Here is The Observer's 'observations'
about the forthcoming programme.
This is an important programme which
investigates a criminal justice system in which for every 100 women who walk
into a police station to report a rape only nine will see the rapist convicted.
Disturbing but worthwhile television. (Observer Listings 15-21 April 2001)
Do you see what it clearly implies?
"only nine will
see the rapist convicted".
In other words, 91 of the 'rapists' will
go free.
NOT TRUE
The idea behind deceits such as
these is to make readers feel aggrieved at a justice system that lets
91% of rapists go free.
But there is no valid reason at all to believe that many of this
91% are actually guilty of anything. It is more than likely that MOST have been
falsely accused.
The idea is also to stir up
more antagonism between the genders by making women feel that tens of thousands
of men are getting away with rape and, further, presumably, that the
male-dominated justice system is, somehow, in some sort of gender-collusion with
this.
Now let's look at The
Independent.
Why
are we failing the victims of rape?
The
Independent
More rapes are being
reported in Britain than ever before, but fewer than one in 10 leads to a
conviction. A BBC documentary suggests that victims of this devastating crime
face an uphill struggle to win justice, says Rachel Coughlan [the producer of
the BBC programme].
Fewer than one in every
10 women who walk into a police station to report rape will see their rapist
convicted. [Here it
is again. The statement couldn't be clearer. Rachel Coughlan is telling the
reader that 90% of rapists - i.e. they're ALL presumed guilty, every one of
them, without even a trial - are let off the hook.]
Is the criminal justice system not working or are we to believe that 90 per cent
of women reporting rape are making false allegations? [There
is no consequent 'OR' about it! This 'logic' is sooo simplistic. For example, it
could be that 40% of the allegations are false - in which case, it is hardly
surprising that the justice system cannot easily separate the wheat from the
chaff.]
This statistic alone
prompted BBC 1 to commission a documentary exploring why it is so difficult for
women to get justice in this area. [Notice
that the very purpose of the
documentary is to reveal injustice against women - not to discover the truth
behind the allegations!]
While undoubtedly there
are some women who do make malicious complaints, it is unlikely that they form
the overwhelming majority. [The
evidence does not suggest this at all. And no-one is denying that some 75% of
REAL rapes go unreported - see later. This is not an issue. I accept
that this 75% figure is 'believable'. But this IN NO WAY has any relevance to
the proportion of FALSE allegations that are ACTUALLY MADE to the police.
Indeed, one might even argue that because 'justice is so difficult to get', the
accusations that are being made are mostly false!!!
Think about it.
An apparently friendly
man you meet in a pub one evening turns nasty and mugs you as you are both
leaving. He sticks a knife to your back and makes you hand over all your money.
As he departs he hits you a few times - without leaving marks as evidence.
You know where he lives.
Do you go to the police?
Well, if you believe that
the police won't bother that much, and that you've got very little hope of
getting any satisfaction, because, even if they do, the justice system will
simply fail somewhere higher up the ladder, then, what is the point?
Well, of course, there is
a point. But not much! And so, only about 25% of REAL rapes get reported.
But now, think about
hating someone a great deal. Someone closer whom you think cheated you badly.
Someone whom you never want his kids to see again. Someone whom you want to
hurt. Someone who is leaving you. Someone who has betrayed you.
And imagine that you can
cause them no end of trouble just by making an allegation.
And also imagine that you
are premenstrual and absolutely furious with someone.
You'd like to kill him really.
And, on the television,
and in all the media, are encouragements and massive bonuses for alleging rape -
including money!
And then there's that
sweet taste of revenge.
AS WELL!
How could you resist!?
Further, of course, if he
isn't then convicted, so what? The very fact that he was charged with rape will
damage him. The publicity will certainly hurt him. And the perpetual deluge of feminist
propaganda claiming that "90% of rapists get away with it" will just
damn him even further.
In summary; there is too
much disincentive to report a real rape, and too much encouragement to report a
false one.
And this is partly why I
believe that most allegations of sex-assault these days are false.
And spurious, invalid allegations will continue to rise as
our short-sighted, inept, self-serving politicians do absolutely nothing about
it e.g. see Signing the Sex Consent
Document which explains how politicians are currently being urged to
increase the number of 'rapes'.
