Unworthy comment re FAs by Women Against Rape

[is there justice?]

Couldn't post the link as it didn't work but from sky news:


The group said: "We're outraged to see the rape action plan announced in a press release today by the CPS and police given that they are at the same time going after women reporting rape for so-called false allegations, with more vigour and resources than we ever see them go after rapists."

In the past year there has been an overall rise in the number of police referrals, prosecutions and convictions for rape.

But the proportion of court cases that result in conviction has fallen by 4.2%.

[Casehardened]

Of course jurists and potential jurists read the papers and listen to the news like everyone else....

What the WAR group want is an embargo on women being prosecuted for PCJ in regard to rape allegations.

The problem with this view is that once you start exempting certain groups from justice it is a slippery slope...

[is there justice?]

It's treacherously slippy as it is. Thought the figures were interesting too.

[myhome]

Whilst I agree with support groups for women who have been raped, and who highlight this appalling aspect of our society, WAR very definitely has tunnel vision when it comes to seeing only one side of the issue. What they are really saying by saying "so-called" FA's, is that they believe every allegation of rape is true, when quite obviously it isn't. they do themselves no favours with this blinkered standpoint.

[frightened spouse]

In the past year there has been an overall rise in the number of police referrals, prosecutions and convictions for rape.

But the proportion of court cases that result in conviction has fallen by 4.2%.[/QUOTE]


I read this article with great interest and also fear for those falsely accused in years to come.

http://barristerblogger.com/2014/05/...-juries-wrong/

[is there justice?]

Agree this is very scary talk for those falsely accused. Society must have its whipping boy and this sector is one that no-one dare stand up for.

We have picked up a real s*d for the SOR visit. Hub had to take something into the station and despite being photographed 3 days ago, he has to be photographed every time. This time they did more shots, hub asked why. The woman was apologetic and said she didn't know but the SOR chap had left a message for her to take extras.

Well when he returns next week to look at the PC the iPod will be recording everything he says so if he repeats his veiled threats of things leaking to the papers, it will be on record. It's an ideal job for a bully as no-one cares about those convicted, however minor the crime.

[Rights Fighter]

I think this is the link - or one of them

http://news.sky.com/story/1276580/ra...bid-not-enough

"Well when he returns next week to look at the PC the iPod will be recording everything he says so if he repeats his veiled threats of things leaking to the papers, it will be on record. It's an ideal job for a bully as no-one cares about those convicted, however minor the crime".

Does he mean he would be leaking info to the press? If so then he's in breach of police standards. They aren't allowed to do that. Ask to speak to his Superior and tell them that you feel he is threatening to go to the press and this makes you feel unsafe. You are not the one with the conviction (they aren't bothered about him so concentrate on you and others who could be affected).

[is there justice?]

His threat was very veiled, he would need to disclose to the public if hub was working alongside me and that my supervision was not enough. Those people would then probably inform the press and might burn our house down as they lump all S.O.s together. As do the plod. So it wouldn't be him informing the press directly.....
Spoke to prob officer today, she said he (plod) may be concerned that I am a 'colluder'. Told her that it was bad enough that they were over flirty together but if I thought he had harassed her, I would have disembowelled him. As for being a colluder I am certainly not Rose West. I think she got the message. She understands about the denying not denial. Asked us a few pertinent questions about the context of the allegations and was very kind to let me support hub.
She understood the purpose of the polygraph next week though stressed it may never be admissible, ie the change in law may never come. We went through some of the anomalies in the case and I think we at least sparked some serious doubt in her mind. She said she has known it happen before.
Hub said he will co-operate in everything with the rider that he maintains his innocence.
Interestingly, if the plod think I'm a colluder, they should charge me. I could get the facts out then.

[Rights Fighter]

His threat was very veiled, he would need to disclose to the public if hub was working alongside me and that my supervision was not enough..

Complain to the Chief Constable. The police are not allowed to disclose anything to the public.

[is there justice?]

Thanks RF, will follow that through.

[Rights Fighter]

Any feedback from your query to the Chief Constable?

[is there justice?]

Now we have the polygraph we will contact the CC. Hub wants to talk to probation officer first though with the report. She is on holiday for another week next week but will see her after that. She didn't think he needed to see anyone while she was away unless he felt he needed help and his last visit lasted a few minutes. Hopefully this indicates some belief?

[Rights Fighter]

Keep us updated as this could be helpful for others in the same situation. Thanks for coming back so quickly