Best check your facts before you say any more, n0face. Pretty much the main reason there are so few final convictions compared to rapes reported is the number of women crying rape when they haven't been. it is a MASSIVE problem. You saying that it's rare couldn't be further from the truth. Most considerations here aren't a case of stripping back to support perpetrators, but protecting the great numbers of men put through a humiliating experience on the whim of some ignorant girl.n0face wrote:This is so rare as to not even be considered and with the rape conviction rates so low everything possible should be done to support victims in coming forward and stopping the ongoing victimisation of women, not stripped back to support perpetrators.MattyJ wrote:In terms of the victim...anonymity is a touchy subject. I think it depends on exactly what they are accusing someone of and the circumstances around it. Those women who make false claims of rape as they are embarrassed or whatever after a drunken night, perhaps they would think twice if their name was in public too.
The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 creates different offences depending on the ages of the victim and perpetrator. Even before the law specifically provided for it, the Procurator Fiscal frequently decides that pursuing a case against a 17 year old engaging in consensual sex with their 15 year old girlfriend is not in the public interest. Let the social work deal with them.Escape wrote:Council sex bands.* Like them other countries I'm too nonplussed to recall. Up to a 30-month age gap between under-16s or summat. *From Wilmslow.
adkm1979 wrote:Best check your facts before you say any more, n0face. Pretty much the main reason there are so few final convictions compared to rapes reported is the number of women crying rape when they haven't been. it is a MASSIVE problem. You saying that it's rare couldn't be further from the truth. Most considerations here aren't a case of stripping back to support perpetrators, but protecting the great numbers of men put through a humiliating experience on the whim of some ignorant girl.n0face wrote:This is so rare as to not even be considered and with the rape conviction rates so low everything possible should be done to support victims in coming forward and stopping the ongoing victimisation of women, not stripped back to support perpetrators.MattyJ wrote:In terms of the victim...anonymity is a touchy subject. I think it depends on exactly what they are accusing someone of and the circumstances around it. Those women who make false claims of rape as they are embarrassed or whatever after a drunken night, perhaps they would think twice if their name was in public too.
Very good, but the articles make incorrect assumptions. The problem is that it is not common for women who have made false accusations to be charged or prosecuted. You simply cannot base the assertion that women falsely accusing men of rape is low because the number of women charged with doing that is low. The difficulty is that the Crown Office, COPFS and the Police cannot be frank about the matter without appearing to genuine victims that there is a culture of doubt.n0face wrote:http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/mar/31/truth-about-women-crying-rape
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2292465/Women-accused-crying-rape-Law-chief-says-misplaced-belief-false-allegations-rife-damaging-cause-justice.html
http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/10/how_often_do_women_falsely_cry_rape.html?original_referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/
No. Every single allegation is investigated in exactly the same manner. A one-on-one liaison officer is allocated to note a full statement, assist the victim through a medical and seize clothing etc. There is never a question of not being taken seriously. It's also not a case of victims dropping cases. In crimes as serious as rape, a victim changing their mind doesn't mean that the investigation stops; there is too high a risk that such a decision has been made under duress.Yossarian wrote:Could this not also be a case of women not being believed when they do report rape and so dropping cases due to not wishing to humiliate themselves further if they aren't initially taken seriously? Especially if the police that they initially report the crime to believe that women claiming to have been raped when they haven't is a MASSIVE problem?
Sasukekun wrote:'I took a 13 year old back to my place last night and gave her a right good seeing to.'
Sasukekun wrote:Going back to the age of consent thing, if it was lowered, people would still be considered dirty perverts preying on young impressionable girls if they were having sex with girls/boys that young. I couldn't imagine a time where a mate of mine tells me that 'I took a 13 year old back to my place last night and gave her a right good seeing to.' and not think that it was disgusting and completely wrong.
mistercrayon wrote:Sasukekun wrote:Going back to the age of consent thing, if it was lowered, people would still be considered dirty perverts preying on young impressionable girls if they were having sex with girls/boys that young. I couldn't imagine a time where a mate of mine tells me that 'I took a 13 year old back to my place last night and gave her a right good seeing to.' and not think that it was disgusting and completely wrong.
for how long though? you were brought up with the knowledge that < 16 is bad at least. a mindset shift from legally okay to culturally okay is not hard to fathom. also we dont need more ammo for peados and overbearing boyfriends.
WorKid wrote:Jackson accused, again.
Wrong thread?SpaceGazelle wrote:
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!