Should Alison Saunders be burnt as a witch?

http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6

Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

abelard

2015-01-28 23:25:43 UTC

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:15:43 -0800 (PST), saracene

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

standard contracts will be provided....

they must be counter signed on line by harry harmmen

we very much need more video cameras in public spaces....

all trees must be cut down and grass must be kept short...

hidden corners will be removed to protect females...

the age of consent for females should be raised to 77

pregnancy is a clear proof of rape...

all men are rapists...vote for milipede
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

blah

2015-01-28 23:40:59 UTC

Post by abelard
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:15:43 -0800 (PST), saracene

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

standard contracts will be provided....
they must be counter signed on line by harry harmmen
we very much need more video cameras in public spaces....
all trees must be cut down and grass must be kept short...
hidden corners will be removed to protect females...
the age of consent for females should be raised to 77
pregnancy is a clear proof of rape...
all men are rapists...vote for milipede

staged photo

Loading Image...

face of new inquisition?

moving downscale
I heard that 'courtship' is now 'harassment'
she looks like an ayn rand
someone unhappy in her own skin
has a beef with society

Phi

2015-01-29 08:32:41 UTC

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Sorry love, I lost interest reading the small print.

Basil Jet

2015-01-29 09:32:36 UTC

Post by Phi

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Sorry love, I lost interest reading the small print.

This would apply in marriage too, so every single sexual action during
the marriage requires the man to get evidence of the woman's consent,
and keep that evidence for decades! He'll have to keep it offsite,
obviously, so his wife can't destroy it when she decides to divorce him
for not being very romantic!

Phi

2015-01-29 10:54:32 UTC

Post by Phi

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Sorry love, I lost interest reading the small print.

This would apply in marriage too, so every single sexual action
during the marriage requires the man to get evidence of the
woman's consent, and keep that evidence for decades! He'll have
to keep it offsite, obviously, so his wife can't destroy it
when she decides to divorce him for not being very romantic!

So, you will need a recording of 'pull my nightie down when your
finished' for evidence.

White Spirit

2015-01-29 10:30:40 UTC

[Cross-posting to uk.legal as it is relevant and hasn't been addressed
there yet.]

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Not quite but it is shifting a certain portion of the burden of proof
onto the Defendant, which is not how the legal system traditionally
operates. By virtue of the principle of being innocent until proven
guilty, the burden of proof should firmly be placed upon the
Prosecution, not the Defendant. One consequence of such a change is
that unscrupulous women will be able to entrap men by getting drunk or
exaggerating the effects of alcohol.

This is another example of the justice system being politicised (one
might even call it a good example of political correctness gone mad...)

The Todal

2015-01-29 11:02:38 UTC

Post by White Spirit
[Cross-posting to uk.legal as it is relevant and hasn't been addressed
there yet.]

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Not quite but it is shifting a certain portion of the burden of proof
onto the Defendant, which is not how the legal system traditionally
operates. By virtue of the principle of being innocent until proven
guilty, the burden of proof should firmly be placed upon the
Prosecution, not the Defendant. One consequence of such a change is
that unscrupulous women will be able to entrap men by getting drunk or
exaggerating the effects of alcohol.
This is another example of the justice system being politicised (one
might even call it a good example of political correctness gone mad...)

Why would unscrupulous women (or men, for that matter - there is such a
thing as homosexual rape) entrap a man by getting drunk or exaggerating
the effects of alcohol, and then making a false allegation of rape?

There are a few crazy people out there, so anything is possible, but do
we need to worry too much about the possibility of encountering a crazy
person?

There is nothing to be gained by making a false allegation of rape. Just
a lot of hassle, stress and humiliation. It isn't something anyone would
do as a way of amusing themselves.

Phi

2015-01-29 11:06:44 UTC

Post by White Spirit
[Cross-posting to uk.legal as it is relevant and hasn't been
addressed
there yet.]

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Not quite but it is shifting a certain portion of the burden
of proof
onto the Defendant, which is not how the legal system
traditionally
operates. By virtue of the principle of being innocent until
proven
guilty, the burden of proof should firmly be placed upon the
Prosecution, not the Defendant. One consequence of such a
change is
that unscrupulous women will be able to entrap men by getting
drunk or
exaggerating the effects of alcohol.
This is another example of the justice system being
politicised (one
might even call it a good example of political correctness
gone mad...)

Why would unscrupulous women (or men, for that matter - there
is such a thing as homosexual rape) entrap a man by getting
drunk or exaggerating the effects of alcohol, and then making a
false allegation of rape?
There are a few crazy people out there, so anything is
possible, but do we need to worry too much about the
possibility of encountering a crazy person?
There is nothing to be gained by making a false allegation of
rape. Just a lot of hassle, stress and humiliation. It isn't
something anyone would do as a way of amusing themselves.

It could be used in a future spite job, when a womans
expectations are not met.

White Spirit

2015-01-29 11:07:22 UTC

Post by White Spirit
[Cross-posting to uk.legal as it is relevant and hasn't been addressed
there yet.]

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Not quite but it is shifting a certain portion of the burden of proof
onto the Defendant, which is not how the legal system traditionally
operates. By virtue of the principle of being innocent until proven
guilty, the burden of proof should firmly be placed upon the
Prosecution, not the Defendant. One consequence of such a change is
that unscrupulous women will be able to entrap men by getting drunk or
exaggerating the effects of alcohol.
This is another example of the justice system being politicised (one
might even call it a good example of political correctness gone mad...)

People do make false rape allegations, sometimes as revenge, sometimes
because they regret their actions, and the new rules would make that
much easier.

Post by The Todal
There are a few crazy people out there, so anything is possible, but do
we need to worry too much about the possibility of encountering a crazy
person?

The point is that the burden of proof is being shifted from the
Prosecution to the Defendant.

Post by The Todal
There is nothing to be gained by making a false allegation of rape. Just
a lot of hassle, stress and humiliation. It isn't something anyone would
do as a way of amusing themselves.

People nevertheless do just that, and these new rules would make it much
easier.

The Todal

2015-01-29 11:38:48 UTC

Post by White Spirit
[Cross-posting to uk.legal as it is relevant and hasn't been addressed
there yet.]

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Not quite but it is shifting a certain portion of the burden of proof
onto the Defendant, which is not how the legal system traditionally
operates. By virtue of the principle of being innocent until proven
guilty, the burden of proof should firmly be placed upon the
Prosecution, not the Defendant. One consequence of such a change is
that unscrupulous women will be able to entrap men by getting drunk or
exaggerating the effects of alcohol.
This is another example of the justice system being politicised (one
might even call it a good example of political correctness gone mad...)

People do make false rape allegations, sometimes as revenge, sometimes
because they regret their actions, and the new rules would make that
much easier.

