# Woman jailed for making false rape claim



## Quartz (Oct 27, 2013)

Daily Mail story here.

6 months doesn't really seem a long enough sentence to me.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 27, 2013)

A tragedy all round.

Course had I, or a member of my family or a friend, been her victim I'm sure I would not have such a calm view.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

and was there any reason you didn't add this onto the last thread you started on this subject?

which will be this obne

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/woman-jailed-after-false-rape-claim.313765/

where you completely failed to respond to my post showing how rare these incidences are compared to rapes,so maybee you can do better this time and explain why you have a compulsive need to link to these cases without giving any kind of perspective as to how unusual they are. I'll even give you the CPS report that shows this, again. 


http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf




> In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence2. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, 6 for making false allegation of domestic violence and 3 for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.
> Furthermore, the report shows that a significant number of these cases involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one which he or she had reported.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

What is your particular fixation with women making false rape claims, Quartz 

I'm not defending the woman - she should not have done such a thing - but why do you keep making threads on the topic?

As toggle has painstakingly pointed out, these are rare occurrences and most certainly not the norm.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> I'll even give you the CPS report that shows this, again.



with respect thats a bit misleading. The rate of prosecutions for false accusations isnt at all the same thing as the amount of accusations that dont stand up to scrutiny in court or dont result in a rape conviction, for whatever reason . The extreme reluctance of the CPS to bring prosecutions isnt at all the same thing as the amount of false or unprovable or disproved allegations that get made . And we have no real way of knowing how many actual predators get away with their crimes or how many of those were false allegations to begin with .
Apart from that Id agree with you that its a very odd thing to be starting these kinds of threads more than once .


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 27, 2013)

Filming their coupling on his phone saved him. Oh brave new world...


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> with respect thats a bit misleading. The rate of prosecutions for false accusations isnt at all the same thing as the amount of accusations that dont stand up to scrutiny in court or dont result in a rape conviction, for whatever reason . The extreme reluctance of the CPS to bring prosecutions isnt at all the same thing as the amount of false or unprovable or disproved allegations that get made . And we have no real way of knowing how many actual predators get away with their crimes or how many of those were false allegations to begin with .
> Apart from that Id agree with you that its a very odd thing to be starting these kinds of threads more than once .



while there may be reluctance to bring false accusation prosecutions, there is alos a reluctance to bring rape prosecutions. i would suggest that this is very strong evidence towards showing that the MRA claims of a low rate of conviction being down to an exceedingly high rate of demonstrably false accusation is bollocks.


----------



## andysays (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> with respect thats a bit misleading. The rate of prosecutions for false accusations isnt at all the same thing as the amount of accusations that dont stand up to scrutiny in court or dont result in a rape conviction, for whatever reason . The extreme reluctance of the CPS to bring prosecutions isnt at all the same thing as the amount of *false or unprovable or disproved allegations* that get made . And we have no real way of knowing how many actual predators get away with their crimes or how many of those were false allegations to begin with .
> Apart from that Id agree with you that its a very odd thing to be starting these kinds of threads more than once .



You appear to be lumping together three very different things (false allegations, unprovable allegations and disproved allegations) as though they were all the same. Maybe you've just expressed yourself clumsily.

It should be obvious to anyone (except perhaps the OP) that the fact that an allegation of rape (or indeed any other crime) does not result in a conviction doesn't mean it was a malicious allegation which will lead to a conviction or even a prosecution for making a false accusation.

Anyway, this thread looks like poison to me, and I don't intend to feed the troll any more than I may have already...


----------



## weepiper (Oct 27, 2013)

I'll just leave this here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24692104


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> while there may be reluctance to bring false accusation prosecutions, *there is alos a reluctance to bring rape prosecutions*.



with respect thats got sweet fuck all to do with the actual subject at hand , so im just as perplexed with  that statement as i am with the issue of this subject being the basis of a number of threads . I dont know why both of you are doing that . I also dont know why you posted that report as evidence to back up your point when you admit minutes later theres a reluctance to bring prosecutions for that particular crime, which is pretty heinous in my book.


> i would suggest that this is very strong evidence towards showing that the MRA claims of a low rate of conviction being down to an exceedingly high rate of demonstrably false accusation is bollocks.



id suggest its evidence of no such thing , and that a low conviction rate is simply linked to a low rate of prosecutions in the first place . And while I dont for a minute believe theres an exceedingly high rate of false accusations I do believe its a particulrly despicable and heinous crime that a lot more people get away with than many would like to admit . Mainly due to ideological reasons .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

andysays said:


> You appear to be lumping together three very different things (false allegations, unprovable allegations and disproved allegations) as though they were all the same. Maybe you've just expressed yourself clumsily.
> 
> It should be obvious to anyone (except perhaps the OP) that the fact that an allegation of rape (or indeed any other crime) does not result in a conviction doesn't mean it was a malicious allegation which will lead to a conviction or even a prosecution for making a false accusation.
> 
> .



Im most certainly not saying they are all the same, Ive clearly stated *we have no way of knowing* which are false and which are instances were predators walk away after a committing  a despicable crime. Ive expressed myself with clarity, its your comprehension thats on the blink .



> Anyway, this thread looks like poison to me, and I don't intend to feed the troll any more than I may have already..



id agree with its potential in that regard


----------



## trashpony (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> a low conviction rate is simply linked to a low rate of prosecutions in the first place . And while I dont for a minute believe theres an exceedingly high rate of false accusations I do believe its a particulrly despicable and heinous crime that a lot more people get away with than many would like to admit . Mainly due to ideological reasons .



Christ you really are a despicable piece of shit


----------



## andysays (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Ive expressed myself with clarity, its your comprehension thats on the blink



yes dear, whatever you say


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> with respect thats got sweet fuck all to do with the actual subject at hand ,



i think it has a great deal to do with the subject and the perception of it.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Christ you really are a despicable piece of shit



no im not and your talking shite. the poster i quoted agreed theres a reluctance to prosecute so hes just as despicable


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> i think it has a great deal to do with the subject and the perception of it.



no its definitely two different issues, look at it again .


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> id suggest its evidence of no such thing , and that a low conviction rate is simply linked to a low rate of prosecutions in the first place . And while I dont for a minute believe theres an exceedingly high rate of false accusations I do believe its a particulrly despicable and heinous crime that a lot more people get away with than many would like to admit . *Mainly due to ideological reasons* .


 Patriarchy?


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no its definitely two different issues, look at it again .




I have.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no im not and your talking shite. the poster i quoted agreed theres a reluctance to prosecute so hes just as despicable


Yes you are. You really need to take a long, hard look at your horribly bigoted attitudes.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

andysays said:


> yes dear, whatever you say



which bit of _we have no way of knowing_ do you not understand. Ill be happy to help you out.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Yes you are. You really need to take a long, hard look at your horribly bigoted attitudes.




point out the bigotry clearly and concisely and ill look at it. Otherwise take yourself off to fuck


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no im not and your talking shite. the poster i quoted agreed theres a reluctance to prosecute so hes just as despicable


he?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> and was there any reason you didn't add this onto the last thread you started on this subject?



It's a different case.



> where you completely failed to respond to my post showing how rare these incidences are compared to rapes,



Probably because I missed it.



> so maybee you can do better this time and explain why you have a compulsive need to link to these cases without giving any kind of perspective as to how unusual they are.



I have no 'compulsive need': a quick search would have shown you that I have started precisely two threads on the subject. Plus one in 2010 about Julian Assange being accused. Hardly compulsive. 

So, why aren't you decrying this convicted criminal? Do you think her sentence was too light?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Patriarchy?


 For some reason I can't use the edit to remove this. Having read your post again Casually Red I get the impression you are claiming feminism stops more women getting prosecuted for false allegations.  Are you _really_ saying that?


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Quartz said:


> It's a different case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



why aren'y you decrying the number of rape convictions?


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

why do you feel the need to repeatedly link to false allegation convictions with no mention of how unusual they are Quartz?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> why aren'y you decrying the number of rape convictions?



That's a matter for another thread; this thread is about the length of the sentence given to a woman for a false accusation of rape.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> For some reason I can't use the edit to remove this. Having read your post again Casually Red I get the impression you are claiming feminism stops more women getting prosecuted for false allegations.  Are you _really_ saying that?




no im certainly not. Im saying some people on this board are refusing to accept the very basic premise that a low rate of convictions for this heinous crime, for thats what it is, is linked to a low rate of prosecutions in the first place. And that the amount of people committing such crimes and getting away with it , while low, is still higher than they would like to admit, for ideological reasons.

The reasons for a low prosecution rate as far as I can see is that its an extremely difficult crime to prove in court  . And furthermore that it would be a near medievalist system that would result in every woman who brought an unsuccessful rape case in turn being prosecuted for false allegations. No civilised society could countenance such a thing .

And how you arrived at such an outlandish conclusion is a bit bizarre frankly.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2013)

Have you been falsely accused of rape Quartz?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Quartz said:


> It's a different case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why did you start a completely new thread when you had already started a thread with the exact same title on the same subject and could have easily posted the link on the original thread?

Why bitch and moan about her sentence instead of focussing on why so many rapists serve derisory sentences for the crimes they carried out?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why bitch and moan about her sentence



Why shouldn't I?



> instead of focussing on why so many rapists serve derisory sentences for the crimes they carried out?



If I wanted to do that I'd have started a different thread focussing on that subject. Do you think her sentence was too short?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Why don't you answer the questions put to you, Quartz?

I think her sentence was probably right, although she isn't likely to serve all of it is she? How long would you bang her up for, a year, two, more?

I also think it's more disturbing that cases like this seem to get prosecuted succesfully when so many rape cases aren't.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why did you start a completely new thread when you had already started a thread with the exact same title on the same subject and could have easily posted the link on the original thread?



thats a reasonable question


> *
> Why bitch and moan about her sentence* instead of focussing on why so many rapists serve derisory sentences for the crimes they carried out?



that point howevers not . What that person did was absolutely despicable and unforgivable and she deserves to be banged up for a few years at least . Its also the actions of people like her which make it all the more difficult for genuine victims to be believed.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no im certainly not. Im saying some people on this board are refusing to accept the very basic premise that a low rate of convictions for this heinous crime, for thats what it is, is linked to a low rate of prosecutions in the first place. And that the amount of people committing such crimes and getting away with it , while low, is still higher than they would like to admit, for ideological reasons.
> 
> The reasons for a low prosecution rate as far as I can see is that its an extremely difficult crime to prove in court  . And furthermore that it would be a near medievalist system that would result in every woman who brought an unsuccessful rape case in turn being prosecuted for false allegations. No civilised society could countenance such a thing .
> 
> And how you arrived at such an outlandish conclusion is a bit bizarre frankly.


 Well, as I said, my first reaction on a very superficial reading was that you were talking about the low prosecution rate for rape itself.  Then I read it properly and saw you were talking about non-prosecutions for false rape allegations.  Okay, if you are not saying _this_ is to do with feminism, are you saying reactions to the story _on urban_ are 'ideological'?  And if so, which ideology?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why don't you answer the questions put to you, Quartz?
> 
> I think her sentence was probably right, although she isn't likely to serve all of it is she? How long would you bang her up for, a year, two, more?
> 
> I also think it's more disturbing that cases like this seem to get prosecuted succesfully when so many rape cases aren't.



balls, she was caught out on camera . Whats disturbing is that an innocent person would have been sent down for years and stigmatised for the rest of their lives as a sexual predator, and quite frankly you sound like youd have been quite happy for that to happen and more than a bit annoyed she was even prosecuted in the first place, much less she got a derisory joke of a sentence. This is about actual human beings, not unfair statistics . The attitude that theres a gross injustice that can be rectified with even more injustice is the attitude of a fucking idiot, im sorry to say.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Quartz said:


> That's a matter for another thread; this thread is about the length of the sentence given to a woman for a false accusation of rape.



no it's not. it is looking at your motives for wanting to talk only about false allegations and not mention how exceedingly rare they are.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why don't you answer the questions put to you, Quartz?
> 
> I think her sentence was probably right, although she isn't likely to serve all of it is she? How long would you bang her up for, a year, two, more?
> 
> I also think it's more disturbing that cases like this seem to get prosecuted succesfully when so many rape cases aren't.


 Yep, it goes without saying that what this woman did was despicable.  6 months is fine by me.  However wafting this case in front of our noses is hardly a good reason to avoid discussing the massive under-reporting and prosecutions of rape itself.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

One, you don't get to tell me what is reasonable and what is not, Casually Red

As for jailing her, to quote you 'for a few years at least', take this delightful man who was jailed for 6 years for two counts of rape and 4 counts of sex with a child (i.e. one year per crime):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ist-jailed-after-victim-tapes-confession.html

Why should her punishment be longer than his?

I am not defending her and I abhor what she did. But I find it just as despicable to give her a longer sentence than many rapists get.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Well, as I said, my first reaction on a very superficial reading was that you were talking about the low prosecution rate for rape itself.  Then I read it properly and saw you were talking about non-prosecutions for false rape allegations.  Okay, if you are not saying _this_ is to do with feminism, are you saying reactions to the story _on urban_ are 'ideological'?  And if so, which ideology?



actually no, what I meant to say was basic idiocy on this board centred around an extremist interpretation of an ideology . Theres nothing wrong with the ideology itself, its just that theres idiots on this board who adhere to it . Such as those who are openly annoyed someone who was caught out committing a crime was convicted and theirbarely disguised  preference for an innocent to be jailed because of convition statistics .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> balls, she was caught out on camera . Whats disturbing is that an innocent person would have been sent down for years and stigmatised for the rest of their lives as a sexual predator, and quite frankly you sound like youd have been quite happy for that to happen and more than a bit annoyed she was even prosecuted in the first place, much less she got a derisory joke of a sentence. This is about actual human beings, not unfair statistics . The attitude that theres a gross injustice that can be rectified with even more injustice is the attitude of a fucking idiot, im sorry to say.


I cannot believe you actually posted this.

I think my posts make it more than clear that I would most certainly not have been happy about an innocent man being accused and convicted of rape. I find it absolutely disgusting that you would throw that in my face considering my posts on the topic.

What is the injustice is that women who are raped go without justice as their attackers are never convicted.

Six months is the right sentence. Banging her up for years and making an example of her doesn't stop men from raping.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> actually no, what I meant to say was basic idiocy on this board centred around an extremist interpretation of an ideology . Theres nothing wrong with the ideology itself, its just that theres idiots on this board who adhere to it . Such as those who are openly annoyed someone who was caught out committing a crime was convicted and theirbarely disguised  preference for an innocent to be jailed because of convition statistics .


NAME THEM.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> One, you don't get to tell me what is reasonable and what is not, Casually Red
> 
> As for jailing her, to quote you 'for a few years at least', take this delightful man who was jailed for 6 years for two counts of rape and 4 counts of sex with a child (i.e. one year per crime):
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ist-jailed-after-victim-tapes-confession.html
> ...



well youll find i just did, you however are free to disagree . And to somehow equate my wish for a false accuser to get a heavier sentence with agreement that rapists should also get also get light sentences is pretty absurd and a bit dishonest.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why don't you answer the questions put to you, Quartz?



Actually I have. Apart from the attempts to derail the thread.



> I think her sentence was probably right, although she isn't likely to serve all of it is she? How long would you bang her up for, a year, two, more?



I reckon she'll serve about 3 months if she behaves - serving half, then out on license for the rest is standard, isn't it? I don't know for how long she should have been jailed, but serving 3 months seems far too short a time to me.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well youll find i just did, you however are free to disagree . And to somehow equate my wish for a false accuser to get a heavier sentence with agreement that rapists should also get also get light sentences is pretty absurd and a bit dishonest.


I gave a factual example which you seem unable to comprehend.

You also seem unable to answer the question 'Why should her sentence be longer than an actual rapists?'.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> actually no, what I meant to say was basic idiocy on this board centred around an extremist interpretation of an ideology . Theres nothing wrong with the ideology itself, its just that theres idiots on this board who adhere to it . Such as those who are openly annoyed someone who was caught out committing a crime was convicted and theirbarely disguised  preference for an innocent to be jailed because of convition statistics .


