[user104658]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

If you've nothing to hide,youve nothing to fear

This is just nonsense though; there doesn't have to be something incriminating in someone's personal comments for them to not want people reading through their private conversations! There's nothing in my conversations with my wife that would get me in any legal trouble but that doesn't mean I want people looking at those conversations. The right to privacy is important and shouldn't be taken lightly.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You make it sound like an epidemic.

I know right? When even actual victims are afraid to take it further because of how they're treated, I doubt many women do it just for the lols

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I would say in a situation where the accused is arguing an alibi that he does know her or that she's stalking him then offering his own phone/records/evidence etc would suffice. Then once they've got enough for actual suspicion of her allegations they could take her phone?

But, that's where I think the old way is actually better. Whereby the police only gett access to something when given reason to do so whilst investigating the case.

The victim handing over her phone on the off chance she's lying (to save time and money?) just seems unnecessary to me.

Well, it's not just rape cases where people will have their phones taken off them, but it seems to have been promoted that way. It's all about disclosure of evidence between prosecutors and the defence which in the past has caused cases to collapse. I do agree it's a hammer to crack a walnut and despite the fact that around 3 in every 100 rape cases are proven to be false... I'm not sure this is the way to go.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

so if for instance your daughter was attacked on a night out by a stranger, you would be happy for her to give up her phone (a lifeline if you will) for weeks on end even though she knows and you know that her attacker is not known to her and has never contacted her in any way never mind by phone?

If I had a son who was arrested for rape I'd want to be sure that he was given every opportunity to a fair trial.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

If I had a son who was arrested for rape I'd want to be sure that he was given every opportunity to a fair trial.

Yes it works both ways

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Well, it's not just rape cases where people will have their phones taken off them, but it seems to have been promoted that way. It's all about disclosure of evidence between prosecutors and the defence which in the past has caused cases to collapse. I do agree it's a hammer to crack a walnut and despite the fact that around 3 in every 100 rape cases are proven to be false... I'm not sure this is the way to go.

Oh definitely. Just rape is the perfect example where such a blanket rule doesn't really work .

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

To stop all the girls crying rape when it never happened and innocent men being sent to jail ? Yes I would gladly hand over her phone ...If you've nothing to hide,youve nothing to fear

1984 much? Generally when people spout that rhetoric, they are in the wrong.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

To stop all the girls crying rape when it never happened and innocent men being sent to jail ? Yes I would gladly hand over her phone ...If you've nothing to hide,youve nothing to fear

It's gross when women automatically assume other women are crying rape and so assume that men are being wrongfully imprisoned.

[Crimson Dynamo]

A row has erupted because “rape victims” will be forced to hand over their mobile phones so police can check their texts and social media,
or “risk their attacker walking free”.

See what happened there? Much of yesterday’s coverage called a woman reporting a sexual assault a “rape victim” while the man whose
guilt (or innocence…) police are still trying to establish is her “attacker”.


I thought we had got away from this wholly unjust “always believe the accuser” approach after Alison Saunders ended her discredited tenure
at the Crown Prosecution Service amid a blizzard of miscarriages of justice?

Despite the scare stories from campaigners, the police’s new phones policy doesn’t involve any change in the law. In fact, it lays out what
should be regarded as a normal part of any police investigation, which is fair to both parties; calling it a “digital strip-search” is preposterous and inflammatory.



How many genuine victims would really regard their texts being scrolled through as “almost like being raped again”, as one woman claimed?

Let’s not forget it was only texts sent by his accuser that saved young law student Liam Allan from serving 10 years in jail. When police finally

got around to handing over the phone data to Liam’s lawyer, three days into his traumatic trial, it provided concrete proof that his ex-girlfriend
was lying: she had texted that he never forced her to have sex. Allan was instantly exonerated.

In another case, a young woman who accused a sportsman of rape posted an excited message on social media soon after the alleged attack.
She envisaged cashing in on the sordid story and getting a new Mini. Ker-ching!





Such manipulative, deceitful females are in a tiny minority, thank goodness, but when cases like those happen, the effect on the lives of
innocent men and boys is horrible. Suicide is not uncommon. An alleged rapist is named before his trial and shrivels in the furious glare of
public shaming; a taint that never truly leaves him. The woman’s identity, even if it turns out she has lied to the police and perjured herself, is not revealed.

Why do girls make false allegations? Because they feel rejected (in the Liam Allan case, certainly). Because they are very often in an existing
relationship, they have a one-night stand and subsequently decide it’s easier to accuse that blameless stranger of rape than admit to their
partner that they were unfaithful.



Many more allegations are truthful, but rape conviction rates remain stubbornly low because the crime is extremely hard to prove
in a court of law, particularly when the man and woman know each other. That’s why text and voice messages have such a crucial
role to play, yet campaigners now vehemently oppose their disclosure.

“If you report a crime to the police, such as your car being stolen, a burglary or an assault in the street, you would expect to be
treated like a victim,” says Harriet Wistrich, Director of the Centre for Women’s Justice, “not told to hand over your mobile phone so
officers can trawl through the data it contains dating back several years.”