Post by The Todal
There are a few crazy people out there, so anything is possible, but do
we need to worry too much about the possibility of encountering a crazy
person?

The point is that the burden of proof is being shifted from the
Prosecution to the Defendant.

Actually no, but I think it's easy to be misled by the wording of the
Telegraph article. There is no change in the burden of proof, no greater
likelihood of being convicted. This is about guidelines given to police
and prosecutors so that they investigate rape allegations carefully and
aren't fobbed off by a simple denial from the defendant.

The result might be more prosecutions. Not necessarily more convictions.
That's up to the jury. In the Ched Evans type of case I'd have thought
that the chances of a conviction would be quite low.

White Spirit

2015-01-29 11:52:23 UTC

Post by White Spirit
The point is that the burden of proof is being shifted from the
Prosecution to the Defendant.

Actually no, but I think it's easy to be misled by the wording of the
Telegraph article.

'Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape
suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full
capacity and freedom to do so”.'

The article makes it rather clear.

Post by The Todal
There is no change in the burden of proof

'Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape
suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full
capacity and freedom to do so”.'

That is clearly a greater burden of proof on the Defendant.

Post by The Todal
, no greater
likelihood of being convicted. This is about guidelines given to police
and prosecutors so that they investigate rape allegations carefully and
aren't fobbed off by a simple denial from the defendant.

'Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape
suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full
capacity and freedom to do so”.'

Those aren't guidelines, they are requirements for the Defendants to
'demonstrate the complainant had consented'.

Jon Ribbens

2015-01-29 14:46:52 UTC

Post by White Spirit
The point is that the burden of proof is being shifted from the
Prosecution to the Defendant.

Actually no, but I think it's easy to be misled by the wording of the
Telegraph article.

Journalism, as you must surely know, is often highly inaccurate.

Post by The Todal
There is no change in the burden of proof

'Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape
suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full
capacity and freedom to do so”.'
That is clearly a greater burden of proof on the Defendant.

'Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape
suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full
capacity and freedom to do so”.'
Those aren't guidelines, they are requirements for the Defendants to
'demonstrate the complainant had consented'.

What the story is about is "advice for prosecutors". So yes, they
are guidelines, and no, they cannot change the burden of proof.

In an attempt to inject some facts into this thread, here is
the press-release from the CPS:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_and_police_focus_on_consent_at_first_joint_national_rape_conference/

Here is what appears to be the new guidelines:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/what_is_consent.pdf

And here is a rebuttal of the Telegraph article by fullfact.org:

https://fullfact.org/factcheck/law/men_accused_rape_dont_have_to_prove_woman_said_yes-38719

White Spirit

2015-01-30 09:48:23 UTC

Post by Jon Ribbens
In an attempt to inject some facts into this thread, here is
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_and_police_focus_on_consent_at_first_joint_national_rape_conference/
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/what_is_consent.pdf
https://fullfact.org/factcheck/law/men_accused_rape_dont_have_to_prove_woman_said_yes-38719

Fair enough. Of course, the cynical part of me thinks this is the thin
end of the wedge before further changes are made to the mens rea.

Big Les Wade

2015-01-29 12:08:53 UTC

Post by White Spirit
The point is that the burden of proof is being shifted from the
Prosecution to the Defendant.

Actually no, but I think it's easy to be misled by the wording of the
Telegraph article. There is no change in the burden of proof, no
greater likelihood of being convicted. This is about guidelines given
to police and prosecutors so that they investigate rape allegations
carefully and aren't fobbed off by a simple denial from the defendant.
The result might be more prosecutions. Not necessarily more
convictions.

If there are more prosecutions, there is (by simple multiplication) a
greater likelihood of being convicted, and therefore more convictions.

Here's another report

http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=91cb73bca688114fefed773f2&id=8de03f43
a4#2

--
Les

Nick

2015-01-29 12:29:23 UTC

Post by Big Les Wade
If there are more prosecutions, there is (by simple multiplication) a
greater likelihood of being convicted, and therefore more convictions.

Simple multiplication only works if you assume the probability of jury
conviction is independent of the strength of the evidence the CPS use to
make the decision to prosecute.

abelard

2015-01-29 12:40:54 UTC

Post by Big Les Wade
If there are more prosecutions, there is (by simple multiplication) a
greater likelihood of being convicted, and therefore more convictions.

Simple multiplication only works if you assume the probability of jury
conviction is independent of the strength of the evidence the CPS use to
make the decision to prosecute.

which it must be

les is fully correct...there is a substantial element of chance in
court procedures...

much of court procedure is an play with actors of various abilities
on stage
it is not some sort of 'scientific' process
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Nick

2015-01-29 12:44:03 UTC

Post by Big Les Wade
If there are more prosecutions, there is (by simple multiplication) a
greater likelihood of being convicted, and therefore more convictions.

Simple multiplication only works if you assume the probability of jury
conviction is independent of the strength of the evidence the CPS use to
make the decision to prosecute.

lol, brilliant. Both the CPS and Jury weigh the evidence and their
verdicts are totally uncorrelated. A stunning endorsement or British
justice.

I suggest you look up arse and elbow.

abelard

2015-01-29 12:57:22 UTC

Post by Big Les Wade
If there are more prosecutions, there is (by simple multiplication) a
greater likelihood of being convicted, and therefore more convictions.

Simple multiplication only works if you assume the probability of jury
conviction is independent of the strength of the evidence the CPS use to
make the decision to prosecute.

lol, brilliant. Both the CPS and Jury weigh the evidence and their
verdicts are totally uncorrelated. A stunning endorsement or British
justice.
I suggest you look up arse and elbow.

your standard evasions of real world facts are noted

of course you make no case as is to be expected...

are you really so uninformed as to believe that different groups
in related trades in a culture, are uncorrelated in their belief
systems and prejudices?
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Big Les Wade

2015-01-29 12:40:29 UTC

Post by Big Les Wade
If there are more prosecutions, there is (by simple multiplication) a
greater likelihood of being convicted, and therefore more convictions.

Simple multiplication only works if you assume the probability of jury
conviction is independent of the strength of the evidence the CPS use
to make the decision to prosecute.

No, it works if the probability of jury conviction is non-zero in at
least one of the extra cases brought as a result of this guidance.

--
Les

Nick

2015-01-29 12:51:33 UTC

Post by Big Les Wade
If there are more prosecutions, there is (by simple multiplication) a
greater likelihood of being convicted, and therefore more convictions.

Simple multiplication only works if you assume the probability of jury
conviction is independent of the strength of the evidence the CPS use
to make the decision to prosecute.

No, it works if the probability of jury conviction is non-zero in at
least one of the extra cases brought as a result of this guidance.

That's not simple multiplication. You shouldn't over egg the pudding.