 I'd have thought the feminist ideas put forward on urban as a whole and this thread in particular are fairly central, standard, mainstream - not 'idiotic' or 'extreme'.  I also seriously doubt that feminists are anyway okay about what this woman has done.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I'd have thought the feminist ideas put forward on urban as a whole and this thread in particular are fairly central, standard, mainstream - not 'idiotic' or 'extreme'.  I also seriously doubt that feminists are anyway okay about what this woman has done.


Even when we state that no, we're quite disgusted with what she did, feminism is still used to excuse the posts he makes.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Six months is the right sentence. Banging her up for years and making an example of her doesn't stop men from raping.


 Banging her up for years would make it clear to others who make false accusations theyll do serious time. This isnt about deterring  rapists, its about deterring people from making false and malicious accusations . Its 2 different issues and 2 different crimes. Both with different but catastrophic and life changing consequences for their victims. Both should get heavier sentences.

How hard is that for you to understand


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Such as those who are openly annoyed someone who was caught out committing a crime was convicted and their barely disguised  preference for an innocent to be jailed because of convition statistics .


 
No one on this thread has said anything like that


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> actually no, what I meant to say was basic idiocy on this board centred around an extremist interpretation of an ideology . Theres nothing wrong with the ideology itself, its just that theres idiots on this board who adhere to it . Such as those who are openly annoyed someone who was caught out committing a crime was convicted and theirbarely disguised  preference for an innocent to be jailed because of convition statistics .


Show me one post on this thread where a feminist has said they would prefer an innocent man be jailed because of conviction statistics.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

a quick search shows me currently 17 posts where quartx has used the word 'rape'. there are certainly more than 2 of those where he is discussing false allegations, including one example of him making an accusation of false allegation.

I'd like to know why quartz's major interest in discussing rape is in discussing false allegation without highlighting how rare they are.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

This is why there should be anonymity for both the victim and the accused until conviction.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 27, 2013)

Re: all those who call for those making false accusations being given the same sentence as actual rapists (a bizarre idea in itself), if you actually believe that there are all these women constantly lying about rape then wouldn't proposing to give all those women long sentences discourage people from ever recanting an accusation? It seems like in reality you would have innocent men sent to prison in addition to the horror of women who have been raped also being imprisoned.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Banging her up for years would make it clear to others who make false accusations theyll do serious time. This isnt about deterring  rapists, its about deterring people from making false and malicious accusations . Its 2 different issues and 2 different crimes. Both with different but catastrophic and life changing consequences for their victims. Both should get heavier sentences.
> 
> How hard is that for you to understand


I understand it perfectly well thank you.

Better than you understanding what feminism is about.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> One, you don't get to tell me what is reasonable and what is not, Casually Red
> 
> As for jailing her, to quote you 'for a few years at least', take this delightful man who was jailed for 6 years for two counts of rape and 4 counts of sex with a child (i.e. one year per crime):
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ist-jailed-after-victim-tapes-confession.html
> ...



she already has been treated more severely than many admitted rapists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226530/100-rapists-let-caution-The-offences-come-court.html


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Even when we state that no, we're quite disgusted with what she did, feminism is still used to excuse the posts he makes.



when its dragged out of you mean, after you accused people of _bitching and moaning_ about the derisory sentence and told them to focus on something else instead . You didnt sound at all disgusted with what she did and made pretty clear it was a non issue as far as you were concerned . Thats because its unlikely you would ever be a victim of it therefore can be largely empathy free .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when its dragged out of you mean, after you accused people of _bitching and moaning_ about the derisory sentence and told them to focus on something else instead . You didnt sound at all disgusted with what she did and made pretty clear it was a non issue as far as you were concerned . Thats because its unlikely you would ever be a victim of it therefore can be largely empathy free .


My first post on this thread made it quite clear what I thought of her. You didn't read it, or if you did you ignored it, because that doesn't fit with how you want to see my viewpoint.

I am most certainly not empathy free on this, and your comments are particularly nasty and show you to be a misogynist quite clearly.

What do you think throwing her in prison for years on end will actually achieve? Do you think it will be a deterrent?


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Banging her up for years would make it clear to others who make false accusations theyll do serious time. This isnt about deterring  rapists, its about deterring people from making false and malicious accusations . Its 2 different issues and 2 different crimes. Both with different but catastrophic and life changing consequences for their victims. Both should get heavier sentences.
> 
> How hard is that for you to understand



it is an issue because the level of publicity given to the exceedingly low levels of false allegation conviction promote the idea of provably false allegation as higher than it actually is. the perception of rape victim as highly likely to be a liar is part of the problem in securing rape convictions


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when its dragged out of you mean, after you accused people of _bitching and moaning_ about the derisory sentence and told them to focus on something else instead . You didnt sound at all disgusted with what she did and made pretty clear it was a non issue as far as you were concerned . Thats because its unlikely you would ever be a victim of it therefore can be largely empathy free .


 Given the stats on who is likely to be a victim of sexual violence, isn't your reference to being 'empathy free' a little ... _ironic_.  Grim stuff CR.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> she already has been treated more severely than many admitted rapists.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226530/100-rapists-let-caution-The-offences-come-court.html




Nobody is disputing that rapists often get away with it and that they can get off too light when they are done. That doesnt remotely excuse what she did or make it any less despicable . In fact its actions like hers that help undermine the credibility of genuine victims.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

and heavy sentences make all crime go away, that is why there are no more people being banged up in 3-strikes states. oh wait.....


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Nobody is disputing that rapists often get away with it and that they can get off too light when they are done. That doesnt remotely excuse what she did or make it any less despicable . In fact its actions like hers that help undermine the credibility of genuine victims.



the high level of publicity given to cases like these with no attempt to highlight how rare they are is what does the damage, both to the number of women willing to report and to the number of people willing to believe them if they do


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red I'm still waiting for you to point to a post on this thread where a feminist would prefer an innocent man to be jailed for conviction statistics.

Go on, point it out.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> it is an issue because the level of publicity given to the exceedingly low levels of false allegation conviction promote the idea of provably false allegation as higher than it actually is. the perception of rape victim as highly likely to be a liar is part of the problem in securing rape convictions



so would it not be a good idea to deter liars from making such allegations in the first place, by making clear theres a stiff penalty for it, like any other serious cime. That would be basic commonsense.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> so would it not be a good idea to deter liars from making such allegations in the first place, by making clear theres a stiff penalty for it, like any other serious cime. That would be basic commonsense.


Deter yes. Imprison for years on end whilst convicted rapists get off with a caution, no.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> so would it not be a good idea to deter liars from making such allegations in the first place, by making clear theres a stiff penalty for it, like any other serious cime. That would be basic commonsense.



cause heavy sentences solve the kind of problems mentioned in the CPS report?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2013)

Some people really are overagitated about false rape accusations aren't they? The problem is seriously exaggerated compared to the real and serious issues to do with rape IMO.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> a quick search shows me currently 17 posts where quartx has used the word 'rape'.



I have started precisely two threads about being convicted for falsely alleging rape:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/woman-jailed-for-making-false-rape-claim.316553/

and 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/woman-jailed-after-false-rape-claim.313765/

plus one about the rape claim against Julian Assange:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/wikileaks-founder-accused-of-rape.258038/




> there are certainly more than 2 of those where he is discussing false allegations, including one example of him making an accusation of false allegation.



I assume you're talking about the Julian Assange thread, and we all know how dirty the American security services can play, don't we?



> I'd like to know why quartz's major interest in discussing rape is in discussing false allegation without highlighting how rare they are.



That discussion is not relevant to this thread.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

for example:




> In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one which he or she had reported.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Quartz said:


> I have started precisely two threads about being convicted for falsely alleging rape:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/woman-jailed-for-making-false-rape-claim.316553/
> 
> ...




it's entirely relevant as to your form for wanting to discuss false allegation rather than discuss the far more common crime of rape. and I mentioned 17 posts, not threads.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Given the stats on who is likely to be a victim of sexual violence, isn't your reference to being 'empathy free' a little ... _ironic_.  Grim stuff CR.



the woman wasnt accused of sexual violence, the crime in this instance was not sexual violence. It was a false allegation of such were none was committed . To suggest for an instant anyone who takes the view that what she did was despicable and deserving of a heavier sentence is in turn empathy free to actual rape victims is frankly to talk a complete loaf old shite. And to be deliberately dishonest, and to be scraping a very low barrel indeed.

This isnt about fucking statistics, its not the olympics,  its about the effects of despicable crimes on innocent people and how sentences should reflect that. Regardless of what gender the criminal or the criminals victim happens to be .

grim stuff my fucking arse


----------



## TruXta (Oct 27, 2013)

Threads like these are handy, all the cunts come out the woodwork. For the hard of hearing that's to the OP and CR.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Deter yes. Imprison for years on end whilst convicted rapists get off with a caution, no.



imprison both for years, how hard is that to understand


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> the woman wasnt accused of sexual violence, the crime in this instance was not sexual violence. It was a false allegation of such were none was committed . To suggest for an instant anyone who takes the view that what she did was despicable and deserving of a heavier sentence is in turn empathy free to actual rape victims is frankly to talk a complete loaf old shite. And to be deliberately dishonest, and to be scraping a very low barrel indeed.
> 
> This isnt about fucking statistics, its not the olympics,  its about the effects of despicable crimes on innocent people and how sentences should reflect that. Regardless of what gender the criminal or the criminals victim happens to be .
> 
> grim stuff my fucking arse



and it is about why someone is choosing to highlight a number of instances of an unusual crime


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Threads like these are handy, all the cunts come out the woodwork. For the hard of hearing that's to the OP and CR.



take yourself off you sanctimonious prick


----------



## TruXta (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> the woman wasnt accused of sexual violence, the crime in this instance was not sexual violence. It was a false allegation of such were none was committed . To suggest for an instant anyone who takes the view that what she did was despicable and deserving of a heavier sentence is in turn empathy free to actual rape victims is frankly to talk a complete loaf old shite. And to be deliberately dishonest, and to be scraping a very low barrel indeed.
> 
> This isnt about fucking statistics, its not the olympics,  its about the effects of despicable crimes on innocent people and how sentences should reflect that. Regardless of what gender the criminal or the criminals victim happens to be .
> 
> grim stuff my fucking arse


Accusations of rape are of course entirely unrelated to actual rape. One has ZERO to do with the other. Right?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> and it is about why someone is choosing to highlight a number of instances of an unusual crime



then take that up with that someone. That choice is  a completely different issue to the one im discussing.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> imprison both for years, how hard is that to understand


How hard is it for you to understand that rapists are already getting off practically scot-free for appalling crimes?

Don't let the facts get in the way of your witch-hunting for feminists now.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> then take that up with that someone. That choice is  a completely different issue to the one im discussing.



I'm doing so. and no, it's part of the same debate and your whittering that it isn't won't change that


----------



## fogbat (Oct 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Threads like these are handy, all the cunts come out the woodwork. For the hard of hearing that's to the OP and CR.


There was woodwork?


----------



## Chick Webb (Oct 27, 2013)

Obviously making up false rape claims is a serious wrong (usually done by people with mental health issues, I would imagine) but it's also a rare, rare thing, and much less common than actual rape, and people who seem preoccupied with the former are indeed a bit creepy.  How is any of that controversial?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> it's entirely relevant as to your form for wanting to discuss false allegation rather than discuss the far more common crime of rape. and I mentioned 17 posts, not threads.



In 4 and a half years I have used the word 'rape' 15 times other than this thread. That's not a lot. I'm not going to link every one but here's a few excerpts:

...for appearing to imply, when discussing new sentencing guidelines for rape, that some rapes aren't as bad as others  I started with...

...an expert will be along shortly, but IIRC the police have to take all rape allegations to at least this stage. I would urge you to remember the...

...that someone accused of a crime - particularly a serious crime like rape - quickly loses their job. Now, it seems to me that this is prejudging the...

Hardly creepy. Anyway, you're not interested in discussing the subject so I won't reply to you further.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Accusations of rape are of course entirely unrelated to actual rape. One has ZERO to do with the other. Right?



This was a demonstrably false accusation of rape, therefore  very different from most other accusations. How are other people being victims of sexual attack at all linked or related  to the decision of thisevil fucking  liar to make a demonstrably false rape accusation against her innocent victim ?

What is it your  trying to suggest here ?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 27, 2013)

That you're pretty thick. But you're doing a good job of that without my help.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Chick Webb said:


> Obviously making up false rape claims is a serious wrong (usually done by people with mental health issues, I would imagine) but it's also a rare, rare thing, and much less common than actual rape, and people who seem preoccupied with the former are indeed a bit creepy.  How is any of that controversial?




why do you imagine someone who commits an act of sheer badness and evil always  has to have some mitigating excuse, such as a mental issue, just because theyre a woman ? Men and women are equally capable of deliberately inflicting pain and misery on others out of sheer nastiness and a desire to inflict emotional pain and humiliation. That woman is little different from a rapist, bar the way she went about inflicting her pain and humiliation on her victim . Morally shes no different.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> That you're pretty thick. But you're doing a good job of that without my help.



i asked you to explain what rape convictions have to do with this woman making a false allegation . You havent done so because it has fuck all to do with the red herring you introduced.

Calling me thick doesnt alter that .


----------



## Chick Webb (Oct 27, 2013)

I agree with the first part of your post, Red, but not the second.  I don't for a moment think women are in some way more moral or whatever than men.   Saying being falsely accused is as bad as rape though, is nonsense.   Try a little thought experiment.  Which would you prefer?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Threads like these are handy, all the cunts come out the woodwork. For the hard of hearing that's to the OP and CR.



Not biting.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

toggle said:


> I'm doing so. and no, it's part of the same debate and your whittering that it isn't won't change that




i didnt start the fucking thread, therefore cannot answer for  the thread starters motivations in doing so . He or she is not my mate, I dont know them. Fuck all to do with me.

Capiche ?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Chick Webb said:


> Obviously making up false rape claims is a serious wrong (usually done by people with mental health issues, I would imagine) but it's also a rare, rare thing, and much less common than actual rape, and people who seem preoccupied with the former are indeed a bit creepy.  How is any of that controversial?


I don't think there's ever been a correlation proven between those with mental health issues and those who make a false rape claim (and to me it's quite an offensive thing to suggest).

It's tempting to think that to make such a claim you would have to be out of your mind, or unstable in some way, because nobody wants to think that a woman they know is capable of such a thing. In the case highlighted in the OP, I think the woman was drunk.


----------



## Chick Webb (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i didnt start the fucking thread, therefore cannot answer for  the thread starters motivations in doing so . He or she is not my mate, I dont know them. Fuck all to do with me.
> 
> Capiche ?


He, obviously


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> why do you imagine someone who commits an act of sheer badness and evil always  has to have some mitigating excuse, such as a mental issue, just because theyre a woman ? Men and women are equally capable of deliberately inflicting pain and misery on others out of sheer nastiness and a desire to inflict emotional pain and humiliation. That woman is little different from a rapist, bar the way she went about inflicting her pain and humiliation on her victim . Morally shes no different.


She is not exactly the same as a rapist for fucks sake. What she did was abhorrent but it was in no way rape.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> actually no, what I meant to say was basic idiocy on this board centred around an extremist interpretation of an ideology . Theres nothing wrong with the ideology itself, its just that theres idiots on this board who adhere to it . Such as those who are openly annoyed someone who was caught out committing a crime was convicted and theirbarely disguised  preference for an innocent to be jailed because of convition statistics .


 By the way CR, any luck in identifying the 'idiots on this board', those with the 'extremist interpretation' of feminism?  And while you are at it do you still claim there is a 'barely disguised preference for an innocent to be jailed'? 

Or.. to be less confrontational  don't you think it's sometimes okay for people, whilst acknowledging a particular wrong, to still keep in view a 'bigger' wrong.  There are ways of doing that and in acknowledging bigger pictures (regardless of the topic) it's possible to minimise the harm done to the specific victim. However I don't think that has been done for one nanosecond on this thread.


