[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 83589)
Message
File  []
close
westminster.jpg
835898358983589
>> No. 83589 Anonymous
27th October 2017
Friday 6:10 pm
83589 spacer
FEMALE STAFF AT WESTMINSTER ARE NAMING AND SHAMING SEX PEST MPS ON A SECRET WHATSAPP GROUP, IT HAS BEEN REVEALED.

Yeah, whoever it was in /iq/ that said this deserves to be a real thread is quite right. This is going to blow up badly for some people and I think we should share the details consider it carefully. I know that the odd politico type comes here, spill the fucking beans!
Expand all images.
>> No. 83590 Anonymous
27th October 2017
Friday 6:23 pm
83590 spacer
Thanks, but you should have put it on /news/.
>> No. 83591 Anonymous
27th October 2017
Friday 6:26 pm
83591 spacer
>>83589
>Yeah, whoever it was in /iq/ that said this deserves to be a real thread is quite right

If /iq/ was good enough for Keith Vaz and his washing machine rent boys, it's good enough for politicians who like to go around squeezing bottoms.
>> No. 83592 Anonymous
27th October 2017
Friday 6:26 pm
83592 spacer
Also, I think you mean 'whomever'.
>> No. 83593 Anonymous
27th October 2017
Friday 7:16 pm
83593 spacer
>>83591

We get it, earnest discussion of gender issues make you uncomfortable. You can stop being glib now.
>> No. 83609 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 7:36 pm
83609 spacer
Down goes Fallon!
>> No. 83610 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 7:47 pm
83610 spacer
>>83609
Why?

>A close ally of the defence secretary said: “Julia is a good friend of Michael’s. He overstepped the mark when he put his hand on her knee. She made it clear it was unwelcome and he rightly apologised 15 years ago.”

>Hartley-Brewer rejected the idea that Fallon should be pursued over the incident, saying: “I have not been a victim and I don’t wish to take part in what I believe has now become a Westminster witch-hunt.”

Is there something else he did? His name's on ze list but the allegation gossip isn't anywhere close to damning. Have we reached a point in time where the retort "you pay too much attention to what fringe feminists say online" has lost its credibility?
>> No. 83611 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 7:59 pm
83611 spacer
>>83610
BUT HE TOUCHED HER KNEE!
>> No. 83612 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 8:02 pm
83612 spacer
>>83610

There absolutely something else, there's no fucking way Fallon went because he touched a journo's knee. "Standards of the armed forces"; what a load, those animals tolerate bullying, rape and forced consumption of human excrement.

Also every time he pops up in the news I remember he got a knighthood and my whole body flexes with annoyance.
>> No. 83613 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 8:08 pm
83613 spacer
>>83612
>The BBC understands his decision was not related to new or specific claims.
>> No. 83614 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 8:15 pm
83614 spacer
>>83613 Odd. Definitely odd. I imagine something fresh is going to come out in the next few days.
>> No. 83615 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 8:16 pm
83615 spacer
>>83613

Oh, aye, everything is always known to the public and nothing happens behind closed doors.

Think it through, lad.
>> No. 83616 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 8:23 pm
83616 spacer
>>83610
Check whether his voting record is consistent with his lifestyle. Also, as has been alluded to by others, there may be something there that we don't yet know.
>> No. 83617 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 8:27 pm
83617 spacer
>>83615
I think you hallucinated and experienced me saying I wholeheartedly believe the BBC and their information to be accurate when I did not.
>> No. 83618 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 8:35 pm
83618 spacer
There's a mountain of shit about him, calling it.