Even your new hypothesis is flawed in that extra cps prosecutions may
lead to a backlash making convictions less probable in other cases.

If you were to say something like extra CPS prosecutions will probably
lead to more convictions you may be right.

abelard

2015-01-29 13:00:17 UTC

Post by Big Les Wade
If there are more prosecutions, there is (by simple multiplication) a
greater likelihood of being convicted, and therefore more convictions.

Simple multiplication only works if you assume the probability of jury
conviction is independent of the strength of the evidence the CPS use
to make the decision to prosecute.

No, it works if the probability of jury conviction is non-zero in at
least one of the extra cases brought as a result of this guidance.

That's not simple multiplication. You shouldn't over egg the pudding.

yes it is multiplication...which makes you also innumerate

Post by Nick
Even your new hypothesis is flawed in that extra cps prosecutions may
lead to a backlash making convictions less probable in other cases.

it is not a 'new' hypothesis...it was implicit in his original
comments...which makes you functionally illiterate

Post by Nick
If you were to say something like extra CPS prosecutions will probably
lead to more convictions you may be right.

no, not 'maybe'...
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

abelard

2015-01-29 12:34:41 UTC

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:07:22 +0000, White Spirit

Post by White Spirit
[Cross-posting to uk.legal as it is relevant and hasn't been addressed
there yet.]

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Not quite but it is shifting a certain portion of the burden of proof
onto the Defendant, which is not how the legal system traditionally
operates. By virtue of the principle of being innocent until proven
guilty, the burden of proof should firmly be placed upon the
Prosecution, not the Defendant. One consequence of such a change is
that unscrupulous women will be able to entrap men by getting drunk or
exaggerating the effects of alcohol.
This is another example of the justice system being politicised (one
might even call it a good example of political correctness gone mad...)

People do make false rape allegations, sometimes as revenge, sometimes
because they regret their actions, and the new rules would make that
much easier.

it is also yet another false accusation available for child custody
battles

Post by The Todal
There are a few crazy people out there, so anything is possible, but do
we need to worry too much about the possibility of encountering a crazy
person?

The point is that the burden of proof is being shifted from the
Prosecution to the Defendant.

i wonder how much of this idiocy is coming from the eussr....

one of the instructions in frog law...'is do you feel in your
bowels that he dun it'

People nevertheless do just that, and these new rules would make it much
easier.

he knows that full well...but he is part of the 'social' 'worker'
apologists and union 'workers'

as parkinson says..'work expands to fill the time available
for that work'

clearly we need more laws whether they make sense or not
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Basil Jet

2015-01-29 12:21:03 UTC

Post by The Todal
Why would unscrupulous women (or men, for that matter - there is such a
thing as homosexual rape) entrap a man by getting drunk or exaggerating
the effects of alcohol, and then making a false allegation of rape?
There are a few crazy people out there, so anything is possible, but do
we need to worry too much about the possibility of encountering a crazy
person?
There is nothing to be gained by making a false allegation of rape. Just
a lot of hassle, stress and humiliation. It isn't something anyone would
do as a way of amusing themselves.

Omega

2015-01-29 12:44:39 UTC

In order to avoid posting my longest ever Usenet reply, I shall restrict
myself to only mentioning women who have made eleven false rape allegations.

Rhiannon Brooker
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595891/Law-student-cried-rape-11-times-university-exams-court-hears.html

Elizabeth Jones
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284677/Compulsive-liar-Elizabeth-Jones-cried-rape-11-times-jailed.html

............................

You've spoiled me lunch showing those two fat ugly buggas. Surely with
those faces they would act as an anaphrodisiac for any man?

And both claimed eleven times. Outright cheek!

omega

.............................

abelard

2015-01-29 13:01:35 UTC

In order to avoid posting my longest ever Usenet reply, I shall restrict
myself to only mentioning women who have made eleven false rape allegations.
Rhiannon Brooker
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595891/Law-student-cried-rape-11-times-university-exams-court-hears.html
Elizabeth Jones
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284677/Compulsive-liar-Elizabeth-Jones-cried-rape-11-times-jailed.html
............................
You've spoiled me lunch showing those two fat ugly buggas. Surely with
those faces they would act as an anaphrodisiac for any man?

rhinoceroses are known to fancy rhinoceroses

Post by Basil Jet
And both claimed eleven times. Outright cheek!

--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

The Todal

2015-01-29 12:57:57 UTC

Two barmy cows, and it looks as if the police never charged any of the
"rapists" but established that the complainants were lying and then
charged them with offences.

Proves my point, if anything.

Basil Jet

2015-01-29 13:09:42 UTC

Two barmy cows, and it looks as if the police never charged any of the
"rapists" but established that the complainants were lying and then
charged them with offences.
Proves my point, if anything.

I've never really noticed you before, but I notice now that you may be
the stupidest person on the whole of Usenet. Unless of course your
point, being that "There is nothing to be gained by making a false
allegation of rape" and "It isn't something anyone would do as a way of
amusing themselves" is proved by the fact that limiting ourselves to
women who've done it eleven times still provides multiple examples.

The Todal

2015-01-29 13:17:13 UTC

Post by Basil Jet
I've never really noticed you before, but I notice now that you may be
the stupidest person on the whole of Usenet. Unless of course your
point, being that "There is nothing to be gained by making a false
allegation of rape" and "It isn't something anyone would do as a way of
amusing themselves" is proved by the fact that limiting ourselves to
women who've done it eleven times still provides multiple examples.

Oh, I've always admired you from afar, you charmer. I yearn to lick you
all over.

I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people. Not typical women.
The vast majority of women don't even particularly want to complain
about genuine rape, because it's too much hassle and stress and they
gain nothing from it.

Even the two loony women gained nothing from it other than a criminal
record for themselves. The hope of gaining something - sympathy or
attention - was not matched by what they actually gained.

Now you should try to notice me more, because I'm much cleverer than you
are and you might learn something.

abelard

2015-01-29 13:23:51 UTC

bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Post by The Todal
Not typical women.
The vast majority of women don't even particularly want to complain
about genuine rape, because it's too much hassle and stress and they
gain nothing from it.
Even the two loony women gained nothing from it other than a criminal
record for themselves. The hope of gaining something - sympathy or
attention - was not matched by what they actually gained.
Now you should try to notice me more, because I'm much cleverer than you
are and you might learn something.

like how to avoid tautologies perhaps
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

The Todal

2015-01-29 13:40:40 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

abelard

2015-01-29 13:42:23 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

The Todal

2015-01-29 13:47:49 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Maybe you could redeem yourself by giving even one example of a person
who made a false rape allegation, gained something from it in terms of
money or otherwise, and was subsequently found to be a liar and not
suffering from psychiatric problems.