----------



## Chick Webb (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I don't think there's ever been a correlation proven between those with mental health issues and those who make a false rape claim (and to me it's quite an offensive thing to suggest).
> 
> It's tempting to think that to make such a claim you would have to be out of your mind, or unstable in some way, because nobody wants to think that a woman they know is capable of such a thing. In the case highlighted in the OP, I think the woman was drunk.


Oh come on now.  I'm being offensive to people with metal health problems (i.e. everyone to some extent, as far as I can see) to suggest this?  I just can't imagine ever considering this as a weapon in a fight, unless you were already on mad unstable mental ground.  Maybe (as this thread suggests) some people do choose to do this, coldly, out of malice, but I can't imagine it.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Chick Webb said:


> I agree with the first part of your post, Red, but not the second.  I don't for a moment think women are in some way more moral or whatever than men.   Saying being falsely accused is as bad as rape though, is nonsense.   Try a little thought experiment.  Which would you prefer?




being falsely accused and convicted of any serious crime has seriously life altering consequences. For rape the consequences and social and sexual stigma are even more serious . Good luck having a relationship and sex life after that one, much less a job or freinds . After you make it out of the beast wing were youve been banged up with actual sexual predators and filthy animals  for a few years . And if you refuse to admit your guilt youll probably get fuck all parole either .

to ask someone which of those theyd prefer is utterly fucking ridiculous. Its like asking which child youd let go to the gas chamber . Its not a competition. Both crimes have life shattering consequences for the victims and both should get well severe sentences to reflect that.


----------



## Chick Webb (Oct 27, 2013)

I couldn't be arsed with this shit, Red.  You are outlining a scenario where someone has actually done time for a rape that never happened.  Maybe that's happened, and yes that would be an injustice.  The real injustice that actually happens regularly is rapists getting away with it.   Not that we always need to talk about the two in the same sentence of course.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Chick Webb said:


> Oh come on now.  I'm being offensive to people with metal health problems (i.e. everyone to some extent, as far as I can see) to suggest this?  I just can't imagine ever considering this as a weapon in a fight, unless you were already on mad unstable mental ground.  Maybe (as this thread suggests) some people do choose to do this, coldly, out of malice, but I can't imagine it.



do rapists have mental health issues ? Who in their right  mind would do that to another human being ?
Rapists and people like this both seek to assert power over their victims and take their satisfaction from their victims utter personal and sexual humiliation . To be innocently convicted of rape is a form of sexual humiliation, it marks you out as a sexual deviant and sex beast . Due to anatomical differences they go about their crimes in different ways, but both are just as malicious , dangerous and twisted as each other .
Peole can be downright evil, regardless of their gender . Its not hard to imagine at all .


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> being falsely accused and convicted of any serious crime has seriously life altering consequences. For rape the consequences and social and sexual stigma are even more serious . Good luck having a relationship and sex life after that one, much less a job or freinds . After you make it out of the beast wing were youve been banged up with actual sexual predators and filthy animals  for a few years . And if you refuse to admit your guilt youll probably get fuck all parole either .



No one falsely accused in the case used as the example was remanded or charged with anything.............and out of interest what would you do then with cases where the accused is aquitted/case not proven ? are they also false allegations ? do you think those women/men should be charged with making a false claim ?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Chick Webb said:


> You are outlining a scenario where someone has actually done time for a rape that never happened.  *Maybe that's happened,*



oh for fucks sake


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> No one falsely accused in the case used as the example was remanded or charged with anything.............and out of interest what would you do then with cases where the accused is aquitted/case not proven ? are they also false allegations ? do you think those women/men should be charged with making a false claim ?



with respect go back and read my earlier posts were i referred directly to that, please


----------



## Chick Webb (Oct 27, 2013)

Vanishingly small


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Chick Webb said:


> Oh come on now.  I'm being offensive to people with metal health problems (i.e. everyone to some extent, as far as I can see) to suggest this?  I just can't imagine ever considering this as a weapon in a fight, unless you were already on mad unstable mental ground.  Maybe (as this thread suggests) some people do choose to do this, coldly, out of malice, but I can't imagine it.


From p191 of 'Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation' edited by R Hazelewood:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iV398oA5DdsC&pg=PA181&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false



> Those who make false rape allegations may have legitimate problems worthy of their own attention in their own right. Yet if their allegations are taken at face value rather than as symptoms of psychological needs, the legitimate problems may go untreated and result in future difficulties. As has been previously stated, a false allegation, especially when it is based on malice, can result in a grievous injustice.



The article goes on further to state that the false accusation may be driven by the need for attention/sympathy, by the need for revenge, or to generate an alibi to cover for something she shouldn't have been doing.

But it does not say that everyone who makes a false accusation has mental health problems. It's like say everyone with mental health problems is a killer.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 27, 2013)

*Young mother jailed for making two false rape claims within hours after getting drunk and sleeping with friend's partner*

Ashleigh Loder, 25, was jailed for 6 months for perverting course of justice 
Drunk on vodka, she told police two men raped her in an alley way
But later accused her friend's partner after tests disproved her story

That one, CR?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 27, 2013)

I believe mentalchic was saying she may have accused men of raping her...but no-one was actually charged with it...so...duh...whatever.

It's not really a crime, you know.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 27, 2013)

I think a caution and some counselling would have been better. No way should she be jailed.


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 27, 2013)




----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I don't think there's ever been a correlation proven between those with mental health issues and those who make a false rape claim (and to me it's quite an offensive thing to suggest).
> 
> It's tempting to think that to make such a claim you would have to be out of your mind, or unstable in some way, because nobody wants to think that a woman they know is capable of such a thing. In the case highlighted in the OP, I think the woman was drunk.



she kept up with the lies for weeks afterwards, where id assume she was sober for a while . Id also assume had the scuzzball she accused not filmed it shed have kept her lies up for the rest of her life .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> she kept up with the lies for weeks afterwards, where id assume she was sober for a while . Id also assume had the scuzzball she accused not filmed it shed have kept her lies up for the rest of her life .


But that doesn't mean she had mental health problems, more that she was scared of what would happen when she was found out. How often do you know someone who's lied to just turn round and admit they made the whole thing up?


----------



## rover07 (Oct 27, 2013)

I don't think the bloke is innocent in all this. Sounds to me like he was playing mind games with this woman and got himself burned.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 27, 2013)

rover07 said:


> I don't think the bloke is innocent in all this. Sounds to me like he was playing mind games with this woman and got himself burned.


Indeed.....but then you seem to be a bit of a sexist.

Of course you're _the right kind of sexist for urban_


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 27, 2013)




----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> But that doesn't mean she had mental health problems, more that she was scared of what would happen when she was found out. How often do you know someone who's lied to just turn round and admit they made the whole thing up?




I never said she did have mental problems . Or even suggested such . Ive been pretty explicit on my opinion shes just a nasty piece of work who was out to humiliate and disempower  a victim for some twisted personal gratification . 

Im quite sure rapists will lie too and be scared of what will happen when found out . They rarely turn round and admit it either .


----------



## weepiper (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> shes just a nasty piece of work who was out to humiliate and disempower  a victim for some twisted personal gratification .



Wtf? How do you get that from the news report?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> *Young mother jailed for making two false rape claims within hours after getting drunk and sleeping with friend's partner*
> 
> Ashleigh Loder, 25, was jailed for 6 months for perverting course of justice
> Drunk on vodka, she told police two men raped her in an alley way
> ...



i dont understand, what are you referring to


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 27, 2013)

The OP.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Wtf? How do you get that from the news report?



the same way when i read a news report of woman being raped I dont assume it was a result of an excess of love on her attackers part . That it was just a fucking slimeball trying to victimise and humiliate someone.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> She is not exactly the same as a rapist for fucks sake. What she did was abhorrent but it was in no way rape.


Surely her crime is more comparable to attempted rape, since she got caught out.

Both crimes are disgusting and can utterly ruin lives, the fact that one is much rarer than the other is of scant comfort to those victims of the less common crime. 

The greater reportage of false rape allegations can be attributed to it's rarity, whilst rape is depressingly all too common. 

The fact that stranger rape gets much more coverage than rape carried out by someone known to the victim can also partly be put down to this, that and it taps into deep seated if not totally rational fears/prejudices. False rape allegations also tap into such largely irrational fears, looming large in the public imagination despite it's rarity. 

The media fixation on the gilted women also plays into this, despite the fact that for every one vindictive "bunny boiler" there are far more violent abusive exe husbands and boyfriends. The fact that bunnyboilers are talked about primarily in terms of mental instability whilst violent men aren't is interesting too, male violence of course even where condemned is still broadly understood as rational.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

rover07 said:


> I don't think the bloke is innocent in all this. Sounds to me like he was playing mind games with this woman and got himself burned.



Either this is a very subtle and clever send up of victim blaming or you're a twat.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 27, 2013)

I’ve not a got a problem with someone who makes a false allegation of rape being given a significant sentence - an unpleasant crime which could have very serious consequences for the accused, even if found innocent.

But what sends my blood pressure off the scale is the scandalously short sentences given to actual rapists.

If Urbanites really want get hot under the collar about something then it's prison terms of four or five years for rape – especially in cases of multiple attacks where sentences may run concurrently. Unbelievable and frankly disgusting.

In the absence of capital punishment (which I actually think some rapists deserve) I’d be quite happy for a 0 to be added to the end of all rape sentences as a matter of course.

No prison segregation either – so the fuckers can experience the terror they subjected their victims to every day.

I’d probably extend the same largesse to those who traffic women for sex as well.

By the way, I wouldn’t bother having a go at me for my knee-jerk reactions (which are actually anything but knee-jerk) because I don’t care.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> But that doesn't mean she had mental health problems, more that she was scared of what would happen when she was found out. How often do you know someone who's lied to just turn round and admit they made the whole thing up?



The tendency to pathologise female crimes is tied to some very patriarchal notions, ideas of female purity, of women being "broken" etc


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 27, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> ...In the absence of capital punishment (which I actually think some rapists deserve) I’d be quite happy for a 0 to be added to the end of all rape sentences as a matter of course...


Which would mean the rapist is more likely to murder you to avoid being caught?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

A cunt got a suspended sentence for sexual abuse of his daughter, that was the 90's I'd hope that wouldn't happen now.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Which would mean the rapist is more likely to murder you to avoid being caught?



Really, I don't think most rapists would be thinking like that. That's the thinking of a sociopath and sadly its not just sociopaths who commit rape.

Not calling you a psychopath ;-)


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 27, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Which would mean the rapist is more likely to murder you to avoid being caught?


 
If you take that argument to it's logical conclusion the best way to ensure a woman who's raped isn't then murdered is to reduce sentences for rape.

My hunch, and it is only a hunch, is that most rapists wouldn't kill. Rape and murder are two totally different crimes with different motivations.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

happie chappie said:


> I’ve not a got a problem with someone who makes a false allegation of rape being given a significant sentence - an unpleasant crime which could have very serious consequences for the accused, even if found innocent.
> 
> But what sends my blood pressure off the scale is the scandalously short sentences given to actual rapists.
> 
> ...




I agree with what your saying but theres  people treating this like its the statistic olympics. Victims of false rape allegations should not have to shoulder any responsibility whatsoever for the actions of sexual criminals or the failure of authorities to do their job properly. Theyre still entitled to proper justice .That does not even remotely justify a soft sentence for their accuser . 2 injustices does not equate to justice .

I think anyone caught out making a false allegation of rape, whether they are male or female, should be looking at 3 years minimum . I also think theres a number of posters on here who are pretty blase about the catastrophic effects such crimes can have on the lives of their victims . Its not like getting falsely convicted of bank robbery or fraud, or football hooliganism . If they themselves have never been falsely convicted of a heinous  sexual crime and all the stigma thats attendant to that for an innocent person then they have no grounds whatsoever to claim.._its not as bad as.._. Thats just talking out of their hole frankly . They simply havent a clue how bad that would be for someone, socially, mentally or sexually for the rest of their lives.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I agree with what your saying but theres  people treating this like its the statistic olympics. Victims of false rape allegations should not have to shoulder any responsibility whatsoever for the actions of sexual criminals or the failure of authorities to do their job properly. Theyre still entitled to proper justice .That does not even remotely justify a soft sentence for their accuser . 2 injustices does not equate to justice .
> 
> I think anyone caught out making a false allegation of rape, whether they are male or female, should be looking at 3 years minimum . I also think theres a number of posters on here who are pretty blase about the catastrophic effects such crimes can have on the lives of their victims . Its not like getting falsely convicted of bank robbery or fraud, or football hooliganism . If they themselves have never been falsely convicted of a heinous  sexual crime and all the stigma thats attendant to that for an innocent person then they have no grounds whatsoever to claim.._its not as bad as.._. Thats just talking out of their hole frankly . They simply havent a clue how bad that would be for someone, socially, mentally or sexually for the rest of their lives.


Name these people on urban who are pretty blase about these things then, that's the second time on this thread you've made such a claim and so far you haven't backed it up in the slightest.

It's ironic that you make such groundless accusations given your claims.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> . If they themselves have never been falsely convicted of a heinous  sexual crime and all the stigma thats attendant to that for an innocent person then they have no grounds whatsoever to claim.._its not as bad as.._. Thats just talking out of their hole frankly .


 Yes, but as a matter of simple logic, neither can someone who hasn't been raped decide that having false accusations of rape against you is as bad. 

Maybe obvious, but I'm making that as a _general_ point and ain't making any assumptions about what you or people in your life might have suffered.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> The tendency to pathologise female crimes is tied to some very patriarchal notions, ideas of female purity, of women being "broken" etc




indeed, but a problem  on urban is if you say its because she was a nasty piece of work with purely malicious intent theyll all gang up and call you a misogynist cunt .


----------



## weepiper (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> indeed, but a problem  on urban is if you say its because she was a nasty piece of work with purely malicious intent theyll all gang up and call you a misogynist cunt .



But you_ are_ a misogynist cunt.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Yes, but as a matter of simple logic, neither can someone who hasn't been raped decide that having false accusations of rape against you is as bad.
> 
> Maybe obvious, but I'm making that as a _general_ point and ain't making any assumptions about what you or people in your life might have suffered.



except i havent compared the two though, ive said that to compare the two is ridiculous . And compared it to sophies choice, which kid goes to the gas chamber . Its not a preference anyone should have to express .


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> indeed, but a problem  on urban is if you say its because she was a nasty piece of work with purely malicious intent theyll all gang up and call you a misogynist cunt .


 Like a lot of crimes, I doubt that's how it started out. I'm not going reading the original story again, but it sounds like she got pissed, had sex and woke up with a massive hangover,panicked and did something both horrible and very stupid.  _Sticking with her shitty story_ was the malicious bit (and yes, I do acknowledge the impact on the bloke, which could have got a lot worse if it had gone to court).


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> indeed, but a problem  on urban is if you say its because she was a nasty piece of work with purely malicious intent theyll all gang up and call you a misogynist cunt .



Tbf that might happen to you because the shite you talked about Galloway and his rape apologism.

On the other hand looking purely at your posts on this thread, non of them I feel warrant the accusation of misogyny.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

thankyou, thats because they arent and im not .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Tbf that might happen to you because the shite you talked about Galloway and his rape apologism.
> 
> On the other hand looking purely at your posts on this thread, non of them I feel warrant the accusation of misogyny.


Really? Look at the ones where he accuses me of preferring an innocent man of going to prison for convictions rates.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Really? Look at the ones where he accuses me of preferring an innocent man of going to prison for convictions rates.