I am reminded of the type
of thing that has
been heard so often from those women who have been caught making false
accusations. "I didn't
care that he was found Not Guilty, I just wanted him to suffer the process and
the consequences."
Yes. That most women do
not report their rapes is almost certainly true. However, that most allegations
are false is just as certain!
In the UK, the probability of a woman exaggerating about such a thing - and that's all that's
needed - is far greater than the probability of a man
actually doing such a thing. Indeed, the former has so much to gain by lying, or merely exaggerating, whereas the latter has
so much to lose
by raping.
Raped hears from five
women who claim to have been raped and how they struggled for justice. Their
stories show how cases can drop out of the system and why those that do make it
to court frequently fail.
The number of rapes
reported to the police has tripled over the past ten years. Between 1999 and
2000 nearly 8,000 women reported being raped that works out at about 20 a
day.
Again, it is unlikely
that the rate of rapes is increasing substantially, it is just that women feel
more confident about coming forward to report it.
[And, most certainly, they also feel much more confident to exaggerate and lie about it.]
However, surveys conducted by academics and the Rape Crisis Federation [which
still claims that women 'do not lie about rape' despite the clear evidence that
they do]
suggest
that at least 75 per cent of women still do not go to the police. Rape Crisis
also point out that if so many women were making it up, their telephone help
lines would not be continually swamped. [If
this makes sense to anyone, help me out. Women will swamp almost any helpline
for a chat and a 'boost'. They swamp the Astrological and Tarot telephone lines
at 50p per minute. They chat away on the Spirit World helplines, and the
Religious and Agony Aunt helplines - for the same price.
But the rape helplines
are FREE!
Women can get 'valued' and
'attended to' for nothing.]
Rape is still a taboo
subject many women still feel shame and guilt about what has happened to
them. Of the many women we spoke to in the course of our research, many feared
that their story would not be believed or that they would be viewed as naïve or
that they should shoulder responsibility for placing themselves in difficult
situations. The taboo means that many keep their rape secret for fear of being
seen as tainted or dirty. "I wouldn't have gone to the police if my friends
hadn't taken me," says Susie, who was raped by a man she had already had a
one night stand with, "I just wanted to believe that this hadn't happened
to me."
The main reason why the
conviction rate has declined is because the type of rape that is being reported
is changing. While an attack by a stranger is more usually recognised as rape,
there are many more and less clear-cut cases ['less
clear-cut' means NOT GUILTY, and SHOULD MEAN not guilty]
involving someone already known to the victim. Professor Sue Lees argues that
with advances in DNA testing, serial stranger rapists have had to change their
tactics and now form a relationship albeit very casual with the woman
before raping her. She alleges rape, he says it was consensual. He usually gets
away with it. ['He
usually gets away with it" PRESUMES that he is guilty. And the complaint in
this newspaper article is that SHE doesn't get away with HER version of events! One must
also remember that accused men do NOT remain anonymous. 'Serial' rapists can
therefore hardly get away with serially raping different women for that long.
Conversely, accusing women do remain anonymous, and they can serially 'accuse'
with impunity.]
These less clear-cut
cases account for nearly 90 per cent of all reported cases. The women can identify their attacker and DNA evidence can place him at the
scene of the crime. [Well,
if they're 'less clear-cut', then that's NOT GUILTY! In 90% of these cases the man happily admits to being at the 'scene of the crime'.
DNA is not needed. But notice how the words ' DNA
evidence can place him at the scene of the crime' suggests
that he is denying that he was actually there (which he usually doesn't) and,
secondly, that he did, in fact, rape her, as directly implied by the very use of
the word 'crime'.]
However, what cannot be
proved is 'consent', and proposals to change consent to "free agreement"
in the current Home Office review of Sexual Offences doesn't seem to be able to
get past the issue of who do we believe when two entirely different accounts of
the incident are related in court. [Whom
we 'believe' is NOT supposed to be the important question in a court. The
question should be BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT with regard to HER story - but not
with regard to HIS. HE shouldn't have to PROVE his case.]
Julie's rapist a man she already knew but who had broken into her house to
have sex with her was caught out on a number of lies by the police but, she
says, "the judge gave him credit for admitting to having lied when he was
on the stand.