The Todal

2015-01-29 13:58:15 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Oh, must I do everything? Here's one example - probably not mentally
ill, but didn't gain anything from it. And the alleged perpetrator
never was charged with an offence. So it's very difficult to find any
people wrongly convicted on the word of a liar.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/2301.html

abelard

2015-01-29 14:06:21 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Oh, must I do everything? Here's one example - probably not mentally
ill, but didn't gain anything from it. And the alleged perpetrator
never was charged with an offence. So it's very difficult to find any
people wrongly convicted on the word of a liar.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/2301.html

i'm not interested in the link....

you have absolutely no idea how many are wrongly convicted on
the word of liars

further, you have no useful clear definition of 'mentally ill'...
other than your dopey tautologous definition

there are many things you simply can't know...it's about
time you learned that fact
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Big Les Wade

2015-01-29 14:51:33 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

What has mental illness got to do with anything? If you are accused of
rape by a mentally ill person, you are still accused of rape, and the
police and CPS will still take the accusation seriously, perhaps even
more seriously.

Post by abelard
bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Oh, must I do everything? Here's one example - probably not mentally
ill, but didn't gain anything from it.

The judgment (for which we thank you) clearly explains what she had to
gain from it.

Post by The Todal
And the alleged perpetrator never was charged with an offence. So it's
very difficult to find any people wrongly convicted on the word of a
liar.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/2301.html

The English courts are notoriously reluctant to admit errors, so it is
not surprising that rape convictions are rarely overturned, especially
given the difficulties inherent in the offence. Even so, there are many
such cases.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/jailed-for-a-c
rime-he-didnt-commit-481421.html
"In 1999, Darryl Gee was arrested on suspicion of raping a pupil. Last
month, his conviction was overturned - four years after he died in
prison. "

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23910611-womans-lies-cost-
me-20-years-of-my-life-but-she-got-off-lightly.do [
http://tinyurl.com/269nc2p ]
"A father of three says he has lost two decades of his life after being
falsely accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl.
Ian Henderson served 16 months in jail alongside sex offenders at
Wandsworth prison after being convicted of indecent assault in 1990. The
former coach driver, 47, is in line for substantial compensation after
his alleged victim, Carrie Crownshaw, confessed to making up the
accusations, 20 years after her evidence saw him jailed."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-apology-for-wrongful-co
nviction-of-warren-blackwell-2003967.html
"A man who spent more than three years in jail for a crime he did not
commit today described an apology from the police force that helped
convict him as "too little, too late". Warren Blackwell was jailed in
1999 for a sex attack outside a social club. His conviction was quashed
by the Court of Appeal in 2006 after new evidence undermined the
credibility of the complainant."

--
Les

saracene

2015-01-29 15:11:20 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

Post by abelard
bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Oh, must I do everything? Here's one example - probably not mentally
ill, but didn't gain anything from it.

The judgment (for which we thank you) clearly explains what she had to
gain from it.

The English courts are notoriously reluctant to admit errors, so it is
not surprising that rape convictions are rarely overturned, especially
given the difficulties inherent in the offence. Even so, there are many
such cases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/jailed-for-a-c
rime-he-didnt-commit-481421.html
"In 1999, Darryl Gee was arrested on suspicion of raping a pupil. Last
month, his conviction was overturned - four years after he died in
prison. "
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23910611-womans-lies-cost-
me-20-years-of-my-life-but-she-got-off-lightly.do [
http://tinyurl.com/269nc2p ]
"A father of three says he has lost two decades of his life after being
falsely accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl.
Ian Henderson served 16 months in jail alongside sex offenders at
Wandsworth prison after being convicted of indecent assault in 1990. The
former coach driver, 47, is in line for substantial compensation after
his alleged victim, Carrie Crownshaw, confessed to making up the
accusations, 20 years after her evidence saw him jailed."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-apology-for-wrongful-co
nviction-of-warren-blackwell-2003967.html
"A man who spent more than three years in jail for a crime he did not
commit today described an apology from the police force that helped
convict him as "too little, too late". Warren Blackwell was jailed in
1999 for a sex attack outside a social club. His conviction was quashed
by the Court of Appeal in 2006 after new evidence undermined the
credibility of the complainant."

There's the Student Grant strip in Viz where Grant loses his virginity to Miss Slackdrawers who decides the next morning she's been 'waped' and goes to the police.

The Todal

2015-01-29 15:19:07 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

Post by abelard
bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Oh, must I do everything? Here's one example - probably not mentally
ill, but didn't gain anything from it.

The judgment (for which we thank you) clearly explains what she had to
gain from it.

The English courts are notoriously reluctant to admit errors, so it is
not surprising that rape convictions are rarely overturned, especially
given the difficulties inherent in the offence. Even so, there are many
such cases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/jailed-for-a-c
rime-he-didnt-commit-481421.html
"In 1999, Darryl Gee was arrested on suspicion of raping a pupil. Last
month, his conviction was overturned - four years after he died in
prison. "
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23910611-womans-lies-cost-
me-20-years-of-my-life-but-she-got-off-lightly.do [
http://tinyurl.com/269nc2p ]
"A father of three says he has lost two decades of his life after being
falsely accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl.
Ian Henderson served 16 months in jail alongside sex offenders at
Wandsworth prison after being convicted of indecent assault in 1990. The
former coach driver, 47, is in line for substantial compensation after
his alleged victim, Carrie Crownshaw, confessed to making up the
accusations, 20 years after her evidence saw him jailed."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-apology-for-wrongful-co
nviction-of-warren-blackwell-2003967.html
"A man who spent more than three years in jail for a crime he did not
commit today described an apology from the police force that helped
convict him as "too little, too late". Warren Blackwell was jailed in
1999 for a sex attack outside a social club. His conviction was quashed
by the Court of Appeal in 2006 after new evidence undermined the
credibility of the complainant."

Thanks for those reports.

I think it's inevitable that once in a while a person will be convicted
of an offence which he/she did not commit, and rape or sexual assault
would be no exception.

But these are not typical cases. There is no reason to believe that
there are hordes of people out there (and again I say men as well as
women can be rape victims) intent upon framing innocent men for rape.

Of the cases you mention - and they are of course worrying because it
would have been easy for the conviction never to have been overturned -
the only one where I can find a transcript is this one, for Blackwell:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/2185.html

The accuser seems to have elements of mental illness.

This was an interesting comment from the Court of Appeal judge:

The judgment we have delivered gives rise to the concern that there may
in the future be another case in which this complainant makes similar
allegations against another man. If that were to happen, it would be in
the interests of justice that the alleged attacker should be able to
find out about and use in his defence the information contained in the
report of the Commission and referred to in this judgment. Parliament
does not appear to have contemplated the risk of a complainant acting as
this complainant is alleged to have done. We are concerned that there
appears to be no means by which we can displace the complainant's
entitlement to anonymity in the interests of justice for any person
against whom she may make allegations in the future. Mr Farrell of
counsel has told us that he will take such steps which are available to
ensure that these matters are recorded and are available to any police
force investigating any future allegation.