That suggests he's having a beef with you and is giving a very uncharitable reading, dickish, yup but pretty much the MO for Urban arguments, it's not misogyny, or at least I have no evidence that this misrepresentation of your posts is motivated by a hatred of you as a women. Having argued with Casually Red on a whole host of topics I can confirm that such approaches are equally applied to male posters.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Like a lot of crimes, I doubt that's how it started out. I'm not going reading the original story again, but it sounds like she got pissed, had sex and woke up with a massive hangover,panicked and did something both horrible and very stupid.  _Sticking with her shitty story_ was the malicious bit (and yes, I do acknowledge the impact on the bloke, which could have got a lot worse if it had gone to court).



im sorry but ive been pissed and had sex which ive woke up with a hangover and regretted . Not phoning is a shitty thing to do . Sneaking out while saying your going to the shop for fags  is a shitty thing to do . Avoiding  them in the street is a shitty thing to do .
Going to the cops and trying to completely destroy someones life though, whether drunk or sober or in between,  is an unmistakably vicious and malicious thing to do . Its unforgivable and there arent any mitigating factors in my view . Rapists and attempted rapists can be pretty stupid too . Whether they were drunk at the time has fuck all to do with it . Whether they were remorseful afterwards has neither . What she did wasnt stupid, it was evil . How she went about it was stupid but that just makes her victim luckier than he might have been .


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

I think describing it as "shitty" and "stupid" is pretty fucked up and like I said ties into the infantilisation of women.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> That suggests he's having a beef with you and is giving a very uncharitable reading, dickish, yup but pretty much the MO for Urban arguments, it's not misogyny, or at least I have no evidence that this misrepresentation of your posts is motivated by a hatred of you as a women. Having argued with Casually Red on a whole host of topics I can confirm that such approaches are equally applied to male posters.




i dont hate her in the slightest , she often makes quite good posts. I just took exception to the general tone of a few earlier on and inferences she seemed to be making . She made some good points later about mental health issues.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I think describing it as "shitty" and "stupid" is pretty fucked up and like I said ties into the infantilisation of women.



theres definitely gender based excuses being made there


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im sorry but ive been pissed and had sex which ive woke up with a hangover and regretted . Not phoning is a shitty thing to do . Sneaking out while saying your going to the shop for fags  is a shitty thing to do . Avoiding  them in the street is a shitty thing to do .
> Going to the cops and trying to completely destroy someones life though, whether drunk or sober or in between,  is an unmistakably vicious and malicious thing to do . Its unforgivable and there arent any mitigating factors in my view . Rapists and attempted rapists can be pretty stupid too . Whether they were drunk at the time has fuck all to do with it . Whether they were remorseful afterwards has neither . What she did wasnt stupid, it was evil . How she went about it was stupid but that just makes her victim luckier than he might have been .


 Tut tut, now you really are being a twat.  I only said her _story_ was shitty, as you know. I've agreed with your 'malicious'.  I'm not suggesting the fact that the likely start to this was getting pissed as mitigation - it clearly, full on, absolutely isn't.  I'm only suggesting, like many like many false accusations of any kind, it probably started out with stupidity - a stupidity that could have had devastating consequences.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Name these people on urban who are pretty blase about these things then, that's the second time on this thread you've made such a claim and so far you haven't backed it up in the slightest.
> 
> It's ironic that you make such groundless accusations given your claims.



well i made a post at the outset were i referred to these false accusations as heinous and despicable . As a result of that I was called a despicable piece of shit . And you liked the post that called me a despicable piece of shit .
Now call me old fashioned, or perhaps overly picky, but i assumed from that point on you regarded anyone who thought false rape accusations were a heinous crime as a despicable piece of shit . And responded accordingly . Mind you i only called you an idiot, not a despicable peiece of shit . Or a cunt . As i was reffered to afterwards, constantly . By many people .

But as specifically regards your own posts you elucidated that an innocent man being sent down for rape was sometyhing you _wouldnt be happy with_ . You then stated however that a rapist getting away with it was an actual injustice..or _what is the injustice_. I think most people could see a divergence in your views on the 2 issues and draw some conclusions . Namely the one I drew from it .


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Tut tut, now you really are being a twat.  I only said her _story_ was shitty, as you know. I've agreed with your 'malicious'.  I'm not suggesting the fact that the likely start to this was getting pissed as mitigation - it clearly, full on, absolutely isn't.  I'm only suggesting, like many like many false accusations of any kind, it probably started out with stupidity - a stupidity that could have had devastating consequences.



Can you not see the problem with the phrase "started out as stupidity"?

Things that start out with stupidity and drink are kicking wing mirrors, stealing flags from a golf course and drunk dialling your ex.

Deliberately making a false rape claim is far beyond that.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I think describing it as "shitty" and "stupid" is pretty fucked up and like I said ties into the infantilisation of women.


  Why?  The word 'shitty' doesn't relate to 'infantilisation' anyway, but why does a suggestion that this started off with stupidity tar women more generally??  I'll grant we don't know much detail, but there's every chance stupidity was in play in the first hours of this (something which became something else when she persisted with it).  That's not adding to any broader narrative about men and women, it's just a guess as to how this specific thing played out.  What's the alternative, that she planned it all beforehand (not likely)?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Why?  The word 'shitty' doesn't relate to 'infantilisation' anyway, but why does a suggestion that this started off with stupidity tar women more generally??  I'll grant we don't know much detail, but there's every chance stupidity was in play in the first hours of this (something which became something else when she persisted with it).  That's not adding to any broader narrative about men and women, it's just a guess as to how this specific thing played out.  What's the alternative, that she planned it all beforehand (not likely)?



Jesus, I don't know or care what stupidity she was looking to possibly cover up, the point is that false claim didn't stem from the stupidity, it came from a more malicious place.

When Bill Clinton got himself involved with an intern it could be described as stupidity, when he subsequently ordered a cruise missile strike on a medical facility to distract from it, we don't say that the strike stemmed from the initial stupidity, no matter the fact that yes technically it sort of did. That's because it removes the possibility of agency within the chain of events.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Can you not see the problem with the phrase "started out as stupidity"?
> 
> Things that start out with stupidity and drink are kicking wing mirrors, stealing flags from a golf course and drunk dialling your ex.
> 
> Deliberately making a false rape claim is far beyond that.


 And things that began as stupidity and drink have resulted in murder.  Suggesting that something may have begun in drink and stupidity and then became something much worse (as I have done) doesn't seem too unreasonable.  How my guess as to the origins of this leads to me infantilising women leaves me


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Why?  The word 'shitty' doesn't relate to 'infantilisation' anyway, but why does a suggestion that this started off with stupidity tar women more generally??  I'll grant we don't know much detail, but there's every chance stupidity was in play in the first hours of this (something which became something else when she persisted with it).  That's not adding to any broader narrative about men and women, it's just a guess as to how this specific thing played out.  What's the alternative, that she planned it all beforehand (not likely)?



ok then . What do you think would be my or anyone elses urban online fate if there was a case of a mans rape conviction and I or anyone else said, it was a stupid thing to do, shitty right enough, but probably due to too much drink and not something hed probably do normally. Probably never started out the evening planning on raping anyone at all, not even a little bit . And that it just sort of happened, played out that way . Largely due to his own stupidity . And drink .

I suspect there might be a bot of consternation expressed . Indeed, possibly umbrage taken . And rightly so too I reckon .


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> And things that began as stupidity and drink have resulted in murder.  Suggesting that something may have begun in drink and stupidity and then became something much worse (as I have done) doesn't seem too unreasonable.  How my guess as to the origins of this leads to me infantilising women leaves me



Would you describe the murder as stemming from stupidity, if so then the problem isn't that you are unconsciously reproducing notions of female infantilisation but rather are just a muppet.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> ok then . What do you think would be my or anyone elses urban online fate if there was a case of a mans rape conviction and I or anyone else said, it was a stupid thing to do, shitty right enough, but probably due to too much drink and not something hed probably do normally. Probably never started out the evening planning on raping anyone at all, not even a little bit . And that it just sort of happened, played out that way . Largely due to his own stupidity . And drink .
> 
> I suspect there might be a bot of consternation expressed . Indeed, possibly umbrage taken . And rightly so too I reckon .


 Wow, what a comparison.  When I referred to the origins of this I was clearly referring to her possible thoughts and motivations up to the time she spoke to whoever she did to start this process off.  What you are referring to is actual rape.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well i made a post at the outset were i referred to these false accusations as heinous and despicable . As a result of that I was called a despicable piece of shit . And you liked the post that called me a despicable piece of shit .
> Now call me old fashioned, or perhaps overly picky, but i assumed from that point on you regarded anyone who thought false rape accusations were a heinous crime as a despicable piece of shit . And responded accordingly . Mind you i only called you an idiot, not a despicable peiece of shit . Or a cunt . As i was reffered to afterwards, constantly . By many people .
> 
> But as specifically regards your own posts you elucidated that an innocent man being sent down for rape was sometyhing you _wouldnt be happy with_ . You then stated however that a rapist getting away with it was an actual injustice..or _what is the injustice_. I think most people could see a divergence in your views on the 2 issues and draw some conclusions . Namely the one I drew from it .


Right. So you still can't name these people then.

I'm sure the irony of you making false accusations on a thread about false accusations is lost on you.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Wow, what a comparison.  When I referred to the origins of this I was clearly referring to her possible thoughts and motivations up to the time she spoke to whoever she did to start this process off.  What you are referring to is actual rape.



well as she was deliberately trying to destroy someones life id imagine she was thinking something along the lines of _..it would be really good to destroy someones life .Id really enjoy that , so Im going to make up a story , go to the cops and destroy someones life this evening._


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Wow, what a comparison.  When I referred to the origins of this I was clearly referring to her possible thoughts and motivations up to the time she spoke to whoever she did to start this process off.  What you are referring to is actual rape.



Your imperviousness to logic is almost commendable.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i dont hate her in the slightest , she often makes quite good posts. I just took exception to the general tone of a few earlier on and inferences she seemed to be making . She made some good points later about mental health issues.


'She'? I have a name, and it would be respectful of you to use it instead of referring to me as some object.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well as she was deliberately trying to destroy someones life id imagine she was thinking something along the lines of _..it would be really good to destroy someones life .Id really enjoy that , so Im going to make up a story , go to the cops and destroy someones life this evening._



I don't think she had to be thinking that in order to warrant stronger words than "stupid".


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Would you describe the murder as stemming from stupidity, if so then the problem isn't that you are unconsciously reproducing notions of female infantilisation but rather are just a muppet.


 
 There's a difference between 'started out' (my term, strictly chronological) and your 'stemming' from (which isn't).


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Right. So you still can't name these people then.
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you making false accusations on a thread about false accusations is lost on you.



im naming you then. You clearly  differentiated between an innocent man having his life destroyed as something your merely_ not happy about_, and a rapist getting away with it as an actual injustice . Meaning you dont regard an innocent person being destroyed on false accusations as a major injustice .You demonstrated a pretty glaring blase attitude and hypocrisy in your attitude towards the 2 . As well as underlining your agreement with the position to regard it as a despicable and heinous crime makes one a despicable shit .

Now that you ask .


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> 'She'? I have a name, and it would be respectful of you to use it instead of referring to me as some object.



I'm not a fan of casually red but that's a cheap trick.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> There's a difference between 'started out' (my term, strictly chronological) and your 'stemming' from (which isn't).



Would you ever describe a rape as starting out as stupidity, I would hope not.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I'm not a fan of casually red but that's a cheap trick.


How is asking to be referred to by name when he refers to me as 'she' a cheap trick?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> 'She'? I have a name, and it would be respectful of you to use it instead of referring to me as some object.



no problemo, your ladyship . I shall specifically refer to you  by your online psuedonym from hereon in . Now that youve asked me so nicely .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> How is asking to be referred to by name when *he* refers to me as 'she' a cheap trick?



who am i, the dogs dinner ? I demand to be referred to by my online psuedonym as well .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im naming you then. You clearly  differentiated between an innocent man having his life destroyed as something your merely_ not happy about_, and a rapist getting away with it as an actual injustice . Meaning you dont regard an innocent person being destroyed on false accusations as a major injustice .You demonstrated a pretty glaring blase attitude and hypocrisy in your attitude towards the 2 . As well as underlining your agreement with the position to regard it as a despicable and heinous crime makes one a despicable shit .
> 
> Now that you ask .


That's all complete bollocks and you know it.

I have described what she did as abhorrent. I would be appalled, unhappy, disgusted, whatever about an innocent man being sent to jail. For the record I don't that's something that needs to be explicitly stated, I think pretty much unanimously urban would find such a thing unacceptable.

Perhaps if you actually read my posts instead of trying to twist the words in them to fit your own viewpoints and hatred of feminists then you would see my actual views.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> How is asking to be referred to by name when he refers to me as 'she' a cheap trick?



you liked a post calling cr a misogynist cunt.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you liked a post calling cr a misogynist cunt.



and another one calling me a _despicable piece of  shit_


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you liked a post calling cr a misogynist cunt.


He is. And this isn't the first time he's had a go at anyone expressing a feminist viewpoint.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Would you ever describe a rape as starting out as stupidity, I would hope not.


 No, I see rapes _stemming_ from power.  Anyway, back to the see-saw, how would you characterise what led this woman to make and persist with her accusation?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> and another one calling me a _despicable piece of  shit_


Maybe if you weren't throwing false accusations around yourself I wouldn't have to.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2013)

Wilf said:


> No, I see rapes _stemming_ from power.  Anyway, back to the see-saw, how would you characterise what led this woman to make and persist with her accusation?


In that book I linked to about rape investigations there are several different types of allegation. Some involve fantasy on behalf of the accuser.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> How is asking to be referred to by name when he refers to me as 'she' a cheap trick?



Because the request in conjunction with the claim that he is otherwise treating you as an object is not so subtly aiming to reinforce the accusation of misogyny.

I have never seen anyone take issue about someone using shorter pronouns rather than their full internet name.

Anyway I'm fed up white knighting for a poster I'm less than fond of.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

ill rise above it and not hold grudges though


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> He is. And this isn't the first time he's had a go at anyone expressing a feminist viewpoint.



stop bitching and moaning


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Because the request in conjunction with the claim that he is otherwise treating you as an object is not so subtly aiming to reinforce the accusation of misogyny.
> 
> I have never seen anyone take issue about someone using shorter pronouns rather than their full internet name.
> 
> Anyway I'm fed up white knighting for a poster I'm less than fond of.


That's your interpretation. That's not why I asked to be referred to as a person, I asked because it's polite and if someone referred to me irl in the third person while I was standing right there I would say the same thing.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

Wilf said:


> No, I see rapes _stemming_ from power.  Anyway, back to the see-saw, how would you characterise what led this woman to make and persist with her accusation?



I said starting out, not stemming, as per your own distinction.

I'm out, you're either being wilfully dishonest or are thick as pig shit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> He is. And this isn't the first time he's had a go at anyone expressing a feminist viewpoint.



bet you a tenner I can find you a post by you about a male poster where  you've refered to him as 'he'.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> stop bitching and moaning


You're just hilarious.

Anyway how about you actually name all these people who want innocent men convicted, because people implies more than just me.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> bet you a tenner I can find you a post by you about a male poster where  you've refered to him as 'he'.


Yes, because that's the biggest issue on this thread isn't it. Not that false accusations can put innocent men in prison, not that the accusers can get sentences longer than actual convicted rapists, it's that you want to trawl through posts to prove a point.

go for it.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

Wilf said:


> No, I see rapes _stemming_ from power.  Anyway, back to the see-saw, how would you characterise what led this woman to make and persist with her accusation?



obviously to exercise power over her victim id have thought


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> stop bitching and moaning



can you show us all these evil feminists who would be happy to see innocent men convicted?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> That's your interpretation. That's not why I asked to be referred to as a person, I asked because it's polite and if someone referred to me irl in the third person while I was standing right there I would say the same thing.



Come on, an appeal for politeness on the back of the terms you two have been throwing at each other? 

Like I said I've never seen pronoun ever raised as an issue on here, so I do have a grudging respect for the inventiveness of it.  It's especially impressive since you're meant to be a maths nerd.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

Some women do maintain a delusion that the accuser will become her lover if she makes the accusation (I have no idea how that works logically).

Some women have a pathological need for attention and being at the centre of things, similar to munchausens but not in a medical setting.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> obviously to exercise power over her victim id have thought



no idea, but from the looks of the cps report, that motivation would be in the minority of cases.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Come on, an appeal for politeness on the back of the terms you two have been throwing at each other?
> 
> Like I said I've never seen pronoun ever raised as an issue on here, so I do have a grudging respect for the inventiveness of it.


