Students 2 year rape hell as police withheld important evidence

[Denver]

A rape trial dramatically collapsed after prosecutors discovered crucial evidence proving the defendant's innocence had not been disclosed by police.

Student Liam Allan, 22, faced up to 20 years in jail after being charged with multiple counts of rape and sexual assault following a Metropolitan Police investigation.

He always maintained he had consensual sex with the alleged victim and almost two years later, the case finally came to court.

Yesterday, all charges were dropped and Mr Allan walked free after lead barrister Jerry Hayes made a bombshell announcement.

Newly-appointed to the case as it came to trial, he ordered police to hand over all telephone records.

According to the Times, detectives had repeatedly refused requests from Mr Allan's lawyers to examine any such evidence claiming there was nothing relevant to the case.

But Mr Hayes said he discovered police had a computer disk with 40,000 messages from the woman which "blew the prosecution case out the water".

They showed the woman pestering Mr Allan for "casual sex" and telling friends how much she enjoyed sleeping with him, The Times reports.

Mr Hayes apologised to Mr Allan as he sat in the dock and offered no evidence.

Judge Peter Gower found him not guilty on all counts and demanded an investigation "at the very highest level".

He added: "Something has gone very, very wrong in the way this case was investigated and brought to court."


The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said they offered no evidence in the case on Thursday, as it was decided "there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction".

Speaking outside court, Mr Allan told The Times: "I can't explain the mental torture of the past two years.

"I feel betrayed by the system which I had believed would do the right thing - the system I want to work in."

Writing in The Times, Mr Hayes said the case was an example of how the justice system "is not just creaking, it is about to croak."

On the missing evidence, he added: "I told the judge that this was the most appalling failure of disclosure that I have ever encountered."

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We are aware of this case being dismissed from court and are carrying out an urgent assessment to establish the circumstances which led to this action being taken.

"We are working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and keeping in close contact with the victim whilst this process takes place."

A spokesman for the CPS said: "A charge can only be brought if a prosecutor is satisfied that both stages of the Full Code test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors are met, that is, that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is required in the public interest.

"All prosecutions are kept under continuous review and prosecutors are required to take account of any change in circumstances as the case develops.

"In November 2017, the police provided more material in the case of Liam Allan. Upon a review of that material, it was decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

"Therefore we offered no evidence in the case against Liam Allan at a hearing on December 14 2017.

"We will now be conducting a management review together with the Metropolitan Police to examine the way in which this case was handled."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/students-two-year-rape-nightmare-11698537

[Denver]

The one who accused him should spend life in prison and the officers involved struck off

[Niamh.]

The one who accused him should spend life in prison and the officers involved struck off

You don't even get life in prison for paedophilia so I doubt that but she absolutely should be prosecuted, that's for sure. can't believe the Police would do what they did though, for what reason would they want to?

[Denver]

You don't even get life in prison for paedophilia so I doubt that but she absolutely should be prosecuted, that's for sure. can't believe the Police would do what they did though, for what reason would they want to?

He was facing 20 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit and she will probably get a slapped wrist for destroying a man's life there just isn't any justice

[Niamh.]

He was facing 20 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit and she will probably get a slapped wrist for destroying a man's life there just isn't any justice

Oh I agree it's a terrible thing to do to someone, I was just saying the justice system (here anyway) seems overly lenient on people in general, rapists and paedophiles in particular so I wouldn't feel comfortable for someone to get a heavier sentence for this than those crimes but they should all be bumped up imo

[Amy Jade]

I think in situations like this the person who made the false accusation should face the sentence the person they lied about would have served.

[Vicky.]

I am not getting why her sending messages pestering him for sex, and even having consensual sex with him at one stage, means he could absolutely not rape her? Husbands rape their wives ffs...consent once does not mean consent for life.

I don't understand why the police would withhold evidence that they knew they would have to show later in the trial though. Somethings very odd about this whole thing.

[Niamh.]

I think in situations like this the person who made the false accusation should face the sentence the person they lied about would have served.

You'd have to be pretty sure it actually was a false allegation though (and I think that would be very hard to do) just because they don't have enough evidence to convict a person of rape doesn't mean the accuser was lying :think:

[Vicky.]

When lies can be proved, the accuser DOES get a long sentence. Usually longer than the accused would have done if found guilty of rape. Because lying about rape is worse than raping. Clearly.

[Denver]

I am not getting why her sending messages pestering him for sex, and even having consensual sex with him at one stage, means he could absolutely not rape her? Husbands rape their wives ffs...consent once does not mean consent for life.

I don't understand why the police would withhold evidence that they knew they would have to show later in the trial though. Somethings very odd about this whole thing.