[In other words, I suppose there must be a secret database of unreliable
people who have alleged rape, known to police and prosecutors but not
made public]

abelard

2015-01-29 15:27:31 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

Post by abelard
bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Oh, must I do everything? Here's one example - probably not mentally
ill, but didn't gain anything from it.

The judgment (for which we thank you) clearly explains what she had to
gain from it.

The English courts are notoriously reluctant to admit errors, so it is
not surprising that rape convictions are rarely overturned, especially
given the difficulties inherent in the offence. Even so, there are many
such cases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/jailed-for-a-c
rime-he-didnt-commit-481421.html
"In 1999, Darryl Gee was arrested on suspicion of raping a pupil. Last
month, his conviction was overturned - four years after he died in
prison. "
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23910611-womans-lies-cost-
me-20-years-of-my-life-but-she-got-off-lightly.do [
http://tinyurl.com/269nc2p ]
"A father of three says he has lost two decades of his life after being
falsely accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl.
Ian Henderson served 16 months in jail alongside sex offenders at
Wandsworth prison after being convicted of indecent assault in 1990. The
former coach driver, 47, is in line for substantial compensation after
his alleged victim, Carrie Crownshaw, confessed to making up the
accusations, 20 years after her evidence saw him jailed."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-apology-for-wrongful-co
nviction-of-warren-blackwell-2003967.html
"A man who spent more than three years in jail for a crime he did not
commit today described an apology from the police force that helped
convict him as "too little, too late". Warren Blackwell was jailed in
1999 for a sex attack outside a social club. His conviction was quashed
by the Court of Appeal in 2006 after new evidence undermined the
credibility of the complainant."

and where is your evidence that there are not such hoards of people

you simply do not know...and it is time you learned that there are
many things you cannot know

Post by The Todal
(and again I say men as well as
women can be rape victims) intent upon framing innocent men for rape.
Of the cases you mention - and they are of course worrying because it
would have been easy for the conviction never to have been overturned -
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/2185.html
The accuser seems to have elements of mental illness.
The judgment we have delivered gives rise to the concern that there may
in the future be another case in which this complainant makes similar
allegations against another man. If that were to happen, it would be in
the interests of justice that the alleged attacker should be able to
find out about and use in his defence the information contained in the
report of the Commission and referred to in this judgment. Parliament
does not appear to have contemplated the risk of a complainant acting as
this complainant is alleged to have done. We are concerned that there
appears to be no means by which we can displace the complainant's
entitlement to anonymity in the interests of justice for any person
against whom she may make allegations in the future. Mr Farrell of
counsel has told us that he will take such steps which are available to
ensure that these matters are recorded and are available to any police
force investigating any future allegation.
[In other words, I suppose there must be a secret database of unreliable
people who have alleged rape, known to police and prosecutors but not
made public]

you don't know...you can't know...get used to it...

'rape' *very* difficult to establish

you appear to prefer your prejudices to attending to the real
world...

unfortunately your populist version of believing what you
wish to believe, is being slid into law with no serious thought...

like so many socialists, you appear to wish to sacrifice reliability
with politically pc notions
that is not sane 'law', it is the appeasing of fools
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

The Todal

2015-01-29 15:31:59 UTC

Post by abelard
'rape' *very* difficult to establish

That's the only comment from you that is sensible.

Rape is rarely prosecuted. Convictions are relatively rare because the
jury is entitled to give a defendant the benefit of the doubt. That's
probably how it should be. But a low conviction rate does not mean that
the CPS, out of a wish to improve conviction statistics, should avoid
prosecuting cases. Mentally ill women might make false allegations. But
sometimes mentally ill women are raped. The jury, rather than police
officers, ought to be the decision maker.

Charles Bryant

2015-02-02 02:40:00 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
The Todal <***@beeb.net> wrote:
}On 29/1/15 15:27, abelard wrote:
}> 'rape' *very* difficult to establish
}
}That's the only comment from you that is sensible.
}
}Rape is rarely prosecuted. Convictions are relatively rare because the
}jury is entitled to give a defendant the benefit of the doubt. That's
}probably how it should be. But a low conviction rate does not mean that
}the CPS, out of a wish to improve conviction statistics, should avoid
}prosecuting cases. Mentally ill women might make false allegations. But
}sometimes mentally ill women are raped. The jury, rather than police
}officers, ought to be the decision maker.

No. Cases should only be prosecuted where there is a reasonable
prospect of conviction. Anything else is a waste of resources.

And the subject of rape accusations. If Fred accuses Jim of rape,
there are three possibilities:

1) Fred was raped by Jim.
2) Fred was not raped by Jim, but the accusation was not unreasonable
or malicious (it may be mistaken identity, or Fred and Jim have a
reasonable disagreement over whether there was consent, such as faulty
memories of what happened).
3) Fred was not raped by Jim and the accusation was unreasonable or
malicious.

Obviously, the ideal situation is that in case 1 Jim gets convicted of
rape, in case 3 Fred gets convicted of making a false allegation, and
in case 2 nobody gets convicted. In practice, it can be very hard to
tell which case applies, so both 1 and 3 are crimes which it is
realtively easy to get away with. A carefully crafted story will often
be impossible to disprove, leading to an inability to convict the
guilty. Since this results in no conviction,many people seem to
confuse it with a declaration that case 2 applies - i.e. that we
definitely know that no crime occurred.

Unlike false accusations of other crimes (e.g. Fred claims Jim stole
his valuable painting), there may be no convincing evidence. Very few
people give away valuable paintings, and it would be relatively easy
in many cases to establish if it was a true allegation or a malicious
one, though there would certainly be some cases where neither could be
proved. However, it is quite routine for people to have sex, so rape
is an ideal offence to commit in the hope of getting away with by
pretending it was consensual sex, but equally it is the ideal offence
to use for a false accusation as it is exceedingly difficult to
*prove* sex did not occur or *was* consensual.

Fredxxx

2015-01-29 16:24:03 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

Post by abelard
bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Oh, must I do everything? Here's one example - probably not mentally
ill, but didn't gain anything from it.

The judgment (for which we thank you) clearly explains what she had to
gain from it.