Believe what you want to believe. I've made myself clear.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Yes, because that's the biggest issue on this thread isn't it. Not that false accusations can put innocent men in prison, not that the accusers can get sentences longer than actual convicted rapists, it's that you want to trawl through posts to prove a point.
> 
> go for it.[/quote
> you made this an issue, not me


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

No, YOU chose to make what I posted an issue.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> That's your interpretation. That's not why I asked to be referred to as a person, I asked because it's polite and if someone referred to me irl in the third person while I was standing right there I would say the same thing.



is it also your interpretation of polite to nod and agree when someone refers to someone in the first person as a cunt and a despicable piece of shit, while theyre standing right there, so to speak . Id settle for _he_ instead .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> No, YOU chose to make what I posted an issue.



that's a stupid response. How dare i pull you up on what you posted?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

toggle said:


> no idea, but from the looks of the cps report, that motivation would be in the minority of cases.



thats the same cps that wouldnt prosecute saville yeah


----------



## Favelado (Oct 28, 2013)

If people completely stopped using subject pronouns in company, both in real life and and on the internet, it would be very strange indeed.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> is it also your interpretation of polite to nod and agree when someone refers to someone in the first person as a cunt and a despicable piece of shit, while theyre standing right there, so to speak . Id settle for _he_ instead .


If they've accused me of preferring to see innocent people in prison, when I've clearly said nothing of the sort, yes they are.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Believe what you want to believe. I've made myself clear.



Honestly, this kind of passive aggressive shit is below you. I don't know what previous you have with Casually Red (note no pro noun ), personally I have plenty, but tricks like that only serve to undermine your own argument.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> If they've accused me of preferring to see innocent people in prison, when I've clearly said nothing of the sort, yes they are.



i assume _they_ have a name, and that _they_ are referred to by it in polite circles. At least by those whove had an upbringing with even a modicum of basic manners and propriety .


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I said starting out, not stemming, as per your own distinction.
> .


I know you did, you silly fucker, I'm just playing your game.



> I'm out, you're either being wilfully dishonest or are thick as pig shit


 I've made a careful distinction between describing the possible chronological origins of this in terms of stupidity/panic/drink, along with a view that the continuation of it made it far worse (_malicious_ to use your and CRs term - a word I've _repeated_).  Beyond petty abuse, I'm yet to hear anything from you why this amounts to an infantilisation of women.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

Favelado said:


> If people completely stopped using subject pronouns in company, both in real life and and on the internet, it would be very strange indeed.



so this isnt strange as fuck in your opinion


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> obviously to exercise power over her victim id have thought


 If she was seeking to exercise power over him, unless she made that decision only on waking up the morning after, it suggests she planned it beforehand. Not impossible, but I think I prefer my brand of wild speculation.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 28, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Which would mean the rapist is more likely to murder you to avoid being caught?


Only if you think it is as easy to get away with murder as it is to get away with rape.

The police can't ignore murders and claiming that the victim consented to being killed is unlikely to work as a defense.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> so this isnt strange as fuck in your opinion



I'm saying I don't agree that it's always rude to use "he" and "she" in the company of the person you're referring to. It doesn't necessarily objectify them either.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

Wilf said:


> If she was seeking to exercise power over him, unless she made that decision only on waking up the morning after, it suggests she planned it beforehand. Not impossible, but I think I prefer my brand of wild speculation.



not really . Its something she could have been thinking of doing generally for quite a while, or maybe just something she could do some day for a while, and then just went for it . We dont know what evil was going through her mind . Just as most date rapes probably arent planned beforehand either . Fucked up nasty people do fucked up nasty things with dreadful consequences for other people all the time. Some planned out, some on the spur of the moment without much planning . Doesnt make them any less despicable . Just some even more despicable than others .


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> not really . Its something she could have been thinking of doing generally for quite a while, or maybe just something she could do some day for a while, and then just went for it . We dont know what evil was going through her mind . Just as most date rapes probably arent planned beforehand either . Fucked up nasty people do fucked up nasty things with dreadful consequences for other people all the time. Some planned out, some on the spur of the moment without much planning . Doesnt make them any less despicable . Just some even more despicable than others .


 And that, I suspect is the nearest we'll get to agreeing tonight.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I'm saying I don't agree that it's always rude to use "he" and "she" in the company of the person you're referring to. It doesn't necessarily objectify them either.



it doesnt at all in my view. I almost thought she..sorry..Equation Lady..was joking there for a minute . Objectifying was beyond the biscuit for me .

Anyways, mebbe we should give it a rest . A number of people disagreeing with a poster can come accross as online bullying sometimes and I wouldnt want to be thought of as inadvertantly doing that and im sure others wouldnt either . Even if i am right and shes wrong .


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

Imagine she made her accusation using pronouns...


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it doesnt at all in my view. I almost thought she..sorry..Equation Lady..was joking there for a minute . Objectifying was beyond the biscuit for me .
> 
> Anyways, mebbe we should give it a rest . A number of people disagreeing with a poster can come accross as online bullying sometimes and I wouldnt want to be thought of as inadvertantly doing that and im sure others wouldnt either . Even if i am right and shes wrong .



Now you're being passive aggressive.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 28, 2013)

Well, I've nothing at all against Equation Girl. Zero. I just chipped in with that little thing about words.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Well, I've nothing at all against Equation Girl. Zero. I just chipped in with that little thing about words.



me neither .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Now you're being passive aggressive.



only a tiny wee bit . I honestly wouldnt want her to think i was trying to do any of that online bullying shit, regardless of any differences . That bits genuine .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> id suggest its evidence of no such thing , and that a low conviction rate is simply linked to a low rate of prosecutions in the first place .



Nope, low conviction rate has nothing to do with a low rate of prosecutions, the former has very little to do with the latter.  The volume of convictions of the small number of prosecutions is low - in other words you're dealing with a criminal justice system that fails to secure a conviction in a majority of the small number (relative to rapes reported to the police) of prosecutions.



> And while I dont for a minute believe theres an exceedingly high rate of false accusations I do believe its a particulrly despicable and heinous crime that a lot more people get away with than many would like to admit .



Well, as long as we know it's a belief based on your perception, rather than in fact.



> Mainly due to ideological reasons .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

Quartz said:


> It's a different case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know what's interesting?
That you'd start two threads on the subject in the first place, because while it doesn't imply a compulsion, it does imply an interest in such cases.
The question is, why?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why don't you answer the questions put to you, Quartz?
> 
> I think her sentence was probably right, although she isn't likely to serve all of it is she? How long would you bang her up for, a year, two, more?
> 
> I also think it's more disturbing that cases like this seem to get prosecuted succesfully when so many rape cases aren't.



Possibly the single biggest reason for the failure of so many prosecutions is to do with behaviour, or more accurately that people are led, mostly via media representations, to expect particular behaviours from women who have been sexually assaulted, and assumptions about how a raped woman should behave saturate not only the criminal justice system, but the public too.
So, when a defence barrister brings up the supposedly-atypical behaviour of the complainant - that she didn't seem particularly traumatised to the police, for example - the jury, operating from the same set of assumptions, buys into a narrative that basically says "if she didn't go half-crazy with anguish, she probably didn't get raped".  Of course, that totally misses the effects of such phenomena as peri-traumatic dissociation, but hey, that's just psychological hocus-pocus, isn't it?
The police can go into court with a solid case, and the defendant can still be acquited if the defence barrister manages to deploy that narrative successfully.  IIRC about a third of reported cases go to trial, out of which more than two-thirds of the tried cases do not secure a conviction.  If we bear in mind that those cases that go to trial are "the cream of the crop", the ones the CPS believe they have a greater-than-evens chance of securing a conviction from, and if we accept that the CPS prosecutors are capable in their jobs, then we need to accept that possibly the biggest block to rape convictions is us buying into social attitudes represented to us by the selfsame people who weep and wail about the conviction rate - the media.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> actually no, what I meant to say was basic idiocy on this board centred around an extremist interpretation of an ideology . Theres nothing wrong with the ideology itself, its just that theres idiots on this board who adhere to it .* Such as those who are openly annoyed someone who was caught out committing a crime was convicted and theirbarely disguised  preference for an innocent to be jailed because of convition statistics *.



Who precisely are they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> take yourself off you sanctimonious prick



You don't do reflexivity, do you?


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> thats the same cps that wouldnt prosecute saville yeah



so that's the best analysis of that report you can manage. 

no surprise considering the rest of your commentary on this thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

Chick Webb said:


> Obviously making up false rape claims is a serious wrong (usually done by people with mental health issues, I would imagine) but it's also a rare, rare thing, and much less common than actual rape, and people who seem preoccupied with the former are indeed a bit creepy.  How is any of that controversial?



It isn't.

In fact I think it was Celia Kitzinger who first pointed out how highly under-reported rape is, not just in states where there are religious and/or social proscriptions against reporting it, but in western democracies too.
Why is there such under-reporting in western democracies? Could it be that the media over-reaction to false allegations makes rape victims fear reporting what has happened to them, for fear of not being believed, or worse, branded a false accuser?  I'd say that given what we now know of why many young women didn't report the predations of Savile, Hall _et al_, it's a strong possibility.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know what's interesting?
> That you'd start two threads on the subject in the first place, because while it doesn't imply a compulsion, it does imply an interest in such cases.
> The question is, why?



Starting two threads over 4 years is hardly an interest. If I had started one a month, you'd have a point, but I haven't, so you don't.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2013)

Having re-read the story, I'd slightly modify my line from last night, fwiw.  She essentially made a _2 stage accusation_, the first of which was to accuse unknown assailants of rape in the alley.  If anything that fits even more with my guess as to it starting as panic, yes, _stupidity_ even (psychological explanations, who knows - we simply don't have a clue).  When that was disproved on the day after, she only then shifted to blaming her friend's partner.  In passing, that seems to disprove the notion that she planned the whole thing.  However, it makes her 'more guilty' than I was allowing if she only shifted to blaming the bloke after her first claims were disproved.  Words like despiccable and appalling get closer to it than the words I was using last night.  I still think posters were right to pick up on the very low number of such cases, all the stuff that was said last night.  However I'm happy to acknowledge my judgement on the woman in this case was overly charitable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

Chick Webb said:


> Oh come on now.  I'm being offensive to people with metal health problems (i.e. everyone to some extent, as far as I can see) to suggest this?  I just can't imagine ever considering this as a weapon in a fight, unless you were already on mad unstable mental ground.  Maybe (as this thread suggests) some people do choose to do this, coldly, out of malice, but I can't imagine it.



Then you're lucky to have reached whatever age you are with your innocence intact.  People allege things for all sorts of reasons, from boredom to sociopathy.
Your mental illness scenario, by the way, falls at the first hurdle - if a complainant was as mentally unhealthy as to manifest clear signs of pathology, then the police would investigate the allegations, but would be unlikely, given the need for psychiatric assessment of most defendants, to prosecute anyone who has a serious problem.
Or are you claiming that people who make false allegations are just a teensy bit wonko, but not enough to show up on any standardised test?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Starting two threads over 4 years is hardly an interest. If I had started one a month, you'd have a point, but I haven't, so you don't.



Repeating your formula answer does not make your answer any more valid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I believe mentalchic was saying she may have accused men of raping her...but no-one was actually charged with it...so...duh...whatever.
> 
> It's not really a crime, you know.



It's a crime within law.
Whether, as CR contends, someone falsely alleging rape should be punished before the law in an exemplary manner is another matter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Really, I don't think most rapists would be thinking like that.



Seems to be a gradually-rising trend in some states of the US, where recidivist rapists and nonces will kill victims and dispose of bodies in order to frustrate forensic linkage of this crime to their previous. 



> That's the thinking of a sociopath and sadly its not just sociopaths who commit rape.



Unfortunately, it seems to be as much a crime of opportunity as anything else.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Starting two threads over 4 years is hardly an interest. If I had started one a month, you'd have a point, but I haven't, so you don't.


One in August and one in October, this year. Maybe it's a recent interest?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Repeating your formula answer does not make your answer any more valid.



Or less valid.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

I think this is of interest in providing relevant context to the debate as to whether a person who alleges a rape or sexual assault should be believed without question. Quite a number of people do think the latter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I think this is of interest in providing relevant context to the debate as to whether a person who alleges a rape or sexual assault should be believed without question. Quite a number of people do think the latter.



I think that if you report a rape to the law, then it's incumbent on them to receive your report *as if* they believe you, and to then investigate it.  I don't believe that anyone alleging any crime should be believed without question.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I think this is of interest in providing relevant context to the debate as to whether a person who alleges a rape or sexual assault should be believed without question. Quite a number of people do think the latter.


According to recent surveys alarmingly high numbers of men (and women) still think women are at least partially to blame for rape. What context does this place the question in?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that if you report a rape to the law, then it's incumbent on them to receive your report *as if* they believe you, and to then investigate it.  I don't believe that anyone alleging any crime should be believed without question.


I have come across people who definitely assert that a person alleging rape/sexual assault should be believed without question. I know that a huge number of rapes and assaults go unreported. It makes me shudder the number of people I personally know who have been attacked.
Changing the laws of evidence would combat this but would be dangerous in itself as this case shows, sometimes people lie..


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> According to recent surveys alarmingly high numbers of men (and women) still think women are at least partially to blame for rape. What context does this place the question in?


I would say this recent survey information suggests we live in a pretty fucked up society that is patriarchal. I think education on consent issues needs to happen from an early age.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I would say this recent survey information suggests we live in a pretty fucked up society that is patriarchal.


Yes. My badly made point was more that the attitude that women are to blame is much more widespread and a lot more dangerous than the few who think rape allegations should be believed without question.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I have come across people who definitely assert that a person alleging rape/sexual assault should be believed without question.



So have I.  I usually ask them why.  They usually don't give an answer.  I'm not sure whether that's revealing of the value of their argument, or that they merely don't like being questioned, though. 



> I know that a huge number of rapes and assaults go unreported. It makes me shudder the number of people I personally know who have been attacked.



Same here. It's horrific, and the way the criminal justice system handles sex offences is still shameful.



> Changing the laws of evidence would combat this but would be dangerous in itself as this case shows, sometimes people lie..



I'm not sure changing the rules is necessary. As I mentioned above, attitudes and perceptions of behaviour are a big problem. Alter the narrative that still stitches women into the Madonna/Whore binary opposition, and we'd get some way to having jurors not expecting rape victims to behave a certain way, and deciding guilt on the merits of the case, rather than through reference to their arcane social prejudices.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I think this is of interest in providing relevant context to the debate as to whether a person who alleges a rape or sexual assault should be believed without question. Quite a number of people do think the latter.




which is a fairly meaningless statement without context. 

the cps report I quoted does not surprise me. of those making false allegations a significant number were vulnerable or victims of another crime. as an individual I would not question the veracity of an allegation and I would do what I could to get them in contact with people that could provide assistance. 

On a jury, that's a different matter. an allegation not proven to the necessary standard required by our justice system should result in a not guilty verdict, the issue there is not the standards of proof but the underlying attitudes of society of how women do and should behave, what makes her believable, what makes her a proper victim, and what makes her 'complicit/negligent'. 

What I wouldn't do is fall for the myth that the conviction rate is about right because of a mythological high number of false allegations or the myth that a woman who does not behave as a victim should is lying which are a significant part of the reason for a low conviction rate. The number of people who take the default position of 'women making allegations are mostly liars' is a lot higher than the number who think all women should be believed without question in court.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I have come across people who definitely assert that a person alleging rape/sexual assault should be believed without question. I know that a huge number of rapes and assaults go unreported. It makes me shudder the number of people I personally know who have been attacked.
> Changing the laws of evidence would combat this but would be dangerous in itself as this case shows, sometimes people lie..




aggree. the issue is often not the standard of proof, but the underlying attitudes in society that 'sometimes lie' is 'lie all the bloody time'. the bigger structural defect in not getting convictions is in the underlying attitude within society towards women.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Yes. My badly made point was more that the attitude that women are to blame is much more widespread and a lot more dangerous than the few who think rape allegations should be believed without question.