She told friends she enjoyed having sex with him and had rape fantasies

[Vicky.]

She told friends she enjoyed having sex with him and had rape fantasies

And this means she cannot be raped?

[Vicky.]

I'm not saying she WAS by the way, but that having a previously consensual sexual relationship with someone does not mean you cannot be raped by said person. Like some seem to think it does.

[Denver]

And this means she cannot be raped?

Well if you say you enjoyed sex with the person you then claimed raped you on said night then you wasn't raped you can't pick and choose what happened .

Men will always be guilty even when they are not when it comes to rape

[Denver]

Also she pestered him for sex not the other way round

[Vicky.]

Do you have access to more information than the story you posted?

Again, enjoying sex with someone does not mean they cannot then rape you.

I actually can't make any sense of the polices decision to keep the messages until the last minute. Hoping more comes out about this as its just so confusing.

[Denver]

Do you have access to more information than the story you posted?

Again, enjoying sex with someone does not mean they cannot then rape you.

I actually can't make any sense of the polices decision to keep the messages until the last minute. Hoping more comes out about this as its just so confusing.

Trial collapsed when 40,000 messages revealed she pestered him for sex

You cant pester someone for sex then accuse them of rape

The texts revealed the woman asked Mr Allan for casual sex and fantasised about rough and violent intercourse and even being raped despite telling police she didn't like being intimate with men.


Yet another hole in the case

Barrister Jerry Hayes claims the detective in charge told him sexual messages sent by the woman to Liam Allan and her friends were 'too personal' to share.

Too Personal?

[Denver]

There was enough evidence to prove he is innocent so why are you still seeing him as guilty?

[Vicky.]

There was not enough evidence to 'prove he is innocent' at all. Thats your own spin on it.

And I am not saying he is guilty. I am saying that you can still be raped off someone you have previously enjoyed sex with. And that this whole thing is extremely odd.

[Niamh.]

There was enough evidence to prove he is innocent so why are you still seeing him as guilty?

who is you all? :suspect:

[Denver]

You dont tell someone you want them to rape you then cry Rape

[Tom4784]

I'm with Vicky, I don't think this alone proves his innocence unless there's more that hasn't been said. Just because she wanted sex at the time of these messages doesn't mean she did when he wanted to. There's simply no evidence to convict or vindicate him by the looks of it.

[bots]

there seems to be some gross misconceptions about the legal process. If the police submitted all potentially relevant evidence in a case, each case would probably take 50 years to be heard. Its based on 2 criteria, is it admissible as evidence, and does it prove the crime (or help prove the crime)

We as outsiders have no idea on the background of the evidence, so we can hardly make a judgement on its quality, reliability or anything else.

[Denver]

The is more evidence to prove he didn't do he then he did it

[Northern Monkey]

It’s almost as if the police were trying to get their rape conviction figures up. :pipe:

But yeah if it could actually be proven she’s a lying bitch then she should be banged up as long as he would’ve been.

[Toy Soldier]

There was not enough evidence to 'prove he is innocent' at all. Thats your own spin on it.

And I am not saying he is guilty. I am saying that you can still be raped off someone you have previously enjoyed sex with. And that this whole thing is extremely odd.

It depends really, the story isn't clear about the nature of the messages she sent to her friends... the way I read it, she potentially sent messages about the specific "night in question" expressing that it was consensual / enjoyed and then later reported the SAME sexual encounter as rape.

That's the only way I can see the messages meaning the case was instantly dismissed. Otherwise, they would be irrelevant to the crime in question and the trial would have continued?

[Kizzy]

The police wouldn't have to withhold evidence to get rape figures up... That would suggest that women are not being raped daily and they are.

I don't like this, the attempt is to undermine public confidence in both the police and the justice systems in rape cases....Hmmmm, very odd indeed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

where is The Truth when we need him to make sense of this mess?

[Niamh.]

where is The Truth when we need him to make sense of this mess?

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/images/6/66/Rachel-berry-glee-lea-michele-screaming-scared.gif/revision/latest?cb=20130821051700

[joeysteele]

You don't even get life in prison for paedophilia so I doubt that but she absolutely should be prosecuted, that's for sure. can't believe the Police would do what they did though, for what reason would they want to?

Oh it's frightening what could have come about in this case.
Really shocking, thankfully barely just exposed in time however the devastation to this lad's life is a disgrace.

I agree she should be prosecuted.
I really hope he can now lift himself up in time and confidently live his life from now on.

[smudgie]

I'm not saying she WAS by the way, but that having a previously consensual sexual relationship with someone does not mean you cannot be raped by said person. Like some seem to think it does.