The English courts are notoriously reluctant to admit errors, so it is
not surprising that rape convictions are rarely overturned, especially
given the difficulties inherent in the offence. Even so, there are many
such cases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/jailed-for-a-c
rime-he-didnt-commit-481421.html
"In 1999, Darryl Gee was arrested on suspicion of raping a pupil. Last
month, his conviction was overturned - four years after he died in
prison. "
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23910611-womans-lies-cost-
me-20-years-of-my-life-but-she-got-off-lightly.do [
http://tinyurl.com/269nc2p ]
"A father of three says he has lost two decades of his life after being
falsely accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl.
Ian Henderson served 16 months in jail alongside sex offenders at
Wandsworth prison after being convicted of indecent assault in 1990. The
former coach driver, 47, is in line for substantial compensation after
his alleged victim, Carrie Crownshaw, confessed to making up the
accusations, 20 years after her evidence saw him jailed."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-apology-for-wrongful-co
nviction-of-warren-blackwell-2003967.html
"A man who spent more than three years in jail for a crime he did not
commit today described an apology from the police force that helped
convict him as "too little, too late". Warren Blackwell was jailed in
1999 for a sex attack outside a social club. His conviction was quashed
by the Court of Appeal in 2006 after new evidence undermined the
credibility of the complainant."

and where is your evidence that there are not such hoards of people
you simply do not know...and it is time you learned that there are
many things you cannot know

you don't know...you can't know...get used to it...
'rape' *very* difficult to establish

Until recently I also believed that, but where there's a prosecution of
rape where no party made any statement that rape took place, that is no
longer be true.

abelard

2015-01-29 16:49:07 UTC

Post by Fredxxx

Post by abelard
you don't know...you can't know...get used to it...
'rape' *very* difficult to establish

Until recently I also believed that, but where there's a prosecution of
rape where no party made any statement that rape took place, that is no
longer be true.

perhaps i was imprecise...

i'm sure convicting people of 'rape' in getting steadily
easier...which is of course the real intention of the
idiots who keep trying to row back the protections
under the law
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Big Les Wade

2015-01-29 15:50:29 UTC

Post by The Todal
I think it's inevitable that once in a while a person will be convicted
of an offence which he/she did not commit, and rape or sexual assault
would be no exception.
But these are not typical cases. There is no reason to believe that
there are hordes of people out there (and again I say men as well as
women can be rape victims) intent upon framing innocent men for rape.

I agree, but in any given case that is before us, we have no way of
knowing which is which, not a priori anyway. Yet Alison Saunders is
talking as if we had.

Post by The Todal
Of the cases you mention - and they are of course worrying because it
would have been easy for the conviction never to have been overturned -

Which is why they should not have been made.

Post by The Todal
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/2185.html
The accuser seems to have elements of mental illness.
The judgment we have delivered gives rise to the concern that there may
in the future be another case in which this complainant makes similar
allegations against another man. If that were to happen, it would be in
the interests of justice that the alleged attacker should be able to
find out about and use in his defence the information contained in the
report of the Commission and referred to in this judgment. Parliament
does not appear to have contemplated the risk of a complainant acting
as this complainant is alleged to have done. We are concerned that
there appears to be no means by which we can displace the complainant's
entitlement to anonymity in the interests of justice for any person
against whom she may make allegations in the future. Mr Farrell of
counsel has told us that he will take such steps which are available to
ensure that these matters are recorded and are available to any police
force investigating any future allegation.
[In other words, I suppose there must be a secret database of
unreliable people who have alleged rape, known to police and
prosecutors but not made public]

Yes, very interesting isn't it. I expect Women Against Rape are up in
arms about it, whereas it is supported enthusiastically by their
opponents, Women For Rape.

--
Les

Fredxxx

2015-01-29 16:19:55 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

Post by abelard
bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Oh, must I do everything? Here's one example - probably not mentally
ill, but didn't gain anything from it.

The judgment (for which we thank you) clearly explains what she had to
gain from it.

The English courts are notoriously reluctant to admit errors, so it is
not surprising that rape convictions are rarely overturned, especially
given the difficulties inherent in the offence. Even so, there are many
such cases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/jailed-for-a-c
rime-he-didnt-commit-481421.html
"In 1999, Darryl Gee was arrested on suspicion of raping a pupil. Last
month, his conviction was overturned - four years after he died in
prison. "
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23910611-womans-lies-cost-
me-20-years-of-my-life-but-she-got-off-lightly.do [
http://tinyurl.com/269nc2p ]
"A father of three says he has lost two decades of his life after being
falsely accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl.
Ian Henderson served 16 months in jail alongside sex offenders at
Wandsworth prison after being convicted of indecent assault in 1990. The
former coach driver, 47, is in line for substantial compensation after
his alleged victim, Carrie Crownshaw, confessed to making up the
accusations, 20 years after her evidence saw him jailed."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-apology-for-wrongful-co
nviction-of-warren-blackwell-2003967.html
"A man who spent more than three years in jail for a crime he did not
commit today described an apology from the police force that helped
convict him as "too little, too late". Warren Blackwell was jailed in
1999 for a sex attack outside a social club. His conviction was quashed
by the Court of Appeal in 2006 after new evidence undermined the
credibility of the complainant."

These are the tip of an iceberg, where the complainant confessed. There
are whoreds more who would never confess to the lies they told.

abelard

2015-01-29 14:02:14 UTC

Post by The Todal
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people.

bad logic...your claim is a tautology

Rubbish. It isn't a tautology at all. Look up tautology and come back
with a better argument.

use of a different word would not stop it being bad logic...

Maybe you could redeem yourself by giving even one example of a person
who made a false rape allegation

don't be ridiculous...i don't do mind reading

Post by The Todal
, gained something from it in terms of
money or otherwise, and was subsequently found to be a liar and not
suffering from psychiatric problems.

you continue with your tautologous approach...

'psychological problems' is not reality...it is a definition...an
opinion

as far as i am concerned, you have 'psychological problems'

further,
the term 'liar' is far more complex than you would easily understand

many believe the 'lies' they tell...i'm sure you believe much of the
nonsense you post...
am i to call you 'a liar' or should i refer to your 'psychological
problems'?

is it a lie when a person tell you they can fly?
is it a lie when they tell you they can fly by flapping their ears?
or are they simply deluded?

what of when they flew to the ground off a high tower?

was it a lie when leonardo claimed to be designing flying
machines when the alleged machines were later found
to be impractical?

your ability to analyse language is primitive...your foolish
pc opinions are founded on your poor to non-existent
analytic skills
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

The Todal

2015-01-29 14:07:05 UTC

Post by abelard
further,
the term 'liar' is far more complex than you would easily understand

Oh, I see. You don't understand the word. It means saying something you
know to be false or do not believe to be true. Easy.

Post by abelard
many believe the 'lies' they tell...i'm sure you believe much of the
nonsense you post...
am i to call you 'a liar' or should i refer to your 'psychological
problems'?

With your verbal diarrhoea, anything's possible.

Post by abelard
is it a lie when a person tell you they can fly?