It's still the most prevalent theme that psychologists see in prison Sex Offender Treatment Programmes, too.  Women looking "too pretty", "not knowing their place", "dressing like a slut", all that old bollocks.
It's the matter (as I'm sure you know!) though, of some debate as to whether those tropes are adopted post-offence as justifications, or whether they are part of the offender's personal psychological make-up.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Starting two threads over 4 years is hardly an interest. If I had started one a month, you'd have a point, but I haven't, so you don't.



the majority of your posts that I found containing the word 'rape' were on false allegations. I note you won't address this when discussed in terms of posts. so, you've highlighted false allegation cases, but no cases of rape convictions. you seem interested only in rape when discussing it in terms of 'women like about it' and I'd like to know why that is.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, it seems to be as much a crime of opportunity as anything else.




and an assumption from rapists that all men rape, ti's just most won't admit it.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's still the most prevalent theme that psychologists see in prison Sex Offender Treatment Programmes, too.  Women looking "too pretty", "not knowing their place", "dressing like a slut", all that old bollocks.
> It's the matter (as I'm sure you know!) though, of some debate as to whether those tropes are adopted post-offence as justifications, or whether they are part of the offender's personal psychological make-up.


A bit from column a, a bit from column b. Just world syndrome and all that.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Yes. My badly made point was more that the attitude that women are to blame is much more widespread and a lot more dangerous than the few who think rape allegations should be believed without question.



One doesn't justify the other or vice versa, raising it like you have gives the impression that they somehow do, something that helps neither the great many victims of rape or the small number of those falsely accused. It's not a zero sum game and comments like yours remind me too easily of discussion of victims of the troubles, where whataboutary is ever present.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> One doesn't justify the other or vice versa, raising it like you have gives the impression that they somehow do, something that helps neither the great many victims of rape or the small number of those falsely accused. It's not a zero sum game and comments like yours remind me too easily of discussion of victims of the troubles, where whataboutary is ever present.



strawman. 

truxta's post does not make any such suggestion, nor has anyone here stated that allegations should be treated as gospel in court.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

toggle said:


> strawman.
> 
> truxta's post does not make any such suggestion, nor has anyone here stated that allegations should be treated as gospel in court.



I said his posting of it gave an impression, any other reading makes his post simply a kind of non sequitor, a value free fact, just thrown out there.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

If someone posted a link to a false rape claim case on a thread about a rape, most would understandably question what point was being made.

Maybe I'm overly sensitive to this kind of thing cause it's ubiquitous in Northern Irish politics, bloody Sunday can't be discussed without unionists bringing up bloody Friday and vice versa, all the while claiming they aren't trying to cheapen the other, when they clearly are.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> One doesn't justify the other or vice versa, raising it like you have gives the impression that they somehow do, something that helps neither the great many victims of rape or the small number of those falsely accused. It's not a zero sum game and comments like yours remind me too easily of discussion of victims of the troubles, where whataboutary is ever present.


Not sure how you got there, but fair enough, you did. My point was that false rape allegations, whilst real and harrowing for the victims, is simply not as important or widespread as the number of unconvicted/unreported rapes, and spending lots of time on it is relatively speaking a waste of time, and at worst distracts and detracts from that more important issue of actual rape cases.

In that sense discussions like these are a zero sum game, because people don't have the time to talk about/protest everything, so prioritising is in order.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> being falsely accused and convicted of any serious crime has seriously life altering consequences. For rape the consequences and social and sexual stigma are even more serious . Good luck having a relationship and sex life after that one, much less a job or freinds . After you make it out of the beast wing were youve been banged up with actual sexual predators and filthy animals  for a few years . And if you refuse to admit your guilt youll probably get fuck all parole either .



i know.  rape accusations have destroyed the careers of so many men.  mike tyson, craig charles, van persie, woody allen.  never heard of any of them again. marlon king, phil taylor, chuck berry, errol flynn, kelsey grammar, r kelly, rob lowe, roman polanski, none of them could show their faces again and their careers tanked.  etc etc.  michael jackson?  do you remember him?  sean penn.  he could have been anything he wanted until he was jailed for beating madonna with a baseball bat in 1987 but since then nada, because society hates men who attack women so much.  it's fucking awful the way all these careers were destroyed.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i know.  rape accusations have destroyed the careers of so many men.  mike tyson, craig charles, van persie, woody allen.  never heard of any of them again. marlon king, phil taylor, chuck berry, errol flynn, kelsey grammar, r kelly, rob lowe, roman polanski, none of them could show their faces again and their careers tanked.  etc etc.  michael jackson?  do you remember him?  sean penn.  he could have been anything he wanted until he was jailed for beating madonna with a baseball bat in 1987 but since then nada, because society hates men who attack women so much.  it's fucking awful the way all these careers were destroyed.


Weren't most of these actually convicted of rape?


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> If someone posted a link to a false rape claim case on a thread about a rape, most would understandably question what point was being made.
> 
> Maybe I'm overly sensitive to this kind of thing cause it's ubiquitous in Northern Irish politics, bloody Sunday can't be discussed without unionists bringing up bloody Friday and vice versa, all the while claiming they aren't trying to cheapen the other, when they clearly are.





the unduly high level of focus, like by someone who discusses false allegation far more than they discuss rape,  promotes the idea that the level of false allegation is much higher than it is. This is linked to rape conviction rates and I'm completely lost as to how the NI events you have mentioned are in any way analogous.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Weren't most of these actually convicted of rape?



oh yeah.  if people actually convicted of rape have no problem continuing to work and be respected in society, but CR reckons that false accusations destroy lives, i think what CR must be saying is that being falsely accused of rape is worse than actually being a rapist.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Weren't most of these actually convicted of rape?



A rather important point that.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> oh yeah.  if people actually convicted of rape have no problem continuing to work and be respected in society, but CR reckons that false accusations destroy lives, i think what CR must be saying is that being falsely accused of rape is worse than actually being a rapist.


Sure. I'd caveat that by pointing out that all the cases you mentioned there are of highly successful people. Not so sure it plays out quite the same for regular guys.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> oh yeah.  if people actually convicted of rape have no problem continuing to work and be respected in society, but CR reckons that false accusations destroy lives, i think what CR must be saying is that being falsely accused of rape is worse than actually being a rapist.



I know someone who was falsely accused of rape. Lost his job and many of his friends over it. Didn't get his job back when he was cleared. The list of people you gave there was largely a list of rich men whose money and influence will help them to recover.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I think this is of interest in providing relevant context to the debate as to whether a person who alleges a rape or sexual assault should be believed without question. Quite a number of people do think the latter.



well, the presumption of innocence in a crime that is endemic but almost impossible to prove effectively makes almost all accusations of rape unfounded.  the logical extension of this is to assume that all women who claim to have been raped are liars UNLESS the claim has been backed up by prosecution.

in which case dozens of my friends, close family, two women who i have seen beaten and bloody following rapes, and many many people on here are liars.

and choosing to believe that over the direct experience of your friends, loved ones, and your own eyes is pure ignorance and misogyny.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i know.  rape accusations have destroyed the careers of so many men.  mike tyson, craig charles, van persie, woody allen.  never heard of any of them again. marlon king, phil taylor, chuck berry, errol flynn, kelsey grammar, r kelly, rob lowe, roman polanski, none of them could show their faces again and their careers tanked.  etc etc.  michael jackson?  do you remember him?  sean penn.  he could have been anything he wanted until he was jailed for beating madonna with a baseball bat in 1987 but since then nada, because society hates men who attack women so much.  it's fucking awful the way all these careers were destroyed.


are you saying no one accused of rape has had their life destroyed?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> A rather important point that.



so you think that being accused of rape is worse for a person's career than being convicted of rape?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> are you saying no one accused of rape has had their life destroyed?



not at all.  merely saying that if the accusation was enough to destroy a man's life then these people wouldn't have continued to do so well.  although someone is quite right in saying that power and money can help, although there are dozens of cases one can find where the power and money came after the rape accusation or conviction.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> well, the presumption of innocence in a crime that is endemic but almost impossible to prove effectively makes almost all accusations of rape unfounded.  the logical extension of this is to assume that all women who claim to have been raped are liars UNLESS the claim has been backed up by prosecution.
> 
> in which case dozens of my friends, close family, two women who i have seen beaten and bloody following rapes, and many many people on here are liars.
> 
> and choosing to believe that over the direct experience of your friends, loved ones, and your own eyes is pure ignorance and misogyny.


you may think it the logical extension: i don't.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> oh yeah.  if people actually convicted of rape have no problem continuing to work and be respected in society, but CR reckons that false accusations destroy lives, i think what CR must be saying is that being falsely accused of rape is worse than actually being a rapist.


Straw man.


el-ahrairah said:


> so you think that being accused of rape is worse for a person's career than being convicted of rape?


No, are you on drugs?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> well, the presumption of innocence in a crime that is endemic but almost impossible to prove effectively makes almost all accusations of rape unfounded.  the logical extension of this is to assume that all women who claim to have been raped are liars UNLESS the claim has been backed up by prosecution.
> 
> in which case dozens of my friends, close family, two women who i have seen beaten and bloody following rapes, and many many people on here are liars.
> 
> and choosing to believe that over the direct experience of your friends, loved ones, and your own eyes is pure ignorance and misogyny.


Your deliberately jumping to dodgy conclusions all over the place here. Why?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> not at all.  merely saying that if the accusation was enough to destroy a man's life then these people wouldn't have continued to do so well.  although someone is quite right in saying that power and money can help, although there are dozens of cases one can find where the power and money came after the rape accusation or conviction.


such as?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you may think it the logical extension: i don't.



so what is the logical extension?  at what point do we believe a woman's claims to be raped?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> well, the presumption of innocence in a crime that is endemic but almost impossible to prove effectively makes almost all accusations of rape unfounded.  the logical extension of this is to assume that all women who claim to have been raped are liars UNLESS the claim has been backed up by prosecution.
> 
> in which case dozens of my friends, close family, two women who i have seen beaten and bloody following rapes, and many many people on here are liars.
> 
> and choosing to believe that over the direct experience of your friends, loved ones, and your own eyes is pure ignorance and misogyny.


Saying that a false rape accusation can destroy a man's life, and that such a thing does happen, is in no way to imply that you belittle rape, underestimate its devastating effect or the frequency with which it happens, or make any kind of assumption that a woman making an accusation is lying. 

I tend to agree with revol here. I can understand why he made the comparison with Northern Ireland.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> No, are you on drugs?



not any more.  i'll ask you the question i asked pickman's above.  if we do not believe a woman when she claims to be raped, at what point do we believe her?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> so what is the logical extension?  at what point do we believe a woman's claims to be raped?


Personally? When they claim it. On a jury? When the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Your deliberately jumping to dodgy conclusions all over the place here. Why?



what is the dodgy conclusion?  you implied it was ridiculous to automatically believe a woman who claimed to be raped.  i explained what i believe that the position that we disbelief her led to.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> what is the dodgy conclusion?  you implied it was ridiculous to automatically believe a woman who claimed to be raped.  i explained what i believe that the position that we disbelief her led to.


I implied nothing of the sort. Your inference is incorrect.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Personally? When they claim it. On a jury? When the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.



ah.  i may be arguing with you having misunderstood you earlier


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

*pulls neck in*


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> ah.  i may be arguing with you having misunderstood you earlier


I am glad, I was a bit taken aback.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> what is the dodgy conclusion?  you implied it was ridiculous to automatically believe a woman who claimed to be raped.  i explained what i believe that the position that we disbelief her led to.


Who are we talking about here, though? If you mean the police, then they should neither believe nor disbelieve - and that goes for any accusation anybody makes to the police. They should take the accusation seriously and investigate it.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Saying that a false rape accusation can destroy a man's life, and that such a thing does happen, is in no way to imply that you belittle rape, underestimate its devastating effect or the frequency with which it happens, or make any kind of assumption that a woman making an accusation is lying.



yes, but again what is the point in which you believe a rape claim?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I am glad, I was a bit taken aback.



may i offer a public apology for misunderstanding you?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> what is the dodgy conclusion?  you implied it was ridiculous to automatically believe a woman who claimed to be raped.  i explained what i believe that the position that we disbelief her led to.


I tend to agree with you, but then what about the presumption of innocence? Are we to completely disregard the latter in cases of rape? Genuine question, it's something I can't make up my mind on.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who are we talking about here, though? If you mean the police, then they should neither believe nor disbelieve - and that goes for any accusation anybody makes to the police. They should take the accusation seriously and investigate it.



no, people, us, here, on urban for example?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> so what is the logical extension?  at what point do we believe a woman's claims to be raped?


there is no point, no tipping point, at which anyone can be believed about anything. life's not like that. each case has to be taken on its merits. you can't have a blanket belief minimum, it's not a chemical reaction which can be replicated under standard conditions. how do you judge whether to believe people on any matter where you do not have direct knowledge?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I tend to agree with you, but then what about the presumption of innocence? Are we to completely disregard the latter in cases of rape? Genuine question, it's something I can't make up my mind on.



ah, now this is something i have racked my brain over.  getting rid of the presumption of innocence goes against my every instinct despite the fact that it is clearly allowing rape to be pretty much legal (in the same way as cannabis, that if you do it, your chances of being prosecuted are tiny).


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> may i offer a public apology for misunderstanding you?




Many thanks, I'm glad we sorted it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> yes, but again what is the point in which you believe a rape claim?


If it is someone I know, then probably 'straight away', unless I had some reason to doubt it. If it is someone I don't know, then I wouldn't necessarily take a position either way. At what point do you believe anything someone says to you? You use your judgement. What else can you do?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> there is no point, no tipping point, at which anyone can be believed about anything. life's not like that. each case has to be taken on its merits. you can't have a blanket belief minimum, it's not a chemical reaction which can be replicated under standard conditions. how do you judge whether to believe people on any matter where you do not have direct knowledge?



good question, and for the most part i'd agree with you.  i generally work on the principal when it comes to rape that you might as well believe the claim.  the stats are on your side if you do!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If it is someone I know, then probably 'straight away', unless I had some reason to doubt it. If it is someone I don't know, then I wouldn't necessarily take a position either way. At what point do you believe anything someone says to you? You use your judgement. What else can you do?



exactly.  but in this case adhering to the strict principles of justice means you're statistically more likely to be letting people get away with rape


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

I doubt any sane commentator is suggesting we get rid of the presumption of innocence. There have been heated debates here over simply changing the required standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to that of on the balance of probabilities. This suggestion is the reason I am posting on this thread. If you do this, you have to accept that this will lead to an unspecified but very real number of people being jailed for years for nothing. Would this be an acceptable evil knowing it would lead to a significant improvement in the numbers of rape convictions?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I doubt any sane commentator is suggesting we get rid of the presumption of innocence. There have been heated debates here over simply changing the required standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to that of on the balance of probabilities. This suggestion is the reason I am posting on this thread. If you do this, you have to accept that this will lead to an unspecified but very real number of people being jailed for years for nothing. Would this be an acceptable evil knowing it would lead to a significant improvement in the numbers of rape convictions?


You know what, I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. Yes it would.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> good question, and for the most part i'd agree with you.  i generally work on the principal when it comes to rape that you might as well believe the claim.  the stats are on your side if you do!


the thing is that in every instance of rape which has happened to someone i know or which has been brought to me in a former professional capacity, it has not gone to court. this doesn't mean i don't believe the assault took place, as in every case there has been circumstantial evidence and sometimes witness or medical evidence to substantiate the claim. but it's by no means logical, given the hurdles between the event and any conviction, to assume all women claiming rape are lying. however, we know some are.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> good question, and for the most part i'd agree with you.  i generally work on the principal when it comes to rape that you might as well believe the claim.  the stats are on your side if you do!