>>83617

So you think the BBC is lying? Or that Fallon is lying to the Beeb? Perhaps you should do more than greentext some near-contextless quote.
>> No. 83619 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 9:24 pm
83619 spacer
>>83618
I don't particularly feel the need to think much of anything without more information to go on.
>> No. 83620 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 10:17 pm
83620 spacer
>>83618

Calm down dear.
>> No. 83621 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 11:03 pm
83621 spacer
>>83618
I think thats obvious - nobody resigns about touching a female journalists knee fifteen years ago - particularly when the journalist concerned has come out and talked about how it was dealt with then and wasn't a big deal. There must be a mountain of other shit out there.
>> No. 83622 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 1:11 am
83622 spacer
>>83621
Well, it is a big deal, it's sexual assault. The victim just happened to not be too bothered about it. Someone else might have felt utterly violated and powerless. So while I agree there's an iceberg, I must assure you this is the tip of it.
>> No. 83625 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 1:25 am
83625 spacer
>>83622
Can you cite an example where a single touch of the knee lead to a sexual assault conviction?
>> No. 83626 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 2:29 am
83626 spacer
>>83622
It's a mystery to me why anyone bothers with relationships when they're this much of a fucking minefield.
>> No. 83627 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 10:54 am
83627 spacer
And your new SoS for Defence is ... Chief Whip Gavin Williamson. Cue lots of questions about this being answered with "I'm not a whip anymore so it wouldn't be appropriate to comment" and the like.
>> No. 83628 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 11:42 am
83628 spacer
>>83622
Dear acrobat
One time someone hit on me 15 years ago and made physical contact like a human being and I did not like it, I asked them to stop and they immediately did, have I been raped?

Yes if you feel uncomfortable even for a second it is NOT a fact of life, and a awkward misunderstanding, but a terrible crime. No one should have to experience the kind of advances you'd accept and wish Mr.Right would do from someone else.
>> No. 83629 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 12:07 pm
83629 spacer
>>83622
Picture emerging from those in the know is that it wasn't an isolated incident but part of a long history of inappropriate touching, particularly while drunk, which apparently he tends to be rather more often than most. It appears that the headline was the least objectionable incident with the least bothered victim. Sounds like a bona fide limited hangout.

Looks like we're seeing House of Cards play out in real life. I'm calling it now. In five years, Williamson will be PM and will end up in a fight with King Charles.
>> No. 83630 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 12:11 pm
83630 spacer
>>83628

Yes lad, an ugly bird touching your arm is exactly the same as a sitting MP feeling up an intern's arse.
>> No. 83631 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 12:58 pm
83631 spacer
>>83630

Journalists knee, not intern's arse you hyperbolic cunt.
>> No. 83633 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 2:20 pm
83633 spacer
This is all so ridiculous. Society needs a collective lobotomy.
>> No. 83634 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 2:51 pm
83634 spacer
>>83631

That's not why he's been booted, idiot. Fucking think beyond the headline, will you? Although with your level of reasoning I'd be impressed if you made it that far. And I was pretty obviously talking more widely about the range of allegations at Westminster, which is the topic of this thread, in case you'd failed to notice that too.

Now fuck off and pretend to have made contact with another human being elsewhere, there's a good lad.
>> No. 83635 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 3:00 pm
83635 spacer
>>83634

Do you even bother to read conversation chains before you reply? Or does your knee jerking blur your vision too much?
>> No. 83636 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 4:00 pm
83636 spacer

6.10.15-Future-of-projection.jpg
836368363683636
>>83635
>> No. 83637 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 4:20 pm
83637 spacer

4d-human-anatomy-transparent-human-body-27539photo.jpg
836378363783637
>>83635

> Or does your knee jerking blur your vision too much?

You're going to have to talk me through that one, lad.
>> No. 83638 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 5:35 pm
83638 spacer
>>83637

It's what we call a literary device.
>> No. 83639 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 6:25 pm
83639 spacer
>>83634 I can't tell if there's loads of angry 12 year olds who post on /pol/ these days or it just happens to be you and you post all the time.
>> No. 83640 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 6:59 pm
83640 spacer
>>83639

Mmm. When they exploded at me, I interpreted that to be ego defense for not admitting fault and an ironic demonstration of the premise of the post they protested against; that they are indeed a hyperbolic cunt.
>> No. 83641 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 7:17 pm
83641 spacer
>>83640

You don't even know what hyperbole means.
>> No. 83642 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 7:19 pm
83642 spacer
>>83641
I know it a million times more than you do.
>> No. 83643 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 7:24 pm
83643 spacer
>>83642