Indeed.
More common than you expect as well.:fist:

[Toy Soldier]

The police wouldn't have to withhold evidence to get rape figures up... That would suggest that women are not being raped daily and they are.

Rape conviction stats are very low, though, especially in comparison to rape allegation stats... and even in comparison to how often charges go ahead.

[Vicky.]

Times story


A judge has called for an inquiry after the trial of a student accused of rape collapsed because police had failed to reveal evidence proving his innocence.

Liam Allan, 22, spent almost two years on bail and three days in the dock at Croydon crown court before his trial was halted yesterday.

The judge demanded a review of disclosure of evidence by the Metropolitan Police, Britain’s biggest force, and called for an inquiry at the “very highest level” of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). He warned of the risks of “serious miscarriages of justice” after hearing that, to save costs, material was not always handed to defence lawyers.

Mr Allan, a criminology undergraduate at Greenwich University, had been warned that he would be jailed for at least ten years if found guilty after being charged with six rapes and six sexual assaults against a woman who told police that she does not enjoy sex. Mr Allan said the sex was consensual and that the woman was acting maliciously because he would not see her again after he started university.

His lawyers had repeatedly been refused access to records from the woman’s telephone because police insisted that there was nothing of interest for the prosecution or defence, the court was told.

When a new prosecution barrister took over the case the day before the start of the trial, he ordered police to hand over any telephone records. It was revealed that they had a computer disk containing copies of 40,000 messages.

They showed that she continued to pester Mr Allan for “casual sex”, told friends how much she enjoyed it with him and discussed her fantasies of being raped and having violent sex.

Jerry Hayes, the prosecuting barrister, told the court yesterday that he would offer no evidence. “I would like to apologise to Liam Allan. There was a terrible failure in disclosure which was inexcusable,” he said.

Mr Hayes, a former Tory MP and criminal barrister for 40 years, added: “There could have been a very serious miscarriage of justice, which could have led to a very significant period of imprisonment and life on the sex offenders register. It appears the [police] officer in the case has not reviewed the disk, which is quite appalling.”

Speaking outside court, Mr Allan told The Times: “I can’t explain the mental torture of the past two years. I feel betrayed by the system which I had believed would do the right thing — the system I want to work in.” His mother, Lorraine Allan, 46, a bank worker, hugged her son as he was surrounded by friends who had been lined up to give character evidence if the trial continued.

“In the current climate, in these sorts of cases, you are guilty until you can prove you are innocent,” she said. “The assumption is there is no smoke without fire.”

Radhia Karaa, a district crown prosecutor, wrote to the court admitting that the handling of the telephone downloads “has fallen below the standard that we expect”. Judge Peter Gower found Mr Allan not guilty on all charges. “There is something that has gone wrong and it is a matter that the CPS, in my judgment, should be considering at the very highest level,” he said. “Otherwise there is a risk not only of this happening again but that the trial process will not detect what has gone wrong and there will be a very serious miscarriage of justice. He [Mr Allan] leaves the courtroom an innocent man without a stain on his character.”

The judge said that police must tell prosecutors about all material collected during their investigations. “It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster if material is not viewed by a lawyer,” he said. “Something has gone very, very wrong in the way this case was investigated and brought to court.”

Julia Smart, for the defence, said she received the details of the woman’s text messages on the evening before she was due to cross-examine her, so stayed up reading them. When she told the court what she had found, the trial was halted. She said she believed that evidence from phones was being withheld from defence lawyers to save money.

Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, has pushed to increase the prosecution and conviction of sexual offences. Rapes recorded by police have risen from 12,295 in 2002-03 to 45,100 last year but the number of rapes referred to the CPS for a decision on charging has stayed broadly static. Of the 35,000 adult and child rapes recorded by police in 2015-16, just over 6,800 were referred to police, a fall of about 690 on the previous year, according to Rape Monitoring Group figures. A Met spokeswoman said: “We are aware of this case being dismissed and are carrying out an urgent assessment to establish the circumstances.”

not sure if we are allowed to copy and paste full articles or not, but since its behind a paywall...

Still cannot make any sense of the polices actions in all of this.

[Toy Soldier]

Still cannot make any sense of the polices actions in all of this.

My opinion? It sounds like there was a lot of data and they probably didn't bother to have someone go through it properly before simply believing the person making the claim and making an arrest / charges... at which point someone decided to cover up that oversight by saying there was nothing on there worth saying. Potentially... they never looked through them.

But yeah, reading that again it sounds basically like the sexual encounter happened, she talked (favourably) about it to friends afterwards and messaged him multiple times about hooking up again, was turned down, and then reported the initial hook-up as not being consensual...