If your flatmate told she was raped you would believe it. Why not? It's the right thing to do. If you were on a jury and the complainant said they have been raped, would you believe it? Or sift the evidence and weight it up? I think the vast majority of juries take their responsibility very seriously.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I doubt any sane commentator is suggesting we get rid of the presumption of innocence. There have been heated debates here over simply changing the required standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to that of on the balance of probabilities. This suggestion is the reason I am posting on this thread. If you do this, you have to accept that this will lead to an unspecified but very real number of people being jailed for years for nothing. Would this be an acceptable evil knowing it would lead to a significant improvement in the numbers of rape convictions?


No. Absolutely not. And it's a cop-out. There is a huge amount that can be done to increase convictions, which wouldn't be done if the burden of proof were changed. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is there because the penalties are so severe - because you do not deny a person's liberty without being damn sure you're right to do so. To change that is to give the state an enormous increase in its power and take away one of the main safeguards we have against the misuse of that power.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You know what, I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. Yes it would.



Well I can see why people, frustrated with the impunity with which some men get away with rape would be drawn to this idea. Would I support such a change? I am not minded to. I think this would create a serious problem. I think change should occur, just not this change.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Well I can see why people, frustrated with the impunity with which some men get away with rape would be drawn to this idea. Would I support such a change? I am not minded to. I think this would create a serious problem. I think change should occur, just not this change.


What change would you like to see then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What change would you like to see then?


I can tell you one change I'd like to see. The prosecution should not be able to use the woman's dress, state of inebriation, where she is walking, at what time of night, or any other such circumstances as part of their defence. They should not be allowed to mention it. It is not a crime to walk down a street late at night in a short dress when drunk, and that should not be admissible evidence. The woman's sexual history should also not be admissible. Having sex with lots of different people is also not a crime.


----------



## Sapphireblue (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can tell you one change I'd like to see. The prosecution should not be able to use the woman's dress, state of inebriation, where she is walking, at what time of night, or any other such circumstances as part of their defence. They should not be allowed to mention it. It is not a crime to walk down a street late at night in a short dress when drunk, and that should not be admissible evidence. The woman's sexual history should also not be admissible. Having sex with lots of different people is also not a crime.



indeed. also, previous consenual sex with someone does not automatically give them indefinite rights to your body. a mind can be changed and no means no regardless of what has gone before.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can tell you one change I'd like to see. The prosecution should not be able to use the woman's dress, state of inebriation, where she is walking, at what time of night, or any other such circumstances as part of their defence. They should not be allowed to mention it. It is not a crime to walk down a street late at night in a short dress when drunk, and that should not be admissible evidence. The woman's sexual history should also not be admissible. Having sex with lots of different people is also not a crime.


That's all good.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What change would you like to see then?


I have been arguing over this on urban for over a decade and I am still not in favour of changing the legal Status Quo. I think changing peoples attitudes is the most likely to have an effect on diminishing attacks. I think all the options of changing rules of evidence are not the right options and would create other issues that would be highly regrettable.

That said I was only discussing changes to the weighing of evidence. There are loads of procedural changes I would support including what LBJ mentioned above.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

Others will know better than me, but isn't the fear that they will not be taken seriously and that they will themselves  effectively be put on trial for the way they live a major deterrent stopping women from reporting rape? Changing this culture has to be the first thing to do, I would have thought.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2013)

Sapphireblue said:


> indeed. also, previous consenual sex with someone does not automatically give them indefinite rights to your body. a mind can be changed and no means no regardless of what has gone before.



Certainly. One caveat I would add to that, though, would be that the defendant's relationship with the victim, if there is one, is likely to be relevant in court.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can tell you one change I'd like to see. The prosecution should not be able to use the woman's dress, state of inebriation, where she is walking, at what time of night, or any other such circumstances as part of their defence. They should not be allowed to mention it. It is not a crime to walk down a street late at night in a short dress when drunk, and that should not be admissible evidence. The woman's sexual history should also not be admissible. Having sex with lots of different people is also not a crime.


Totally this.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 28, 2013)

toggle said:


> you seem interested only in rape when discussing it in terms of 'women like about it' and I'd like to know why that is.



Now you're just inventing stuff. You're entitled to your delusions but please keep them to yourself.


----------



## Sapphireblue (Oct 28, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Now you're just inventing stuff. You're entitled to your delusions but please keep them to yourself.



i believe there's a typo in toggle 's post - it should be 'women *lie *about it'.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I have been arguing over this on urban for over a decade and I am still not in favour of changing the legal Status Quo. I think changing peoples attitudes is the most likely to have an effect on diminishing attacks. I think all the options of changing rules of evidence are not the right options and would create other issues that would be highly regrettable.


[Statement of the obvious alert] Issues of rape only really change after some fundamental changes in society, changes in power relations.  In the absence of that there probably is a fair bit that can be done though, particularly with serious effort put into educational campaigns on consent (esp in schools, colleges and universities).  I suspect more can be done in terms of police procedure and CPS guidelines, though I don't have much detail on it. On balance I think that the accused should still be named befor the trial, with the possibility that other victims will come forward - something that is particular to rape and sexual assault cases - even if this is a lesser of 2 evils (with the risks of the innocent being named).  Some common sense strategies that would make adifference given the political will and financial backing.  Most of all though it's about education and empowering women.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Others will know better than me, but isn't the fear that they will not be taken seriously and that they will themselves  effectively be put on trial for the way they live a major deterrent stopping women from reporting rape? Changing this culture has to be the first thing to do, I would have thought.


It's the reason I've not reported my rapists, yes. I know exactly how I will be portrayed in court and it would be professional suicide tbh


----------



## coley (Oct 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I doubt any sane commentator is suggesting we get rid of the presumption of innocence. There have been heated debates here over simply changing the required standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to that of on the balance of probabilities. This suggestion is the reason I am posting on this thread. If you do this, you have to accept that this will lead to an unspecified but very real number of people being jailed for years for nothing. Would this be an acceptable evil knowing it would lead to a significant improvement in the numbers of rape convictions?


No. Would agree with most of the other proposals suggested but not this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Others will know better than me, but isn't the fear that they will not be taken seriously and that they will themselves  effectively be put on trial for the way they live a major deterrent stopping women from reporting rape?



The single largest factor.
Then you've got the women who do report an assault, and then become so disillusioned with the system that they withdraw their complaint before it gets to court.



> Changing this culture has to be the first thing to do, I would have thought.



Hence what I've written earlier on this thread.  Change attitudes, and you remove the biggest part of the sort of judgementalism that victims fear.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Now you're just inventing stuff. You're entitled to your delusions but please keep them to yourself.



really?

do you assume that no one is capable of using the search function on this board?


----------



## Quartz (Oct 28, 2013)

toggle said:


> really?
> 
> do you assume that no one is capable of using the search function on this board?



Evidently not you, nor some others in this thread. Do you assume that no one is capable of looking at my profile and seeing my post count? For those that cannot be bothered, I have made 6113 messages before this one and mentioned rape 15 times outside this thread, for a percentage of ~0.25%. So please take a step back and think carefully.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I tend to agree with you, but then what about the presumption of innocence? Are we to completely disregard the latter in cases of rape? Genuine question, it's something I can't make up my mind on.


"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

	F. Scott Fitzgerald

The importance of believing people who report rape is not a demand for summary conviction of all accused rapists.

There will often be reasonable doubt even when the balance of probabilities points to guilt. Acquittal is the right legal outcome.

This inevitable failure to produce justice in many rape cases should not be compounded by the idea that if the rapist is found not guilty, or there is not enough evidence to put before a jury, then the accuser must have lied about it. Part of that is making sure that those making a credible complaint are believed throughout the process and not made to feel like criminals themselves when their attacker has to be given the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i know.  rape accusations have destroyed the careers of so many men.  mike tyson, craig charles, van persie, woody allen.  never heard of any of them again. marlon king, phil taylor, chuck berry, errol flynn, kelsey grammar, r kelly, rob lowe, roman polanski, none of them could show their faces again and their careers tanked.  etc etc.  michael jackson?  do you remember him?  sean penn.  he could have been anything he wanted until he was jailed for beating madonna with a baseball bat in 1987 but since then nada, because society hates men who attack women so much.  it's fucking awful the way all these careers were destroyed.



yeah, cos fucking multi millionaires in the hollywood cesspit are representative of men in general .

absolutely shit post


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> oh yeah.  if people actually convicted of rape have no problem continuing to work and be respected in society, but CR reckons that false accusations destroy lives, i think what CR must be saying is that being falsely accused of rape is worse than actually being a rapist.


no thats just more utter shite youve just made up . What i must be saying is actually that your a dishonest  shit.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 28, 2013)

The police "believing people who report rape" just means that they should take evidence on the basis that the reporter is telling the truth and not chime in with "so were you drinking?" "what were you wearing at the time?" and so on. That surely is just the _absolute minimum_ one should expect (for that matter it should be the case for everything, but somehow I can't see the cops saying "ah but were you flaunting it?" if I report my laptop stolen). There's no equivalent crime that has such a huge level of social harm aimed at anyone who reports being a victim, even before they get to court.

(edit: you know, just in case it ever comes up, I should probably remove this bit)


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Weren't most of these actually convicted of rape?



werent most of those multi millionaires. Does society treat you in the same manner it treats multi milionaires..nice for you if it does. Like..everyone knows convicted sex offenders who arent multi millionaires have to be segregated from other prisoners because they keep getting asked for autographs and to stand as godfather for peoples children . Such is the high esteem in which they are held by society in general .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can tell you one change I'd like to see. The prosecution should not be able to use the woman's dress, state of inebriation, where she is walking, at what time of night, or any other such circumstances as part of their defence. They should not be allowed to mention it. It is not a crime to walk down a street late at night in a short dress when drunk, and that should not be admissible evidence. The woman's sexual history should also not be admissible. Having sex with lots of different people is also not a crime.



thats quite a brilliant post

eta

although sadly as far as im aware most sexual assaults are committed by predators who are known to their victim, and not in these type of circumstances. Nontheless it would be of immense benefit to those who are attacked in that manner .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You know what, I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. Yes it would.



thats because you ar an idiot, thats an absolutely rubbish post .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> yeah, cos fucking multi millionaires in the hollywood cesspit are representative of men in general .
> 
> absolutely shit post


Van Persie plays in the English premier league so he's not a hollywood millionaire. Millionaire, perhaps, but not from hollywood.

The point being made was a reasonable one to provide a counter-argument to the blanket statement that being convicted or even accused of rape ruins lives forever. Now the reason _why_ their lives aren't ruined completely probably does lie with the fact they are rich, can afford publicists, lawyers, whatever they need, but whatever the reason it disproves this blanket statement made. We might not like it, but it's a fact.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

[quote="equationgirl, post: 12663173, member: 


> Van Persie plays in the English premier league so he's not a hollywood millionaire. Millionaire, perhaps, but not from hollywood.



well theres my point blown clean out of the fucking water by your well aimed torpedo of unmistakable fact.



> The point being made was a reasonable one to provide a counter-argument to the blanket statement that being convicted or even accused of rape ruins lives forever. Now the reason _why_ their lives aren't ruined completely probably does lie with the fact they are rich, can afford publicists, lawyers, whatever they need, but whatever the reason it disproves this blanket statement made. We might not like it, but it's a fact.



i may well have to change my online psuedonym to _The Lusitania _at this point..glug..glug..glug..


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

And Casually Red it would be decent of you to offer an apology to everyone you accused falsely of wanting innocent men to go to jail last night.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

ok then..ill start with Truxta

im sor....what the fuck...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> And Casually Red it would be decent of you to offer an apology to everyone you accused falsely of wanting innocent men to go to jail last night.


I think that would be the polite thing to do.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

Yeah, didn't think you'd actually have the decency to apologise to me, CR.


----------



## coley (Oct 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the thing is that in every instance of rape which has happened to someone i know or which has been brought to me in a former professional capacity, it has not gone to court. this doesn't mean i don't believe the assault took place, as in every case there has been circumstantial evidence and sometimes witness or medical evidence to substantiate the claim. but it's by no means logical, given the hurdles between the event and any conviction, to assume all women claiming rape are lying. however, we know some are.


Would you hazard a guess at the %?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

Just to clarify, Van Persie was cleared, if he'd actually been convicted of rape I'd imagine his life would be quite different now.

Saying that Mike Tyson seems to be doing alright considering the cowardly fuck has never had the decency to admit his crime, let alone show any remorse, instead he gets cameos in shit Hollywood comedies.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Yeah, didn't think you'd actually have the decency to apologise to me, CR.



when you have the decency to apologise for what you did then ill be happy to. I wont be apologising to truxta under any circumsances as that poster has openly admitted they would be happy to see innocent people go to jail, which proved my point .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when you have the decency to apologise for what you did then ill be happy to. I wont be apologising to truxta under any circumsances as that poster has openly admitted they would be happy to see innocent people go to jail, which proved my point .


What did I do? Stand up to you? Refuse to submit to your twisted logic?

You accused feminists, and me in particular, of wanting men to go to prison to keep up conviction stats, despite not being able to substantiate your accusation - ON A THREAD ABOUT FALSE ACCUSATIONS - when I had quite obviously never said such a thing from the start.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 28, 2013)

Those horrible equationgirl crimes against humanity.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2013)

Probably already mentioned, I haven't read the thread.

Surely in every case where an accused person is found not guilty, the accuser could be accused of making a false claim? I am sure if that happened a lot fewer people would make accusations, than those that do.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 28, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Probably already mentioned, I haven't read the thread.
> 
> Surely in every case where an accused person is found not guilty, the accuser could be accused of making a false claim? I am sure if that happened a lot fewer people would make accusations, than those that do.



That's a really terrible idea.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Van Persie plays in the English premier league so he's not a hollywood millionaire. Millionaire, perhaps, but not from hollywood.
> 
> The point being made was a reasonable one to provide a counter-argument to the blanket statement that being convicted or even accused of rape ruins lives forever. Now the reason _why_ their lives aren't ruined completely probably does lie with the fact they are rich, can afford publicists, lawyers, whatever they need, but whatever the reason it disproves this blanket statement made. We might not like it, but it's a fact.


The fact that many of those names were convicted without affecting their public standing says a lot about how difficult it is for victims to achieve justice when rape is not viewed as a serious crime by those in a position to do something about it.

It says nothing at all about how false accusations affect people in general.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Probably already mentioned, I haven't read the thread.
> 
> Surely in every case where an accused person is found not guilty, the accuser could be accused of making a false claim? I am sure if that happened a lot fewer people would make accusations, than those that do.


And there would also be a lot fewer actual reports of rape made to police, for fear that the accuser would be imprisoned. A lot more suffering in silence.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2013)

weepiper said:


> That's a really terrible idea.


 
Not really even an idea. Just a thought.
Stands to reason though, if the man is found innocent then a rape cannot have occurred which implies etc


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

Smyz said:


> The fact that many of those names were convicted without affecting their public standing says a lot about how difficult it is for victims to achieve justice when rape is not viewed as a serious crime by those in a position to do something about it.
> 
> It says nothing at all about how false accusations affect people in general.


I'm not sure it didn't affect their public standing. Sure, they're doing ok now but at the time of the accusation how many of them kept working, all of them? Mike Tyson had a pretty tough time for a number of years, and it's only recently he's getting TV roles - although I personally find that abhorrent.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

Has anyone got any reading recommendations on the deeper structural short comings of the modern justice system in dealing with rape, thinking about how it arose primarily as means of ensuring property rights and is fundamentally not set up to deal with crimes that most commonly happen within the "private sphere"?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> And there would also be a lot fewer actual reports of rape made to police, for fear that the accuser would be imprisoned. A lot more suffering in silence.


Quite


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Not really even an idea. Just a thought.
> Stands to reason though, if the man is found innocent then a rape cannot have occurred which implies etc


No, it implies there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction, not that the accusation itself was necessary false from the start.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 28, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Not really even an idea. Just a thought.
> Stands to reason though, if the man is found innocent then a rape cannot have occurred which implies etc



No it doesn't, it just means there isn't enough evidence to prove guilt, which covers everything from 'there was no rape' to 'there was a rape but we can't prove it'.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Has anyone got any reading recommendations on the deeper structural short comings of the modern justice system in dealing with rape, thinking about how it arose primarily as means of ensuring property rights and is fundamentally not set up to deal with crimes that most commonly happen within the "private sphere"?