Nowadays we can all fly. Air fares have come down a lot over the years.

Post by abelard
is it a lie when they tell you they can fly by flapping their ears?
or are they simply deluded?

I think you can now deduce the answer to that.

Post by abelard
what of when they flew to the ground off a high tower?

They'd normally not be able to talk about it.

Post by abelard
was it a lie when leonardo claimed to be designing flying
machines when the alleged machines were later found
to be impractical?

I think you can work that one out for yourself.

Post by abelard
your ability to analyse language is primitive...your foolish
pc opinions are founded on your poor to non-existent
analytic skills

There, there, dear.

abelard

2015-01-29 14:16:42 UTC

Post by abelard
further,
the term 'liar' is far more complex than you would easily understand

Oh, I see. You don't understand the word. It means saying something you
know to be false or do not believe to be true. Easy.

wrong again...various people use the word in various ways...
as you would learn if you had any serious experience or ability

there is no such thing as a reliable definition for any word...

what the blazes do you imagine 'known to be false' means in
the real world!!
and then creeps in your shifty 'do not believe to be true'

i do not believe you have any useful experience....
clearly you believe that you have...

as stated, you have a very elementary understanding of language
....if any

Post by abelard
many believe the 'lies' they tell...i'm sure you believe much of the
nonsense you post...
am i to call you 'a liar' or should i refer to your 'psychological
problems'?

With your verbal diarrhoea, anything's possible.

your habitual evasions are noted

Post by abelard
is it a lie when a person tell you they can fly?

Nowadays we can all fly. Air fares have come down a lot over the years.

Post by abelard
is it a lie when they tell you they can fly by flapping their ears?
or are they simply deluded?

I think you can now deduce the answer to that.

Post by abelard
what of when they flew to the ground off a high tower?

They'd normally not be able to talk about it.

Post by abelard
was it a lie when leonardo claimed to be designing flying
machines when the alleged machines were later found
to be impractical?

I think you can work that one out for yourself.

Post by abelard
your ability to analyse language is primitive...your foolish
pc opinions are founded on your poor to non-existent
analytic skills

There, there, dear.

stop posturing from your obvious ignorance...

nobody who does not 'suffer' from 'psychological problems'
will take you seriously
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

saracene

2015-01-29 14:19:34 UTC

Post by The Todal
Maybe you could redeem yourself by giving even one example of a person
who made a false rape allegation, gained something from it in terms of
money or otherwise, and was subsequently found to be a liar and not
suffering from psychiatric problems.

What about those women in Sweden who have accused Julian Assange? It might not meet all your criteria, but it is surely relevant. Or as an undersexed male feminist are you on their side?

Basil Jet

2015-01-29 15:39:12 UTC

Oh, I've always admired you from afar, you charmer. I yearn to lick you
all over.
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people. Not typical women.
The vast majority of women don't even particularly want to complain
about genuine rape, because it's too much hassle and stress and they
gain nothing from it.
Even the two loony women gained nothing from it other than a criminal
record for themselves. The hope of gaining something - sympathy or
attention - was not matched by what they actually gained.
Now you should try to notice me more, because I'm much cleverer than you
are and you might learn something.

So we can get rid of the law against rape completely, since raping is
something that only the mentally ill do, and according to you, the law
doesn't need to protect people from the mentally ill. Yeah, you're
clever all right, I'm learning loads from you. And if you associate with
feminists, you presumably know that feminists call fake accusations of
child abuse "the silver bullet" because it's such a useful way for a
woman to get instant 100% control of her children.

Ophelia

2015-01-29 15:50:59 UTC

Oh, I've always admired you from afar, you charmer. I yearn to lick you
all over.
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people. Not typical women.
The vast majority of women don't even particularly want to complain
about genuine rape, because it's too much hassle and stress and they
gain nothing from it.
Even the two loony women gained nothing from it other than a criminal
record for themselves. The hope of gaining something - sympathy or
attention - was not matched by what they actually gained.
Now you should try to notice me more, because I'm much cleverer than you
are and you might learn something.

So we can get rid of the law against rape completely, since raping is
something that only the mentally ill do, and according to you, the law
doesn't need to protect people from the mentally ill. Yeah, you're clever
all right, I'm learning loads from you. And if you associate with
feminists, you presumably know that feminists call fake accusations of
child abuse "the silver bullet" because it's such a useful way for a woman
to get instant 100% control of her children.

Oh dear, you and abe will be getting bad names. Toady is very clever you
know and he will be very cross if you keep showing him to be wrong ...

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

The Todal

2015-01-29 18:31:56 UTC

Oh, I've always admired you from afar, you charmer. I yearn to lick you
all over.
I clearly explained that the only people who behave in that way - making
false allegations of rape - are mentally ill people. Not typical women.
The vast majority of women don't even particularly want to complain
about genuine rape, because it's too much hassle and stress and they
gain nothing from it.
Even the two loony women gained nothing from it other than a criminal
record for themselves. The hope of gaining something - sympathy or
attention - was not matched by what they actually gained.
Now you should try to notice me more, because I'm much cleverer than you
are and you might learn something.

So we can get rid of the law against rape completely, since raping is
something that only the mentally ill do, and according to you, the law
doesn't need to protect people from the mentally ill.

What a bizarre interpretation of what I've said.

Yeah, you're

Post by Basil Jet
clever all right, I'm learning loads from you. And if you associate with
feminists, you presumably know that feminists call fake accusations of
child abuse "the silver bullet" because it's such a useful way for a
woman to get instant 100% control of her children.

Yes, all mothers are whores and liars. It's well known. And Ophelia
approves, so you must be right.

Fredxxx

2015-01-29 13:01:23 UTC

I find the fact there are two names published worries me. In the UK I
can only recall the serial killer Harold Shipman in the past decade or
2. How many others have gone onto kill 11 or more people?

Statistics suggest there are between 500 and 1,000 murders each year.