Wistrich is being disingenuous, I’m afraid. Being falsely accused of rape is rather more damaging to a person than the trauma of being
deprived temporarily of one’s mobile. Of course, a thorough investigation is bound to be intrusive and upsetting, and my heart goes out
to those women who have suffered more than enough already.

The police are much more sensitive and respectful than they used to be, but it’s still a hideous ordeal. Nevertheless, with such a grave
crime, it is in the overriding interests of justice to gather as much evidence as possible to either guarantee a safe conviction, or to see
an innocent man released.

The problem here is one of over-correction. Until quite recently, the police, under instruction to believe any rape allegation, were hardly
bothering to disclose phone evidence at all. That was a disgrace. After the Saunders’ scandal involving many embarrassing miscarriages
of justice, police are now saying they’re going to look at the entire contents of a woman’s phone. Equally wrong, in my view.

Accusers are right to be worried that irrelevant material including their personal, even intimate, exchanges and pictures might be used
against them. We absolutely must not return to the bad old sexist days when a woman’s clothing or prior behaviour were
claimed to prove “she was asking for it”.

I can’t believe it’s beyond the wit of the legal system to specify that police can only examine data relating to the duration of a particular

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/li...ucial-justice/
relationship or to the period surrounding an alleged assault. Judges have the power to rule that certain evidence is inadmissible, and they
must not hesitate to use it should a defence barrister try to trash a woman’s reputation with private information found on her phone.

In any rape case, in the interests of fairness, the phones of both accuser and accused should be confiscated and the relevant content
examined and compared.

Will that be enough to satisfy campaigners like the Director of the Centre for Women’s Justice? I get the impression that some of them
view innocent men who are jailed as collateral damage in the war against male violence. Such misandrist attitudes do nothing to
help genuine victims. Encouraging women to think they have to “choose beween justice and privacy” will only allow more rapists to remain on the loose.

Besides, there should be no such thing as “women’s justice”. Only that justice which should be available, without prejudice, to all
victims, be they our sisters or our brothers.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/li...ucial-justice/

[Marsh.]

Seems they've missed the point.

It isn't "always believe the accuser" but always take those accusations seriously where they are investigated properly.

Also, comparing the trauma of being falsely accused of rape to the "trauma" of being parted from your phone is so disingenuous it made me laugh. Firstly because it's not about being separated from your phone, it's about your privacy being invaded (quite a valid comparison to the act of rape itself tbh), women lying about rape is such a small minority that the vast majority of these women will be going through the trauma of having been raped and then the trauma of having their privacy invaded further.

Such bollocks the entire write up.

All this focus on the "tiny minority of deceitful manipulative females" but nothing about the "overwhelming majority of cases of actual rape". Piss poor journalism.

[bots]

Having thought about it a bit more, provided it's not a default that the victim has to hand over their phone and that the accused/defense must provide good cause for the phone contents to be examined, it's probably not so bad.

If it turns out that the accused was just being malicious in requesting the search, then their sentence should be increased if found guilty

[Crimson Dynamo]

anything we can do to make police work easier is a very good thing

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Seems they've missed the point.

It isn't "always believe the accuser" but always take those accusations seriously where they are investigated properly.

Also, comparing the trauma of being falsely accused of rape to the "trauma" of being parted from your phone is so disingenuous it made me laugh. Firstly because it's not about being separated from your phone, it's about your privacy being invaded (quite a valid comparison to the act of rape itself tbh), women lying about rape is such a small minority that the vast majority of these women will be going through the trauma of having been raped and then the trauma of having their privacy invaded further.

Such bollocks the entire write up.

All this focus on the "tiny minority of deceitful manipulative females" but nothing about the "overwhelming majority of cases of actual rape". Piss poor journalism.

In 2017/18 there were 53,977 rapes recorded by the Police. That's more than 1600 men falsely accused in that year. That's not an insignificant number.

[user104658]

At the very most, advocating the police having full, free access to someone's phone is ridiculous, because of the number of personal things that could be on there totally unrelated to the case. Naked selfies? Who doesn't have a few of those on their phone? And that's just a start.

If there IS good reason for a phone to be searched, surely the obvious answer is that the relevant data (data from the time of the alleged attack and since the attack - NOTHING prior is relevant IMO) should be accessed and documented in the presence of the phone's owner and a lawyer? I think a major part of the problem here is that it takes a hell of a lot of trust (and from someone who has potentially just lost all of their trust in the human race) to believe that some random police officer will only access the relevant data, and won't go looking through messages and pictures going back months / years just because they feel like being nosy. Or digging through personal messages that have absolutely nothing to do with the case.

Contents of a phone might contain important evidence but "full unrestricted access" is overkill and asking far too much. Like I said, I would be VERY hesitant to give anyone unrestricted access to my phone or computer willingly, and it's not because it's got anything incriminating on it, it's just ****ing private.