[Vicky.]

My opinion? It sounds like there was a lot of data and they probably didn't bother to have someone go through it properly before simply believing the person making the claim and making an arrest / charges... at which point someone decided to cover up that oversight by saying there was nothing on there worth saying. Potentially... they never looked through them.

But yeah, reading that again it sounds basically like the sexual encounter happened, she talked (favourably) about it to friends afterwards and messaged him multiple times about hooking up again, was turned down, and then reported the initial hook-up as not being consensual...

I find that quite odd, given the police tend to disbelieve people making rape allegations, and also tend to try to find some way to blame the victim D:

Seems the total opposite happened in this one case

[bots]

there are a few possible explanations, my top 2 would be - meeting targets set for the department or the chap had previous history with the police that they didn't get a conviction for so were balancing things up

[Denver]

I wouldn't rule out her knowing someone dealing with it

[Toy Soldier]

I find that quite odd, given the police tend to disbelieve people making rape allegations, and also tend to try to find some way to blame the victim D:

Seems the total opposite happened in this one case

I'd imagine that it totally depends on the various prejudices of the officers directly involved and also the personalities and circumstances of the suspect and claimant. It shouldn't... but I'm sure it does.

[Kizzy]

Rape conviction stats are very low, though, especially in comparison to rape allegation stats... and even in comparison to how often charges go ahead.

What are you saying that all these 'allegations' are so flimsy they're having to withhold evidence to get a conviction through? What a crock of ****.

regardless I was perfectly aware it was in relation to convictions thank you, I didn't need that explaining to me .

[Toy Soldier]

What are you saying that all these 'allegations' are so flimsy they're having to withhold evidence to get a conviction through? What a crock of ****.

regardless I was perfectly aware it was in relation to convictions thank you, I didn't need that explaining to me .

Its not about the allegations being flimsy its because the nature of the crime (the fact that there are very rarely any witnesses) means that securing a conviction is notoriously difficult.

And given that you seemed to be questioning "why they would need to resort to underhand tactics to raise conviction stats", when genuine incidences of rape happen every day, it sort of seems like you did need that explained to you :hee:.

[Kizzy]

Its not about the allegations being flimsy its because the nature of the crime (the fact that there are very rarely any witnesses) means that securing a conviction is notoriously difficult.

And given that you seemed to be questioning "why they would need to resort to underhand tactics to raise conviction stats", when genuine incidences of rape happen every day, it sort of seems like you did need that explained to you :hee:.



I'm not questioning it... it was an entirely rhetorical question. They wouldn't have to resort to that the force a conviction.That was my point, having said that why are you trawling after me again in a vain attempt to interpret what I say?

Are you really so short sighted to suggest that unless there are witnesses it is impossible to assess if a woman has been raped?... This is a prime example of my issue in another thread you accused me of having no direct experience from which to draw a conclusion on one issue and concluded my input was irrelevant... and here you are voicing how difficult it is for a woman to prove she was raped :/

I will make myself very clear to you to prevent you feeling the need to school me on my own points.
There are cases where it is very obvious a woman has been raped without witnesses, that was my point here. I am aware of the difficulty in securing a conviction in cases of date rape or historical abuse.

[Kizzy]

Looking at stats a couple of very disturbing figures just leapt out...

Rape Crisis England & Wales headline statistics 2016-17

Where age is known, 2,651 were aged 15 or under, an increase of 55% on last year; those aged under 25 represented 36% of service users. Over 30 times more children reported multiple assaults than last year - 904 compared with 29 in 2015-16.

That is a really shocking and frightening jump!

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/statistics.php

[Toy Soldier]

Why am I "trawling after you" when you laid out some quite blatant sarcastic bait in your own post? You even put it in italics :idc:. You might think that you can be snarky and leave it ambiguous enough that I'm not going to call you out on it or... Something... But I think it'll save us a lot of time if I just point out that you're wrong there. If you choose to "call me out", I'm gonna respond, and I'm not going to drop it or pretend that I don't know exactly what you were doing :hee:. Sooo if you don't want to be "trawled after", you might want to reign in the snippy sarcasm. Either that, or stop complaining about it. Or neither and I'll merrily "trawl along". Would be lying if I said I care either way.


As for "why do I feel qualified to point out that rape is difficult to prove"? Because there is a mountain of statistical evidence that demonstrates without question that it is difficult to prove. If you can't see how that's different to your opinion that "games reduce empathy cos Kizzy thinks games probably reduce empathy", then I really can't help you, and nor can anyone else.