Can you point to the part of my original post where I was being hyperbolic?
>> No. 83644 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 7:28 pm
83644 spacer
>>83643
Yes but you can't see me pointing if you're not in the room.
>> No. 83645 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 8:26 pm
83645 spacer
>>83644
Don't be purposely obtuse. He was obviously requesting a photograph of you pointing.
>> No. 83646 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 8:37 pm
83646 spacer

IMG_20171102_203607686.jpg
836468364683646
>>83645
Fine!
>> No. 83647 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 9:09 pm
83647 spacer
>>83646
No, point with your hand, not your flipper.
>> No. 83648 Anonymous
2nd November 2017
Thursday 10:37 pm
83648 spacer
>>83647
No need to be ableist, lad.
>> No. 83649 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 12:12 am
83649 spacer
>>83643
I would assume "Journalists knee, not intern's arse you hyperbolic cunt."
Would be self evident.

But it was where you wrote "Intern's arse" here >>83630 not journalist's knee, you hyperbolic cunt. No one is disputing that had he grabbed an intern's arse his behavior would be unacceptable but since he touched a journalist's knee mentioning an intern's arse is hyperbolic, cunt.
>> No. 83650 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 12:29 am
83650 spacer
>>83649
>but since he touched a journalist's knee mentioning an intern's arse is hyperbolic, cunt.
You really haven't got the hang of this yet, have you?
>> No. 83651 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 12:38 am
83651 spacer
>>83649

Except, you dopey prick, as I made clear in my following post, and do try to keep up this time, I wasn't only referencing Fallon's publicly stated reason for resigning, but rather one of a whole range of accusations flying around Westminster.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/commons-intern-says-he-was-sexually-assaulted-by-mp-a8032281.html
>> No. 83652 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 2:04 am
83652 spacer
>>83651
You asked me why I thought you were a hyperbolic cunt I clarified why. Not about what you said later, do you not understand how causation works. Now I know you aren't a hyperbolic cunt just that you have shitty communication skills.

Given you were replying to this post >>83628 which is a reply to this post >>83622, which is a reply to this post >>83621 how would that be relevant when referring to that specific incident? It wouldn't, you came off as sounding like a hyperbolic cunt, which is why I updated my position to "Do you even bother to read conversation chains before you reply?" because evidently you aren't a hyperbolic cunt you are just shitty at communication. Can you now in your words; "fuck off and pretend to have made contact with another human being elsewhere, there's a good lad".
>> No. 83653 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 2:11 am
83653 spacer
>>83652
>referring to that specific incident
You still don't get it, do you?
>> No. 83654 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 3:49 am
83654 spacer
>>83653

Is this because there were over things other MPs have done which isn't relevant to the point, or are you trying to not break a umbongo whilst breaking an umbongo?
>> No. 83655 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 6:44 am
83655 spacer
>Sir Michael Fallon was forced to quit after Cabinet colleague Andrea Leadsom complained about his behaviour, it has emerged.

>Tory sources said Mrs Leadsom, the Leader of the Commons, complained directly to Theresa May about ‘vile’ language used by Sir Michael towards her at a parliamentary meeting six years ago. The former Defence Secretary is said to have told Mrs Leadsom, who had complained of cold hands: ‘I know where you can put them to warm them up.’ Sir Michael is alleged to have been ‘tactile’ and put his arm around Mrs Leadsom in what a source described as ‘unwanted attention’.

>However there was a backlash against Mrs Leadsom who was accused of speaking out to further her own career. One senior Tory raged: 'What the fuck does Leadsom think she is doing?'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5044829/Andrea-Leadsom-revealed-Fallon-s-secret-accuser.html
>> No. 83656 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 9:56 am
83656 spacer
>>83655

>One senior Tory raged: 'What the fuck does Leadsom think she is doing?'