It also just increases the risk all round to be honest because in some communities, if people don't feel like the police are an option for whatever reason, it just ends up with family members deciding to take action for themselves and that's when even more people end up getting hurt .

[Livia]

How many times have to seen a TV show where cops walk in and pick up all the tech, computers, laptops... it's not a new thing.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

How many times have to seen a TV show where cops walk in and pick up all the tech, computers, laptops... it's not a new thing.

Surely that's only when the crime relates to the tech specifically though, like financial crime or illegal pornography or dealing drugs / guns / whatever else online...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Surely that's only when the crime relates to the tech specifically though, like financial crime or illegal pornography or dealing drugs / guns / whatever else online...

Not exclusively... I think the CPS and the police have a hard time with rape cases mostly because of their previous inertia, but I have said before... this law is rather like a hammer to crack a walnut.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

How many times have to seen a TV show where cops walk in and pick up all the tech, computers, laptops... it's not a new thing.

Its all for evidential purposes and I agree with them doing it

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

In 2017/18 there were 53,977 rapes recorded by the Police. That's more than 1600 men falsely accused in that year. That's not an insignificant number.

That's not the point I made.

The point I made was does that number vastly outweight the MAJORITY of cases (ie. Is this practice worth further intrusion into the privacy of actual rape victims unless the case specifically requires it?)

IMO. No.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

How many times have to seen a TV show where cops walk in and pick up all the tech, computers, laptops... it's not a new thing.

How many times does TV get the the police, their procedures and the entire legal system wrong?

A lot.

[Vicky.]

https://www.thecut.com/article/false...cusations.html

To put that data into perspective, Newman consulted data on wrongful murder convictions. “It seems to be extremely rare for anyone to be wrongfully convicted as a result of a false accusation of rape,” she says. “I was only able to find 52 cases in 25 years where a conviction was later overturned after a wrongful conviction based on false rape allegations. In the same period, there were 790 cases where people were found to be wrongfully convicted of murder.” For what it’s worth, 790 divided by 52 is 15.2, meaning that by Newman’s data, you were 15 times likelier in that 25-year period to be wrongfully convicted of murder than of rape. And, let’s keep in mind, rape allegations resulting in convictions are already vanishingly rare: Newman cites a study that found that, of 216 assault complaints classified as false, only six led to arrest, and only two led to actual charges. (And even then, they were eventually deemed false.)

Sorry, but 2 men per year seeing the inside of a courtroom based on a false accusation is really quite an insignificant number..as is 6 arrests. Obviously not for the 6 people arrested, but in the grand scheme of things it really is near none.

Yeah more might have had false accusations made against them, but they are weeded out very very quickly, and before the men even learn of the accusation.

15x more likely to be falsely convicted of murder than of rape. Astounding really, especially given how much of an endemic people seem to think false rape accusations are.

Men are something like 200x more likely to BE raped than to be falsely accused of rape. Not that you would think so by what most seem to think.

--

I disagree with this. Which will shock noone. Rape victims are already made to feel like criminals, no reason to discourage people from reporting even more. Especially given that these many many men who are locked up each year because someone had a grudge against them or regretted sex or whatever excuse is used, simply do not appear to exist. And given the fact that as niamh pointed out, rape victims underwear (if the victim is female) is held up in court for inspection and deemed to be proof of consent if not granny knickers, former partners saying that the person liked sex in a certain position is proof she consented to sex in that position with every man in the world at any stage, that even women who have TAPED their rapes have not managed to see a conviction...how women are subjected to harsher cross examination than the one whos meant to be on trial..how even obvious physical injuries and witnesses are deemed not good enough...and so on.

I did not report my rape. Because I had had a drink. One drink mind you (which I am fairly sure he spiked..must have really), but alcoholic, so I knew it would be used against me. And despite injuries (which would be put down to 'BDSM' or something..given previous trials) there was only me and him there, so no witnesses, though witnesses seem to make no difference in many cases. Also I could only remember parts of the evening, after accepting a drink so I would be classed as unreliable. I did remember a struggle and trying to push him away though, but of course that would be put down to me agreeing to roleplay or something. I was also wearing black underwear that was not of the Bridget Jones type pants variety. Oh, and I also willingly went to his house, as he was a 'friend' and said he had downloaded the music he had said he would for me and did I want to pick it up, and I had free time to pick it up that night which clearly means I consent to his dick in me. Tbh, its a horrendous thought but if my daughter was ever raped, I would likely actively discourage her from reporting it, as I know exactly how most rape cases go down, and I really wish I didn't.

[thesheriff443]

Phones are not that safe or private, in most cases if you lose a phone or it’s nicked it can be taken to a corner shop and be unlocked for a tenner giving who ever has your phone access to its contents.

Deleted files contacts, messages, pictures and videos can be retrieved, saved phone contents can be hacked, celeb nudes is an example.

Criminals use pay as you go phones as they harder to trace to an individual.

In the case of Shannon Mathews, the home computer was siezed and her mums partner was later convicted of viewing sexual images involving children.