[Kizzy]

Why am I "trawling after you" when you laid out some quite blatant sarcastic bait in your own post? You even put it in italics :idc:. You might think that you can be snarky and leave it ambiguous enough that I'm not going to call you out on it or... Something... But I think it'll save us a lot of time if I just point out that you're wrong there. If you choose to "call me out", I'm gonna respond, and I'm not going to drop it or pretend that I don't know exactly what you were doing :hee:. Sooo if you don't want to be "trawled after", you might want to reign in the snippy sarcasm. Either that, or stop complaining about it. Or neither and I'll merrily "trawl along". Would be lying if I said I care either way.


As for "why do I feel qualified to point out that rape is difficult to prove"? Because there is a mountain of statistical evidence that demonstrates without question that it is difficult to prove. If you can't see how that's different to your opinion that "games reduce empathy cos Kizzy thinks games probably reduce empathy", then I really can't help you, and nor can anyone else.

It was intentional and in italics as to make it crystal I was referring to your love of reiterating my comments in your own unique way, there was nothing snarky about it.

You used italics in your initial response to me, were you being snarky?

The comment you made was not in relation to any stats or evidence it was directed at myself personally... that I was not a gamer or a game developer therefore my comments were irrelevant, and yet here you are not with any actual evidence for your claim other than the great TS chose to impart his knowledge on the subject.

Not once did I make any reference to empathy,so you have not only misinterpreted me but you're now misquoting me too in your quest to mansplain my own views to me!

Bravo! You've surpassed yourself.

[Northern Monkey]

“Mansplain” :facepalm:

[Kizzy]

“Mansplain” :facepalm:

You started it :idc:

[Toy Soldier]

It was intentional and in italics as to make it crystal I was referring to your love of reiterating my comments in your own unique way, there was nothing snarky about it.

You did it as snarky bait to refer back to the "mansplaining" thread because you believe you've found an Achilles heel that "gets at me".

in your quest to mansplain my own views to me!


:idc:

[Toy Soldier]

Basically Kizzy, it seems like you've decided that I can't respond to any of your posts to disagree in any way, because doing so is apparently me "trawling you" or trying to "mansplain". It's neither. It's me thinking you're incorrect and stating my own opinion. But this is a discussion forum, and that's what it's for, so if you don't like it... I'm afraid it's straight up tough ****. I'm going to keep doing it, no matter how many times you bleat "mansplaining" at me or accuse me of singling you out or "trawling" your posts in an attempt to shut down criticism of them.

I'm not really interested in the snidiness or the whining so I'm going to leave this here, and carry on as I have been.

[DemolitionRed]

You dont tell someone you want them to rape you then cry Rape

This is incorrect. I could, for example, tell my partner I have a fantasy about rape and rough sex. He, if he has any sense, is going to be extremely cautious about how this fantasy is approached. He would need to protect himself from later being accused of rape and protect me because perhaps its just a fantasy and the reality could make me freak out.

Everything is consensual up and until one person says 'no'. My partner could play that rape game with me or have rough sex with me right up to the point of me saying 'no' or using a previously arranged safe word. If I call out that safe word, then he must stop because if he doesn't, he could find himself up on a charge in a court of law. Remember, we all have the right to change our mind at any given moment.

A fantasy is nothing more than a sexual desire and if you are going to make it reality, you better make sure you have enough control to stop that fantasy when things start going Pete Tonge.

[Kizzy]

You did it as snarky bait to refer back to the "mansplaining" thread because you believe you've found an Achilles heel that "gets at me".



:idc:

I wasn't being snarky, my use of the word explain was a direct reference to you mansplaining , I've come to expect it from you now.

[Kizzy]

Basically Kizzy, it seems like you've decided that I can't respond to any of your posts to disagree in any way, because doing so is apparently me "trawling you" or trying to "mansplain". It's neither. It's me thinking you're incorrect and stating my own opinion. But this is a discussion forum, and that's what it's for, so if you don't like it... I'm afraid it's straight up tough ****. I'm going to keep doing it, no matter how many times you bleat "mansplaining" at me or accuse me of singling you out or "trawling" your posts in an attempt to shut down criticism of them.

I'm not really interested in the snidiness or the whining so I'm going to leave this here, and carry on as I have been.

Look at you winding yourself up about it.... Just stop trying to suggest I have in some way misunderstood the premise of the thread, I hadn't and your input wasn't required TS.

[Toy Soldier]

Look at you winding yourself up about it.... Just stop trying to suggest I have in some way misunderstood the premise of the thread, I hadn't and your input wasn't required TS.

I'm not wound up Kizzy I'm just making myself clear as I thought it might save some time, and you might give up this strange quest to have me believe that my "input isn't required" if I happen to disagree with you. You don't get to say when "my input is and isn't required", I'll post in whichever threads I want to post in, in response to whichever posts I want to respond to. I can see that you're going to cling to it, though, and I guess that's your prerogative but again... I'm not going to change anything about the way I post to appease you.