The whole party's going a bit The Thick of It in terms of vocabulary.
>> No. 83657 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 10:09 am
83657 spacer
>>83654
No, it's because there were other things that he specifically had done, which is relevant to the point, you mouth-breathing mong.
>> No. 83658 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 10:12 am
83658 spacer
>>83655
>One senior Tory raged: 'What the fuck does Leadsom think she is doing?'
Philip Davies? It sounds like the sort of thing he'd say.
>> No. 83659 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 12:52 pm
83659 spacer
>>83657

like?
>> No. 83660 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 1:01 pm
83660 spacer
>>83659
The other women he had apparently groped while drunk.
>> No. 83661 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 8:38 pm
83661 spacer
Clive Lewis: Bottom Pincher

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clive-lewis-groping-allegation-labour-mp-sexual-harassment-party-conference-2017-latest-a8036446.html
>> No. 83662 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 10:50 pm
83662 spacer
>>83661 I consider myself pretty open minded and supportive towards stopping sexual harassment/assault, but this story just really feels quite absurd.

It sounds like she got a hug, he may/may not have hugged her too low, or possibly did grab her bum. Either way she didn't care, danced with him, enjoyed his company, then when news about the sexual harassment in Westminster then decides she was upset by it? Or was it just that it fit the definition that has been published and she felt duty bound to report it regardless of context like some sort of good samaritan?

Please do stop me/tell me if I'm being some sort of horrible dinosaur here, but this does genuinely perplex me. I'm not looking to minimise sexual harassment or anything like that, nor do I want to come off as some sort of UKIP voter, but this is just getting weird isn't it?
>> No. 83663 Anonymous
3rd November 2017
Friday 11:58 pm
83663 spacer
>>83662
>he may/may not have hugged her too low
That's probably what happened.

You are, however, minimising sexual harassment by suggesting that it's somehow weird for women not to report it unless they feel encouraged to do so by, for instance, a major scandal.

As she says, "When this stuff happens it is us who have to do the work, it’s the women. Every single time. You have to put yourself out there. You have to explain why you didn’t say anything at the time."
>> No. 83664 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 1:43 am
83664 spacer
>>83663
What a bizarre quote. It's not like the police will swoop in with their psychic bumfondling powers.
>> No. 83665 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 3:05 am
83665 spacer
>>83664

She's not saying she expects the police to guess. She's saying it's not acceptable that women who report abuse are expected to explain why they didn't report it sooner. It should be pretty universally understood at this point that there's plenty of reasons to not want to report a sexual assault immediately, yet there's still so many who say things like "well why didn't she say anything at the time"
>> No. 83666 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 5:47 am
83666 spacer
>>83665
In this specific case, it would seem to be a reasonable question. Actually, the ruder alternative question - which is usually what's implied when people ask "why didn't you say anything at the time?" - is the interesting question here. We know why she said nothing at the time, but why did she mention it now? (That's not, as it implies, to say she shouldn't have done - but is it because she personally felt violated, or just because she felt it was something worth mentioning even if she didn't care?)

Ordinarily there would seem to be reasons you just don't inquire about out of politeness. (i.e. if someone was very distressed at the time and then later raised it once there was some distance.) Where those who do inquire are usually just trying to imply "Why are you causing trouble by bringing this up now?" but the specific case seems a bit odd.

Regardless of everything I've just said I'm vaguely aware of the fact that while nobody can stop most people having these thoughts, it still might not be appropriate to say them. But this is an imageboard none of the participants will see or suffer from my thinking-aloud, so whatever.
>> No. 83667 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 11:11 am
83667 spacer
>>83666

There are plenty of rape cases that are thrown out because they are really just buyers' remorse. That isn't to say it isn't awful to feel used, but it is not considered criminal.
>> No. 83668 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 11:46 am
83668 Massive Irony
Bitching about rape is to women what looking at tits and ass is to men. Womens magazines are full of it. It turns them on to think about it. The more people they can bitch to, the more they love it.

Women are throwing men under the bus in order to get their rocks off.
>> No. 83669 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 11:57 am
83669 spacer
>>83667
>plenty of rape cases
Going to need a source on that one, old chap.
>> No. 83670 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 11:57 am
83670 spacer
>>83665

That's all well and good, it's perfectly understandable that some women may not feel comfortable to come out about these matters until they have support and backing.

