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 People don't seem to get that consent can be withdrawn at any stage in the encounter.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