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

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.

“Mansplain” :facepalm:

You started it :idc:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes Kizzy that's called being snarky :nono:

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.

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

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:.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Is it practice to request phone transcripts in rape cases?

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

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

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/517720...-cases-review/

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

Not unexpected