However it's also perfectly reasonable to spot how a lot of this stuff starts pouring out at once when it looks like there's a quick buck or a spot in the limelight to be had.
>> No. 83671 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 12:30 pm
83671 spacer
>>83670
I have vague recollections of a sudden jump in the number of leads in the Savile case in the days immediately after an ambulance-chaser appeared on the news saying that victims could potentially claim against his estate for compensation. The numbers turned out a bit like the 'Pistols in Manchester.
>> No. 83672 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 1:15 pm
83672 spacer
>>83669

Zach Kibirige is the most high profile case off the top of my head.
>> No. 83673 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 1:17 pm
83673 spacer
It's worth stopping to think where this list might have come from. The was talk that it was maintained by staff as collective self-help, but given the list includes Liam Fox and that entry in its entirety reads simply "Adam Werrity" I'm tempted to think it's actually a summary of kompromat from the whips' office. Well, that and whoever leaked it thinking fucking Guido was the place to do it.
>> No. 83674 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 1:18 pm
83674 spacer
>>83672
One case is not plenty.
>> No. 83675 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 1:58 pm
83675 spacer
>>83670
>However it's also perfectly reasonable to spot how a lot of this stuff starts pouring out at once when it looks like there's a quick buck or a spot in the limelight to be had.

It's been reported that Leadsom's real motive for her complaint about Fallon was that she feared being axed from the Cabinet over rumours she's plotting another leadership bid and because he had suggested getting rid of her in the next reshuffle as he views her as a weak link. Apparently Leadsom believes being a whistleblower will make her untouchable over being sacked from the Cabinet.
>> No. 83676 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 2:11 pm
83676 spacer
>>83674

One 'high profile' rape case that I could think of off the top of my head, last year.
Don't pretend to be naive just because the details of the failed case against Joe Bloggs doesn't make the rags there aren't plenty of them. The selection bias dictates that cases you would have heard of is reserved for celebrities and the spectacularly cruel nobody and then probably only at conviction, never the case that go nowhere involving nobodies so you don't see those.

I'm sure if you think about people you know there is probably at least one of them who has been accused of such things by at least one mental ex, just that ex may never have indulged themselves quite enough to go to court over it.
I'm not willing to waste my time researching to find you examples of something you'd dismiss off hand because it doesn't match with your world view anyway.

If you don't believe me talk to a judge or a lawyer. They will confirm that the amount of buyer's remorse cases has gone up, and for one very simple reason, the CPS can't use its own judgement to not bring those cases to trial as a matter of policy, if the victim wants to go to trial they are required to, this is also the reason for the low conviction rate of sexual crimes compared to other crimes.
>> No. 83677 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 3:15 pm
83677 spacer
>>83676
Translation:
>I don't actually have any evidence for this, but just believe me anyway, okay?

Nobody disputes that it happens. The extraordinary claim you're making (that'll require extraordinary proof) is that it's somehow reached epidemic proportions.
>> No. 83678 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 3:24 pm
83678 spacer
>>83677

I didn't say epidemic I said plenty.
>> No. 83679 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 3:48 pm
83679 spacer
>>83678
No, lad. Those pedals only work for going forward.
>> No. 83680 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 4:31 pm
83680 spacer
>>83679

Well I suppose yes, strawmen are quite easy to dismiss.
>> No. 83681 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 5:10 pm
83681 spacer
>>83680
Which would be a valid point if anyone had presented one.
>> No. 83682 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 5:50 pm
83682 spacer
>>83679>>83680>>83681
Never change, Shitfa.gs.
>> No. 83683 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 5:56 pm
83683 spacer
>>83681

Sorry you are right, when I said pleanty what I meant was epidemic how clumsy of me.
>> No. 83684 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 6:02 pm
83684 spacer
>>83683
So, are you actually going to lay out a proper argument with facts and shit, or are you just going to get pissy about synonyms?
>> No. 83685 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 6:41 pm
83685 spacer
>>83684
You are not deserving of such a time investment. Maybe go watch paint dry. Cunt.
>> No. 83686 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 6:58 pm
83686 spacer
>>83685
That's all right, Humpty. It's fine if you can't actually explain yourself, but at least be honest about it instead of blaming everyone else.
>> No. 83687 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 11:05 pm
83687 spacer
>>83686
I don't know why they're being so rude/lazy, but there are plenty of statistics here https://rapecrisis.org.uk/statistics.php, including:
>Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator. (Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005)
and
>1 in 5 women aged 16 - 59 has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16
>Rape Crisis Centres provided in excess of 450,000 sessions of specialist support, including advocacy, emotional support and counselling, an increase of 29% since 2015-16.