[Toy Soldier]

I wasn't being snarky, my use of the word explain was a direct reference to you mansplaining

Yes Kizzy that's called being snarky :nono:

[Kizzy]

I'm not wound up Kizzy I'm just making myself clear as I thought it might save some time, and you might give up this strange quest to have me believe that my "input isn't required" if I happen to disagree with you. You don't get to say when "my input is and isn't required", I'll post in whichever threads I want to post in, in response to whichever posts I want to respond to. I can see that you're going to cling to it, though, and I guess that's your prerogative but again... I'm not going to change anything about the way I post to appease you.

You weren't disagreeing with me...You were misinterpreting me and I pointed it out, hence you getting all bent out of shape because you can't handle me asking you not to misquote me. you carry on then.

[Kizzy]

Yes Kizzy that's called being snarky :nono:

Is it?... Oh thanks for the explanation....again.

[Toy Soldier]

You weren't disagreeing with me...You were misinterpreting me and I pointed it out, hence you getting all bent out of shape because you can't handle me asking you not to misquote me. you carry on then.

You said that the police wouldn't have to withhold evidence to improve rape figures. I disagreed and pointed out that they might have done so because conviction stats are very low. I don't see how I'm misrepresenting anything? In fact it was you who then went on to misrepresent me by saying;

What are you saying that all these 'allegations' are so flimsy they're having to withhold evidence to get a conviction through?

When I didn't say, or suggest, at all that the accusations are "flimsy". You completely invented that, and yet have the gall to accuse me of misrepresenting posts :rolleyes:.

[Toy Soldier]

Is it?... Oh thanks for the explanation....again.

https://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2017/12/17/imof036e.jpg

[Firewire]

You cant pester someone for sex then accuse them of rape



You can if you were raped.

[Toy Soldier]

You can if you were raped.

I agree although in this case it seems that she pestered him for sex after the encounter that she later reported as rape.

It's a little unclear but that's definitely what the articles are implying.

[Kizzy]

You said that the police wouldn't have to withhold evidence to improve rape figures. I disagreed and pointed out that they might have done so because conviction stats are very low. I don't see how I'm misrepresenting anything? In fact it was you who then went on to misrepresent me by saying;



When I didn't say, or suggest, at all that the accusations are "flimsy". You completely invented that, and yet have the gall to accuse me of misrepresenting posts :rolleyes:.

They don't! for the 2nd time it was a rhetorical question TS you misinterpreted me and derailed the entire thread because I had the gall to pull you up on it.

thanks :thumbs:

[Toy Soldier]

They don't! for the 2nd time it was a rhetorical question TS you misinterpreted me and derailed the entire thread because I had the gall to pull you up on it.

thanks :thumbs:Are you genuinely saying that your opinion on this is unquestionable fact and that anyone who dares to disagree with your final decision on this is "derailing the thread"? I really don't know what your point is supposed to be, here. I don't care if it was a rhetorical question; a rhetorical question is one that doesn't require an answer because the answer is obvious. In this case, your rhetorical question is perfectly questionable.

[Cherie]

Thus is probably down to someone not doing their job properly, he should have been cleared from the off, instead they wasted time and resources and now he will receive a payout

[Vicky.]

This is incorrect. I could, for example, tell my partner I have a fantasy about rape and rough sex. He, if he has any sense, is going to be extremely cautious about how this fantasy is approached. He would need to protect himself from later being accused of rape and protect me because perhaps its just a fantasy and the reality could make me freak out.

Everything is consensual up and until one person says 'no'. My partner could play that rape game with me or have rough sex with me right up to the point of me saying 'no' or using a previously arranged safe word. If I call out that safe word, then he must stop because if he doesn't, he could find himself up on a charge in a court of law. Remember, we all have the right to change our mind at any given moment.

A fantasy is nothing more than a sexual desire and if you are going to make it reality, you better make sure you have enough control to stop that fantasy when things start going Pete Tonge.

Yup. People don't seem to get that consent can be withdrawn at any stage in the encounter. Even if someone decides halfway through that they don't want to do it. If the other keeps going after the no...or puts pressure on the person who said no, then it is rape.

In this case though it does seem like it wasn't actually rape. But I am unwilling to be naming the person accusing of being a liar without knowing the actual details of the case. The police MUST have thought there was reason to prosecute. Given they tend to disregard rape cases pretty easily. Yes, they should have looked through these messages (and if she really did send 40k messages then I would say she has a mental illness tbh) and they really messed up there. But there must have been some actual reason why they did think it was rape. he said, she said is not good enough to secure a prosecution, unless its a historical case where no actual evidence would be there realistically, which this wasn't. They just don't push ahead with prosecutions with no chance of success.