Given you have put forward 2 instances of serial false rape victims in
as many years does this suggests that there are order of magnitude more
false allegations of rape than murder victims, where the 2 your found
are likely to be just the tip of an iceberg?

abelard

2015-01-29 13:06:06 UTC

Post by Fredxxx

I find the fact there are two names published worries me. In the UK I
can only recall the serial killer Harold Shipman in the past decade or
2. How many others have gone onto kill 11 or more people?
Statistics suggest there are between 500 and 1,000 murders each year.
Given you have put forward 2 instances of serial false rape victims in
as many years does this suggests that there are order of magnitude more
false allegations of rape than murder victims, where the 2 your found
are likely to be just the tip of an iceberg?

you will of course also have the problem that you can't 'prove' a
'rape' didn't happen, any more than you can easily prove a 'rape'
did happen

you can prove a murder didn't happen if the 'victim' appears in
strolling in the shopping mall
and a dead body with a knife sticking out is highly indicative
of 'murder'...even if it is not 'proof'

'rape' is not an easy 'crime' to 'prove'
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Fredxxx

2015-01-29 14:02:48 UTC

I find the fact there are two names published worries me. In the UK I
can only recall the serial killer Harold Shipman in the past decade or
2. How many others have gone onto kill 11 or more people?
Statistics suggest there are between 500 and 1,000 murders each year.
Given you have put forward 2 instances of serial false rape victims in
as many years does this suggests that there are order of magnitude more
false allegations of rape than murder victims, where the 2 your found
are likely to be just the tip of an iceberg?

you will of course also have the problem that you can't 'prove' a
'rape' didn't happen, any more than you can easily prove a 'rape'
did happen
you can prove a murder didn't happen if the 'victim' appears in
strolling in the shopping mall
and a dead body with a knife sticking out is highly indicative
of 'murder'...even if it is not 'proof'
'rape' is not an easy 'crime' to 'prove'

Agreed, though murder convictions have held where no body was found.

Wile rape is not an easy crime to prove, proving that rape was unfounded
is even more difficult, hence why the two cited case are all the more
remarkable.

abelard

2015-01-29 14:09:15 UTC

I find the fact there are two names published worries me. In the UK I
can only recall the serial killer Harold Shipman in the past decade or
2. How many others have gone onto kill 11 or more people?
Statistics suggest there are between 500 and 1,000 murders each year.
Given you have put forward 2 instances of serial false rape victims in
as many years does this suggests that there are order of magnitude more
false allegations of rape than murder victims, where the 2 your found
are likely to be just the tip of an iceberg?

you will of course also have the problem that you can't 'prove' a
'rape' didn't happen, any more than you can easily prove a 'rape'
did happen
you can prove a murder didn't happen if the 'victim' appears in
strolling in the shopping mall
and a dead body with a knife sticking out is highly indicative
of 'murder'...even if it is not 'proof'
'rape' is not an easy 'crime' to 'prove'

Agreed, though murder convictions have held where no body was found.

and many so-called murderers have been released(when still living!)
many years later when the conviction is found to be unsound or
disproved...
one in the states after 40 years only last week...

the courts are far more uncertain than many wish to believe

Post by Fredxxx
Wile rape is not an easy crime to prove, proving that rape was unfounded
is even more difficult, hence why the two cited case are all the more
remarkable.

indeed...
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

The Todal

2015-01-29 14:10:37 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
Wile rape is not an easy crime to prove, proving that rape was unfounded
is even more difficult, hence why the two cited case are all the more
remarkable.

I would guess that you aren't a criminal lawyer or a police surgeon or a
police officer.

The belief that the victim is always believed by the police is
undoubtedly a pernicious myth. The police aren't as stupid as some might
believe. The problem is, they traditionally err on the side of not
prosecuting because they don't think the case will be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

Fredxxx

2015-01-29 16:27:12 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
Wile rape is not an easy crime to prove, proving that rape was unfounded
is even more difficult, hence why the two cited case are all the more
remarkable.

I would guess that you aren't a criminal lawyer or a police surgeon or a
police officer.
The belief that the victim is always believed by the police is
undoubtedly a pernicious myth. The police aren't as stupid as some might
believe. The problem is, they traditionally err on the side of not
prosecuting because they don't think the case will be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

There are various initiatives that wax and wane. Sometimes the police
will make up a case of rape, despite there being no complainant.

Omega

2015-01-29 11:26:53 UTC

"White Spirit" wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...

[Cross-posting to uk.legal as it is relevant and hasn't been addressed
there yet.]

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Nick

2015-01-29 12:36:03 UTC

Post by White Spirit
[Cross-posting to uk.legal as it is relevant and hasn't been addressed
there yet.]

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Not quite but it is shifting a certain portion of the burden of proof
onto the Defendant, which is not how the legal system traditionally
operates. By virtue of the principle of being innocent until proven
guilty, the burden of proof should firmly be placed upon the
Prosecution, not the Defendant. One consequence of such a change is
that unscrupulous women will be able to entrap men by getting drunk or
exaggerating the effects of alcohol.
This is another example of the justice system being politicised (one
might even call it a good example of political correctness gone mad...)

Presumably a prudent male creating and keeping video proof of consent
would also be prosecuted for something or other.

Fredxxx

2015-01-29 13:02:17 UTC

Post by White Spirit
[Cross-posting to uk.legal as it is relevant and hasn't been addressed
there yet.]

Post by saracene
http://tinyurl.com/m6686w6
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Not quite but it is shifting a certain portion of the burden of proof
onto the Defendant, which is not how the legal system traditionally
operates. By virtue of the principle of being innocent until proven
guilty, the burden of proof should firmly be placed upon the
Prosecution, not the Defendant. One consequence of such a change is
that unscrupulous women will be able to entrap men by getting drunk or
exaggerating the effects of alcohol.
This is another example of the justice system being politicised (one
might even call it a good example of political correctness gone mad...)

Presumably a prudent male creating and keeping video proof of consent
would also be prosecuted for something or other.

I don't see how, it more depends on what you do with it. Posting it on
youtube might have some consequences!

Charles Bryant

2015-02-02 02:42:14 UTC

In article <madavt$lhc$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxxx <***@nospam.com> wrote:
}On 29/01/2015 12:36, Nick wrote:
}> On 29/01/2015 10:30, White Spirit wrote:
}> Presumably a prudent male creating and keeping video proof of consent
}> would also be prosecuted for something or other.
}
}I don't see how, it more depends on what you do with it. Posting it on
}youtube might have some consequences!

It's possible to be guilty of an offence merely for filming yourself
having sex even if the filming is done with the consent of your sex
partner.

Judith

2015-02-02 09:50:04 UTC

On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 02:42:14 +0000, Charles Bryant <ch.k2fuhr-***@chch.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

Post by Charles Bryant
It's possible to be guilty of an offence merely for filming yourself
having sex even if the filming is done with the consent of your sex
partner.

How does the animal consent?

Basil Jet

2015-02-03 01:34:04 UTC

Post by Charles Bryant
}> Presumably a prudent male creating and keeping video proof of consent
}> would also be prosecuted for something or other.
}
}I don't see how, it more depends on what you do with it. Posting it on
}youtube might have some consequences!
It's possible to be guilty of an offence merely for filming yourself
having sex even if the filming is done with the consent of your sex
partner.

If you make a video of yourself masturbating on the day before your 18th
birthday, and keep the video after your 18th birthday, you can be put on
the sex offenders' register for committing a sex crime against your
under-age self. This has happened! (Not to me, I might add)

White Spirit

2015-02-03 09:38:40 UTC