These figures are taken from
>End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW)
>Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit (CWASU), London Metropolitan University
>Ministry of Justice
>Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
>Home Office
>Crime Survey for England and Wales (formerly the British Crime Survey)
>Office for National Statistics (ONS)

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "epidemic" but if 20% of women claim to have experienced sexual violence then that's pretty close to an epidemic. Also, if ~95% of rape cases end up getting thrown out, I think it's fair to assume that a lot of them are what >>83667 refers to as "buyer's remorse". Ugly terminology but probably accurate.
>> No. 83688 Anonymous
4th November 2017
Saturday 11:57 pm
83688 spacer
>>83687
>I think it's fair to assume that a lot of them are [false]
On what basis?

>(Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005)
You might want to look over that report (HORS 293). The executive summary outlines some of the reasons why the conviction rate is so low. It finds that the rate of false reports is lower than most officers thought it is, and even then more than half of those were wrongly classified as false.
>> No. 83690 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 1:38 am
83690 spacer
>>83688

I read the relevant part of the report.

>even then more than half of those were wrongly classified as false.

I couldn’t find anything to suggest this claim in there. I did find this though

"We spend a lot of time dealing with allegations of rape that really aren’t rape, that take a lot of time up. I would say a good half that come through are not genuine ones."

I then looked through the stats

False allegation is 9.4% of all reported raped according to the study, but this crucially only covers where the police considered it false not where it might be false but it isn't demonstrated to be so, firstly there are Victim declined to complete initial process. Next comes situations where is insufficient evidence and no evidence incidents, this includes some where the victim’s account was either regarded with suspicion or not supported by other evidence, sometimes because they were lying sometimes because the police/CPS concluded the sex was consensual. Then there are cases that were dropped by the police for 'reasons unknown'.

There is 'victim withdrawal' at different stages that could be for that reason, and could equally be true for any cases discontinued by the CPS themselves.

And all of this is before anything has gone to trial where cases are withdrawn during trial could account for some. And one most presume that some of the acquittals are for this reason. So based on that study we now have a margin of anywhere between 9.4% and 72% of all rape claims that involve going to the police are false.
>> No. 83691 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 2:27 am
83691 spacer
Just a suggestion, but you lot might want to look at Scottish figures since they include 'not proven' as a verdict.
>> No. 83692 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 2:44 am
83692 spacer
>>83691
Stop encouraging this cunt off.
>> No. 83693 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 3:24 am
83693 spacer
>>83690
>I read the relevant part of the report.
The rest of your post suggests otherwise.
>> No. 83694 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 3:52 am
83694 spacer
The stupid(er) Hitchens brother has some desperate, controversy baiting, nonsense on this.

>You (he means people complaining about sexual harassment) have lots in common with Militant Islamists on this subject. They, too, believe that all men must be assumed to be slavering predators.

Wrong and wrong. Islamists think women are all harlots who corrupt men, not vice versa, and even within Westminster the number of men accused are a very small minority, so not even a majority, never mind "all". Then he helpfully goes on to suggest this.

>The welfare system is about to melt down. And you think the most important thing in your lives is a hunt for long-ago cases of wandering hands, or tellers of coarse jokes? Yes, you do.

Meaning they should just wait for one of those quieter months in Parliament before mentioning anything the frequent and ongoing sexual misconduct.

It must be hard needing to disagree with everyone, all of the time, forever and ever. And I know it suits the far-right's rhetoric to equate and confuse Islamism (their own ideological bedfellows) with social liberalism, but to do so in an article where you also bemoan PDAs just takes the piss and mick flavoured biscuit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5050887/What-women-gain-squawking-sex-pests-Niqab.html
>> No. 83695 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 4:15 am
83695 spacer
>>83694
>Meaning they should just wait for one of those quieter months in Parliament before mentioning anything the frequent and ongoing sexual misconduct.
He sounds like my boss, who insists we're too busy fighting fires to make the sort of changes that would mean fewer fires.
>> No. 83696 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 5:46 am
83696 spacer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaydTJqZoIM
>> No. 83697 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 9:50 am
83697 spacer
>>83694

>Islamists think women are all harlots who corrupt men

They might be on to something, you know.