[DemolitionRed]

Yup. People don't seem to get that consent can be withdrawn at any stage in the encounter. Even if someone decides halfway through that they don't want to do it. If the other keeps going after the no...or puts pressure on the person who said no, then it is rape.

In this case though it does seem like it wasn't actually rape. But I am unwilling to be naming the person accusing of being a liar without knowing the actual details of the case. The police MUST have thought there was reason to prosecute. Given they tend to disregard rape cases pretty easily. Yes, they should have looked through these messages (and if she really did send 40k messages then I would say she has a mental illness tbh) and they really messed up there. But there must have been some actual reason why they did think it was rape. he said, she said is not good enough to secure a prosecution, unless its a historical case where no actual evidence would be there realistically, which this wasn't. They just don't push ahead with prosecutions with no chance of success.

Like you say, at this point, all any of us can do I speculate.

She said she wanted rough sex. How rough is rough? perhaps she was a masochist and had fantasies of bruises and bites. Perhaps she really did want him to hurt her and the thought of that excited them both? If she was roughed up in a consensual or a none consensual act, then she likely still had evidence of bruises when she went to the police.

Who would you believe?

This could turn out to be a couple of sadomasochists with a long paper trail of past sadomasochistic activity.

[Oliver_W]

Like you say, at this point, all any of us can do I speculate.

She said she wanted rough sex. How rough is rough? perhaps she was a masochist and had fantasies of bruises and bites. Perhaps she really did want him to hurt her and the thought of that excited them both? If she was roughed up in a consensual or a none consensual act, then she likely still had evidence of bruises when she went to the police.

Who would you believe?

This could turn out to be a couple of sadomasochists with a long paper trail of past sadomasochistic activity.
Or it could simply be that she got butthurt over being repeatedly turned down, so decided to get revenge.

[Kizzy]

Here is your comment in response to my post.

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza View Post
The police wouldn't have to withhold evidence to get rape figures up... That would suggest that women are not being raped daily and they are.
Rape conviction stats are very low, though, especially in comparison to rape allegation stats... and even in comparison to how often charges go ahead.

I was referring specifically to the conviction figures here, yet you misinterpreted my post. My point being you need more evidence to secure a conviction from the CPS not less...

You misinterpreted my post to suggest my comment referred to rape allegation stats... therefore you were wrong.

[Vicky.]

Or it could simply be that she got butthurt over being repeatedly turned down, so decided to get revenge.

It could. But leaping immediately to this conclusion like so many people have done kind of shows misogyny IMO. It also shows how many people believe rape myths...that its common for women to jsut regret sex so cry rape. When its really not.

The guy in this was actually on sky news earlier going on about how its common for this to happen, which is pure bull. He said he had been contacted by loads of men telling their stories about how women lied. I am sure he was contacted by a load of rapists feeling sorry for themselves. But to make out this kind of thing is common is seriously ****ed up. I now think, regardless of what actually happened in this case, the guy is an utter arsehole. To go on national news spewing rape myths...shows what kind of person he is. I understand being annoyed/upset by his personal situation. But to pretend this is common when actually a whole 2 men per year actually end up in court with a false accusation (a whole 4 men per year are arrested for false accusations)...well its quite vile tbh.

[Tom4784]

It could. But leaping immediately to this conclusion like so many people have done kind of shows misogyny IMO. It also shows how many people believe rape myths...that its common for women to jsut regret sex so cry rape. When its really not.

The guy in this was actually on sky news earlier going on about how its common for this to happen, which is pure bull. He said he had been contacted by loads of men telling their stories about how women lied. I am sure he was contacted by a load of rapists feeling sorry for themselves. But to make out this kind of thing is common is seriously ****ed up. I now think, regardless of what actually happened in this case, the guy is an utter arsehole. To go on national news spewing rape myths...shows what kind of person he is. I understand being annoyed/upset by his personal situation. But to pretend this is common when actually a whole 2 men per year actually end up in court with a false accusation (a whole 4 men per year are arrested for false accusations)...well its quite vile tbh.

Pretty much, he's a wankstain.

[Kizzy]

It could. But leaping immediately to this conclusion like so many people have done kind of shows misogyny IMO. It also shows how many people believe rape myths...that its common for women to jsut regret sex so cry rape. When its really not.

