these rape figures (and, indeed, with regard to
many other issues relating to 'relationship' assaults).
Furthermore, apart from disseminating
downright lies, these authorities have purposely fudged the definitions of
relationship crimes, falsified the figures, seriously corrupted the justice
system, inflamed women to report abuse when none has occurred, and have carried
out what can only be described as a campaign of male hatred that has now lasted
for over three decades.
Also see ...
+ Have You Been Raped Recently?
A short piece of mine which shows you just how easy it is to fudge the rape
+ UK It
is this agenda of marriage-busting, man-hating feminism which has now got the
Home Office well and truly in its clutches. Ever since New Labour came to power,
it has been spouting a torrent of distorted information about domestic violence.
+ UK It
seems unlikely that blurring the distinction between rape and an unpleasant
sexual encounter can make prosecuting rape cases easier. Rather, as the 'one in
20' headlines indicate, its main consequence is to define more and more aspects
of sexual contact as rape - even when the woman concerned does not see it as
such. Josie Appleton