>Meaning they should just wait for one of those quieter months in Parliament before mentioning anything the frequent and ongoing sexual misconduct.

I mean frankly it's hard to sympathise with a load of attention whoring bints when you're struggling to get out of rent arrears just so you can afford the bus fare to the food bank.

I'm being intentionally obtuse of course but it's very, very difficult not to see this scandal as a ploy by various enemies of the Tory party and/or Brexit opponents. Hitchens is one of those broken clock cases, he accidentally has a good point every now and again.
>> No. 83698 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 12:17 pm
83698 spacer
>>83693
Of course I didn't that's why I didnt quote any of the report, or stats from it.
>> No. 83699 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 1:56 pm
83699 spacer
>>83697

The whole affair started as an attack on Labour by Guido Fawkes. He either got a tip or went digging and found the embarrassingly misogynist posts by Jared O'Mara. Someone on the red team fired back by tipping off the press about the Whatsapp group, which was followed by a leak of the Tory shit list.

I think that the Tories have plenty of dirt to fire back, but they're cleaning house first. The Tories have always been far better at decisive and unified action (c.f. the leadership election process), which they can press to an advantage here. If they sack enough people to convince the press that they've dealt with the issue, they then have carte blanche to attack Labour.

If the rumours are to be believed, some fairly senior people within the Labour party have been complicit in covering up multiple rapes. If the Tories have just sacked a load of people for touching knees and saying slightly inappropriate things, these allegations look infinitely worse. Going by their track record, Corbyn's team won't be able to orchestrate a decent damage-limitation strategy.

Of course, if there's more serious dirt on the Tories yet to be uncovered, it could be equally damaging to both sides.
>> No. 83700 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 2:20 pm
83700 spacer
>>83699
Fuck me. What a useless country. At least the Americans houses aren't this fucked up.
>> No. 83701 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 2:55 pm
83701 spacer
>>83698
Good to see you're getting it. Now go and read it instead of just using Ctrl-F.
>> No. 83702 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 4:11 pm
83702 spacer
>>83700
You sure about that?
>> No. 83703 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 4:21 pm
83703 spacer
>>83701
I'm sorry I read your report and found it to be lies and statistics composed in bad faith towards an agenda. It would be nice if it was only 9.4% of rape accusations that were false but it isn't. It is just lies and statistics.


To quote the part on insufficient evidence and therefore cases reported as insufficient evidence in the paper
"For the remaining cases, police decision-making turned on evidential issues connected to the complainant, largely where the victim’s account was either regarded with suspicion or not supported by other evidence: in 17 cases the victim’s credibility was explicitly referred to; in 10 cases the issue of previous allegations was seen to cast doubt on the current complaint; in 27 inconsistencies or lies were referred to; and in 26 the police and/or CPS took the view that sex was consensual".

If victims lying and consensual sex is insufficient evidence rather than false allegations of rape I'm a banana.
>> No. 83704 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 4:35 pm
83704 spacer
>>83699
>Going by their track record, Corbyn's team won't be able to orchestrate a decent damage-limitation strategy.
Well what do you know? Right on schedule:

>Jeremy Corbyn has defended his decision to appoint an MP to his shadow cabinet who had been reprimanded for allegations of inappropriate behaviour.
>The Labour leader said he was aware Kelvin Hopkins had been rebuked by the party's chief whip in 2015 after concerns raised by a young activist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41878689

I guess we're back to the times when he couldn't open his mouth without putting his foot in it.
>> No. 83705 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 4:38 pm
83705 spacer
>>83703
>B-b-but the numbers must be wrong!
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
>> No. 83706 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 5:25 pm
83706 spacer
>>83705

You mean where they are demonstrably wrong? Yes.
>> No. 83707 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 5:39 pm
83707 spacer
>>83706
You're right. Clearly this peer-reviewed report commissioned and accepted by the Home Office is wrong because some random bloke off the internet said so.
32 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password