The guy in this was actually on sky news earlier going on about how its common for this to happen, which is pure bull. He said he had been contacted by loads of men telling their stories about how women lied. I am sure he was contacted by a load of rapists feeling sorry for themselves. But to make out this kind of thing is common is seriously ****ed up. I now think, regardless of what actually happened in this case, the guy is an utter arsehole. To go on national news spewing rape myths...shows what kind of person he is. I understand being annoyed/upset by his personal situation. But to pretend this is common when actually a whole 2 men per year actually end up in court with a false accusation (a whole 4 men per year are arrested for false accusations)...well its quite vile tbh.

So as I suggested it's all designed specifically to erode public confidence, and it does.
The police make errors, the justice system is flawed innocent men are accused ....and yet multiple women still get raped every single day.

It's hard to prove though because there are 'no witnesses'... as if that is the only factor affecting every single one of the 1000s of rape cases annually.

[Oliver_W]

It could. But leaping immediately to this conclusion like so many people have done kind of shows misogyny IMO. It also shows how many people believe rape myths...that its common for women to jsut regret sex so cry rape. When its really not.

The guy in this was actually on sky news earlier going on about how its common for this to happen, which is pure bull. He said he had been contacted by loads of men telling their stories about how women lied. I am sure he was contacted by a load of rapists feeling sorry for themselves. But to make out this kind of thing is common is seriously ****ed up. I now think, regardless of what actually happened in this case, the guy is an utter arsehole. To go on national news spewing rape myths...shows what kind of person he is. I understand being annoyed/upset by his personal situation. But to pretend this is common when actually a whole 2 men per year actually end up in court with a false accusation (a whole 4 men per year are arrested for false accusations)...well its quite vile tbh.
He can be the victim of a false allegation and be a twat. I didn't leap to the conclusion immediately, it was based on the story as a whole.

[Vicky.]

He can be the victim of a false allegation and be a twat. I didn't leap to the conclusion immediately, it was based on the story as a whole.

I'm not saying you personally did. But so many people did immediately leap to that conclusion and seem perfectly happy with HER trial by media when they would usually be totally against it. The OP of this thread is one of such people.

[Oliver_W]

I'm not saying you personally did. But so many people did immediately leap to that conclusion and seem perfectly happy with HER trial by media when they would usually be totally against it. The OP of this thread is one of such people.

Well sure, anyone who immediately thinks a rape victim is a liar should be ashamed of themselves.

[Vicky.]

Well sure, anyone who immediately thinks a rape victim is a liar should be ashamed of themselves.

I would add to this and say anyone who thinks false accusations are common is a twat. Anyone who thinks loads of women cry rape for regretting sex is a twat. And so on.

This guy seems to fit both of the above statements. So yes, he can be the victim of a false accusation (though this has not actually been proven...despite many claiming it has. Until she is actually prosecuted, nothing is proven.) and also be a misogynistic wanker. Only the second of those statements is actually proven at the moment though. proven by his own actions and words on the topic.

[Livia]

The most telling thing about this case for me was that it wasn't even the defence who made a fuss about it. It was the prosecution! They knew that with the new evidence the case was unwinnable. No one here can judge the evidence. It may have stood alone or it may have corroborated other evidence... but whatever, if the prosecution is really pissed off on this man's behalf, that pretty much clears it up for me.

[Livia]

I would add to this and say anyone who thinks false accusations are common is a twat. Anyone who thinks loads of women cry rape for regretting sex is a twat. And so on.

This guy seems to fit both of the above statements. So yes, he can be the victim of a false accusation (though this has not actually been proven...despite many claiming it has. Until she is actually prosecuted, nothing is proven.) and also be a misogynistic wanker. Only the second of those statements is actually proven at the moment though. proven by his own actions and words on the topic.

Being a wanker isn't against the law. Otherwise we'd have to build so many jails it'd solve the housing crisis.

[Denver]

It was confirmed she sent a message to a friend saying it wasnt against her will

[Kizzy]

Is it practice to request phone transcripts in rape cases?

[Livia]

Is it practice to request phone transcripts in rape cases?

It's practice to request all evidence in all cases.

[Niamh.]

Is it practice to request phone transcripts in rape cases?

I'd imagine so, surely they investigate all possible avenues for evidence since cases like these are so hard to prove

[Denver]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5177208/met-police-sex-assault-cases-review/

The same officer has done it to a different man but has not been suspended :umm2:

[Cherie]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5177208/met-police-sex-assault-cases-review/

The same officer has done it to a different man but has not been suspended :umm2:

Not unexpected

[Denver]

They are planning on reviewing all cases he was in charge off

[Cherie]

I'd imagine so, surely they investigate all possible avenues for evidence since cases like these are so hard to prove

yes relevant emails and texts would need to be investigated