It is frustrating that as
we enter the 21st century and despite the improvements that have been made by
the police and by the courts, a major lack of understanding about this crime
still exists. [This is hardly
surprising at all given the infinity of circumstances and miscommunications that
can arise between an almost infinite variety of people. All of which are further
confused by feminist deceits, histrionics and mischievous propaganda.]
Until they were raped by men they knew, two of the women in our
documentary were of the opinion that rape only happened with strangers. [If
this is believable, then they must have been living on another planet for 15
years. And they can't even have been watching soaps like Eastenders or chat
shows like Trisha. Indeed, they must never watch TV, listen to the radio, or
read the newspapers. Goodness knows how they managed to discover a means through
which to volunteer for a
documentary. Such an 'opinion
that rape only happened with strangers'
becomes 'understandable' only when you, yourself, understand the kind of heavy
feminist indoctrination that such women go through before BEING SELECTED to
present their
stories to the likes of the BBC. Such apparent 'ignorance' of 'life' adds
vulnerability
and innocence to their carefully-crafted fragile personnae. But it is completely
unbelievable.]
Some judges are still
making questionable statements in our film Denise, who was raped by a
stranger wielding scissors, says she thought the judge in her trial was very
fair in his summing up. But she was appalled when he reminded the jury that
women sometimes become emotional after sex, "so emotional they break their
own noses and run through the streets half naked," as she points out. [If
judges who have years of experience in these matters believe this, then perhaps
one should listen to them.]
Only a couple of weeks ago, Lord Abernethy at the High Court in Aberdeen threw
out a rape case because although the woman claimed she had said "no"
to sex, there was no evidence of force or threat which, he said, was an
essential element for a rape conviction. [This
is a distortion by 'omission'. In fact, this woman's friends were just in the
next room. And she didn't even bother to alert them about her being 'raped' by,
for example, shouting, "Get off me you bastard."
Or, "HEEEELLLLP!!!!"
Maybe she just whispered
a soft No.
Putting this another way:
What this woman was actually experiencing at the time was clearly not unpleasant
enough even to merit a call to her friends in the very next room!
And who can possibly tell
what really happened - since no-one else was on the bed with them?
And this is really
the fundamental problem.
And yet Rachel Coughlan
condemns Lord
Abernethy's decision!
What exactly is he supposed to do? Imprison the man because SHE claims that she
whispered NO?]
Worse, are some of the
opinions by those on the front line the police. In one case a woman was told
by a police officer that it wasn't "real" rape because the man hadn't
ejaculated. A WPC charged with chaperoning rape victims made it clear to me off
the record that there was only one true type of rape in her book - the classic
stranger rape. [In
other words, a policeWOMAN with experience of what really goes on in these
situations is telling it like she sees it - ON THE BASIS OF EXPERIENCE! But, of
course, the feminists at the BBC are not listening to her.] Another
PC informed a raped woman that the accused had "been going through it
too".
A survey conducted by the
Zero Tolerance Trust showed that one in 10 14-21 year-old men would rape a woman
if they thought they could get away with it. [And
what is this supposed to establish? Why not ask a group of young women if they
would ever seek vengeance on a boyfriend who had cheated on them, or hurt them in some
deep way? MOST would say Yes. Following the same 'logic', therefore, one would presume
that MOST accusations from 'hurt' women are false. They're simply seeking
vengeance.]
A man only identified as "Y" is arguing under the Human Rights Act
that he should be allowed to bring up his accuser's sexual history currently
not allowed under the new Criminal Evidence Act because she had willingly had
sex with him the week before the alleged rape took place. He appears to be
claiming that as she said yes once then he can assume that her needs and desires
will always be the same and that first "yes" will mean she will be
consenting forever more. [Er,
No, he is NOT claiming anything of the sort. This is a real distortion of the
man's argument, and is really unworthy of someone representing the BBC. It also reveals just how tainted, superficial and
prejudicial her BBC
programme is likely to be. This man's argument is CLEARLY NOT that because the
woman agreed last week to have sex with him, she must therefore have agreed
again this week - and 'forever
more'. The argument
is that she was clearly not averse to having sex with him! It's as simple as
that. And it is merely a SMALL part of his defence.]
...
Well, I can't be bothered to go on.
But you can surely see how the feminist-dominated feminist-fearing media
distort most horrible the truth about rape.
Indeed, as currently defined,
'rape' these days is often precious little more than a failure to orgasm
satisfactorily!