Did you have a look at the link I posted last night to 'Practical Aspects of Rape Investigations'? There was a lot of interesting stuff in it.


----------



## Corax (Oct 28, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Probably already mentioned, I haven't read the thread.
> 
> Surely in every case where an accused person is found not guilty, the accuser could be accused of making a false claim? I am sure if that happened a lot fewer people would make accusations, than those that do.


I don't like the idea at all.

But for it to be even slightly considerable, IMO, the courts would have to introduce a third verdict as there is in Scotland.

But even then, the effect it would have in deterring genuine prosecutions would be hideous.


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Has anyone got any reading recommendations on the deeper structural short comings of the modern justice system in dealing with rape, thinking about how it arose primarily as means of ensuring property rights and is fundamentally not set up to deal with crimes that most commonly happen within the "private sphere"?


Can't give you a specific recommendation, but Greer speaks about this quite a bit.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Those horrible equationgirl crimes against humanity.


I'm surprised the FBI or Interpol aren't after me.

Although, maybe the NSA has located me for them


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Not really even an idea. Just a thought.
> Stands to reason though, if the man is found innocent then a rape cannot have occurred which implies etc



I see you're point but most people understand that just because there isn't enough evidence to convict that the allegation is false, ofcourse the other side of that is there will always be a residual element of doubt on even those found innocent. I'm coming to the opinion that our current legal systems are fundamentally not fit for purpose, not simply because of prejudice against women, or victim blaming but on a deeper more fundamental level.


cesare said:


> Can't give you a specific recommendation, but Greer speaks about this quite a bit.



Ughh but do I really have to read Greer, I suppose I can do it on the kindle so no one can see.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

Corax said:


> I don't like the idea at all.
> 
> But for it to be even slightly considerable, IMO, the courts would have to introduce a third verdict as there is in Scotland.



That bastard verdict, not proven - roughly translated as 'we know you did it but there isn't enough evidence to prove it'. Can be as effective as a guilty in some small Scottish towns.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> What did I do? Stand up to you? Refuse to submit to your twisted logic?
> 
> You accused feminists, and me in particular, of wanting men to go to prison to keep up conviction stats, despite not being able to substantiate your accusation - ON A THREAD ABOUT FALSE ACCUSATIONS - when I had quite obviously never said such a thing from the start.



no i didnt, I accused you in particular of exhibiting a blase attitude to someone being wrongly convicted of a heinous sexual offence, which you most certainly did . And i quoted precisely were you did .
I also said there were others who  barely disguised the fact theyd be happy to see innocent people get sent down on false accustations. And  I was right. Truxta openly admitted to it on the previous page.

therefore im apologising for fuck all.

and you still owe me an apology .


----------



## cesare (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I see you're point but most people understand that just because there isn't enough evidence to convict that the allegation is false, ofcourse the other side of that is there will always be a residual element of doubt on even those found innocent. I'm coming to the opinion that our current legal systems are fundamentally not fit for purpose, not simply because of prejudice against women, or victim blaming but on a deeper more fundamental level.
> 
> 
> Ughh but do I really have to read Greer, I suppose I can do it on the kindle so no one can see.




http://www.theage.com.au/comment/horrors-masked-by-the-language-of-misogyny-20130404-2h7s4.html


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no i didnt, I accused you in particular of exhibiting a blase attitude to someone being wrongly convicted of a heinous sexual offence, which you most certainly did . And i quoted precisely were you did .
> I also said there were others who  barely disguised the fact theyd be happy to see innocent people get sent down on false accustations. And  I was right. Truxta openly admitted to it on the previous page.
> 
> therefore im apologising for fuck all.
> ...


Fuck off do I. At no point have I been blase about someone being wrongly convicted. You picked out one word from a single post and decided all by yourself that it meant my attitude was blase despite me making several posts that I thought the whole thing was abhorrent and I would never condone a wrongful conviction.

But no, you believe what you want.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

not to be fence sitting prick of a liberal but I don't think either of youse were giving particularly charitable readings to each other.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no i didnt, I accused you in particular of exhibiting a blase attitude to someone being wrongly convicted of a heinous sexual offence, which you most certainly did . And i quoted precisely were you did .
> I also said there were others who  barely disguised the fact theyd be happy to see innocent people get sent down on false accustations. And  I was right. Truxta openly admitted to it on the previous page.
> 
> therefore im apologising for fuck all.
> ...


 Truxta can defend himself on that one, but as he made that post earlier today it has no bearing on you making your accusations _last night_.  You still don't seem able to verify your claims.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Fuck off do I. At no point have I been blase about someone being wrongly convicted. You picked out one word from a single post and decided all by yourself that it meant my attitude was blase despite me making several posts that I thought the whole thing was abhorrent and I would never condone a wrongful conviction.
> 
> But no, you believe what you want.




it was dragged out of you and you backtracked, before you were pulled up on it you were openly mocking others concerns as _bitching and moaning_.

Now, youve made a number of specific accusations against myself which stated very clearly that I accused you specifically of being happy to see innocent people going to jail . I absolutely did no such thing at any time . So you should apologise for that . Or show me specifically were I specifically accused you .

And Im not going to be apologising for saying there were unnamed people here who barely disguised theyd be happy to see innocent people go to jail on false accustaions, because the person I had in mind   openly admitted that was the case on the previous page and they would be happy to see it . I was perfectly correct in my assumption, therefore will most certainly not apologise for being right .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 28, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Truxta can defend himself on that one, but as he made that post earlier today it has no bearing on you making your accusations _last night_.  You still don't seem able to verify your claims.



i said last night it was barely disguised, tonight its not disguised at all. I read the inferences in his her posts correctly .


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 29, 2013)

Truxta hadn't even posted on the thread when you made your post.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no im certainly not. Im saying some people on this board are refusing to accept the very basic premise that a low rate of convictions for this heinous crime, for thats what it is, is linked to a low rate of prosecutions in the first place. And that the amount of people committing such crimes and getting away with it , while low, is still higher than they would like to admit, for ideological reasons.
> 
> The reasons for a low prosecution rate as far as I can see is that its an extremely difficult crime to prove in court  . And furthermore that it would be a near medievalist system that would result in every woman who brought an unsuccessful rape case in turn being prosecuted for false allegations. No civilised society could countenance such a thing .
> 
> And how you arrived at such an outlandish conclusion is a bit bizarre frankly.





equationgirl said:


> Name these people on urban who are pretty blase about these things then, that's the second time on this thread you've made such a claim and so far you haven't backed it up in the slightest.
> 
> It's ironic that you make such groundless accusations given your claims.





Casually Red said:


> well i made a post at the outset were i referred to these false accusations as heinous and despicable . As a result of that I was called a despicable piece of shit . And you liked the post that called me a despicable piece of shit .
> Now call me old fashioned, or perhaps overly picky, but i assumed from that point on you regarded anyone who thought false rape accusations were a heinous crime as a despicable piece of shit . And responded accordingly . Mind you i only called you an idiot, not a despicable peiece of shit . Or a cunt . As i was reffered to afterwards, constantly . By many people .
> 
> But as specifically regards your own posts you elucidated that an innocent man being sent down for rape was sometyhing you _wouldnt be happy with_ . You then stated however that a rapist getting away with it was an actual injustice..or _what is the injustice_. I think most people could see a divergence in your views on the 2 issues and draw some conclusions . Namely the one I drew from it .





equationgirl said:


> Right. So you still can't name these people then.
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you making false accusations on a thread about false accusations is lost on you.





Casually Red said:


> im naming you then. You clearly  differentiated between an innocent man having his life destroyed as something your merely_ not happy about_, and a rapist getting away with it as an actual injustice . Meaning you dont regard an innocent person being destroyed on false accusations as a major injustice .You demonstrated a pretty glaring blase attitude and hypocrisy in your attitude towards the 2 . As well as underlining your agreement with the position to regard it as a despicable and heinous crime makes one a despicable shit .
> 
> Now that you ask .



Right there, that's your post accusing me.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Right there, that's your post accusing me.



accusing you of having a blase attitude towards wrongful conviction on concocted testimony, which you specifically differentiated from an actual injustice. Such as a sexual predator getting a light sentence or none at all .


anyone with a bit of wit or sense of justice can see that both are gross injustices, not just one of them . Hence my use of the term, blase and hypocritical .


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2013)

CR - earlier on I was happy to say I'd been wrong about something last night (I'd underplayed just how badly the woman in this case had behaved, by not reading the original story properly). It's pretty clear that nobody, _at least from last night_, was being blasé about false accusations.  Whilst you've had some harsh words aimed in your direction can't you at least acknowledge that?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Right there, that's your post accusing me.




youve quoted a post were i said specifucally as regards yourself


> something you _wouldnt be happy with_



hows that accusing you of being happy about it


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> youve quoted a post were i said specifucally as regards yourself
> 
> hows that accusing you of being happy about it


Right from your first post on this thread you stated that false accusations are ideologically driven and that later on, the ideology was revealed to be feminism (of all things - didn't get that memo from HQ). You have constantly accused me of having a blase attitude when I have demonstrated quite the opposite. Your own posts show how you think and you blithely falsely accuse me yet deny it?

You are unbelievable.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

Wilf said:


> CR - earlier on I was happy to say I'd been wrong about something last night (I'd underplayed just how badly the woman in this case had behaved, by not reading the original story properly). It's pretty clear that nobody, _at least from last night_, was being blasé about false accusations.  Whilst you've had some harsh words aimed in your direction can't you at least acknowledge that?



im sorry, but i can take no other conclusion from phrases such as _bitching and moaning_ and differentiating wrongful conviction on malicious testimony from actual injustice, as a hypocritical and blase attitude. Although i certainly accept that attitude was revised and reworded later . But  at the outset that was most definitely the impression i got from what was said.
And remember also I wouldnt have named her..sorry Equationgirl.. specifically only she repeatedly badgered me to name names.
So I most certainly wasnt going after her and was trying to avoid it .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> youve quoted a post were i said specifucally as regards yourself
> 
> 
> hows that accusing you of being happy about it


Your actual post was '...merely not happy about...', as if I had to angrily rage about HOW MUCH THIS WAS AN OUTRAGE.

Like I said last night, I think urban would pretty much unanimously agree that sending an innocent man to prison would be abhorrent without stating it overtly, yet you continue to demand such obvious statements from me despite my posts clearly stating my position.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Right from your first post on this thread you stated that false accusations are ideologically driven
> .



did i fuck, were in the name of jesus did you get that from. Thats complete bollocks. Withdraw that.


> and that later on, the ideology was revealed to be feminism (of all things - didn't get that memo from HQ). You have constantly accused me of having a blase attitude when I have demonstrated quite the opposite. Your own posts show how you think and you blithely falsely accuse me yet deny it?
> 
> You are unbelievable



your away with the fairies, no harm to you. And getting worse.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im sorry, but i can take no other conclusion from phrases such as _bitching and moaning_ and differentiating wrongful conviction on malicious testimony from actual injustice, as a hypocritical and blase attitude. Although i certainly accept that attitude was revised and reworded later . But  at the outset that was most definitely the impression i got from what was said.
> And remember also I wouldnt have named her..sorry Equationgirl.. specifically only she repeatedly badgered me to name names.
> So I most certainly wasnt going after her and was trying to avoid it .


But you did name me. And I wasn't the only person to ask who you meant when you kept going on about 'people on here'

butchersapron and toggle also asked who you meant, to name but two.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Your actual post was '...merely not happy about...', as if I had to angrily rage about HOW MUCH THIS WAS AN OUTRAGE.
> 
> Like I said last night, I think urban would pretty much unanimously agree that sending an innocent man to prison would be abhorrent without stating it overtly, yet you continue to demand such obvious statements from me despite my posts clearly stating my position.



no, your mate truxta would be happy to see it. He she openly admits to that


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> hows that accusing you of being happy about it


  On page 2 of this thread:


> EQG - Why don't you answer the questions put to you, Quartz?
> 
> I think her sentence was probably right, although she isn't likely to serve all of it is she? How long would you bang her up for, a year, two, more?
> 
> I also think it's more disturbing that cases like this seem to get prosecuted succesfully when so many rape cases aren't.


 


> CR'S REPLY - balls, she was caught out on camera . Whats disturbing is that an innocent person would have been sent down for years and stigmatised for the rest of their lives as a sexual predator, and quite frankly you sound like youd have been quite happy for that to happen and more than a bit annoyed she was even prosecuted in the first place, much less she got a derisory joke of a sentence. This is about actual human beings, not unfair statistics . The attitude that theres a gross injustice that can be rectified with even more injustice is the attitude of a fucking idiot, im sorry to say.


 
CR - it's a bit late at night for me to be getting all forensic and multiquoting, but your exchanges with EQG is clear. She said the woman deserved the sentence she got - and in the one after the bit I've quoted said she abhorred what she did... whereas you are still clinging to the blasé claim.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> did i fuck, were in the name of jesus did you get that from. Thats complete bollocks. Withdraw that.
> your away with the fairies, no harm to you. And getting worse.


You should try reading your posts that I directly quoted from this very thread. 

'Away with the fairies'? Are you trying to insinuate I am not in my right mind or something?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> But you did name me. And I wasn't the only person to ask who you meant when you kept going on about 'people on here'



i named you as having a blase attitude, the head boys on ignore so i cant see his stalky posts


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> did i fuck, were in the name of jesus did you get that from. Thats complete bollocks. Withdraw that.
> .



See your first post in my post number 335.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i named you as having a blase attitude, the head boys on ignore so i cant see his stalky posts


The head boy? If you mean FridgeMagnet he's not posted over the last page or so.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i named you as having a blase attitude, the head boys on ignore so i cant see his stalky posts


Yes, when I clearly don't from my posts. If you read them.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

Wilf said:


> On page 2 of this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




i said she _sounds like_, not that she was. Its a question, not an accusation. An accusation means you are, not you sound like. Shes giving me the impression, not that she is. Ive been pretty specific in my accusations, if i was going to accuse her outright i wouldnt hold back on it .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> The head boy? If you mean FridgeMagnet he's not posted over the last page or so.



no i dont mean him...aaargh


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> You should try reading your posts that I directly quoted from this very thread.
> 
> 'Away with the fairies'? Are you trying to insinuate I am not in my right mind or something?



i have read the posts, ive said no such bloody thingf. Withdraw that, thats well out of order. Even for you.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no i dont mean him...aaargh


No idea who you're going on about then.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i have read the posts, ive said no such bloody thingf. Withdraw that, thats well out of order. Even for you.


I'm out of order?  What did you mean by saying 'I'm away with the fairies' then?

Stop hiding behind vagueness and just say what you actually mean.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i said she _sounds like_, not that she was. Its a question, not an accusation. An accusation means you are, not you sound like. Shes giving me the impression, not that she is. Ive been pretty specific in my accusations, if i was going to accuse her outright i wouldnt hold back on it .


Like this (whether it be aimed at EQG or others)?


> actually no, what I meant to say was basic idiocy on this board centred around an extremist interpretation of an ideology . Theres nothing wrong with the ideology itself, its just that theres idiots on this board who adhere to it . Such as those who are openly annoyed someone who was caught out committing a crime was convicted and theirbarely disguised preference for an innocent to be jailed because of convition statistics .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I'm out of order?  What did you mean by saying 'I'm away with the fairies' then?
> 
> Stop hiding behind vagueness and just say what you actually mean.



when i referred to idiots espousing extremist feminist ideology i thought it was clear i was referring to the idiotic extremist premise that there be no presumption of innocence for the accused. How on earth you managed to twist this into meaning feminism is what motivates false rape accusers is something so far out of my power of comprehension i can find no rational explanation for it .

you, or more specifically what your saying,  sounds completely mad. How you can derive thst understanding from what i actually wrote actually astounds me . I said no such thing and never would say such a thing. Particularly not on such a serious subject like this one , not as a pisstake or wind up even. Im genuinely offended youve taken that position from what i said.

eta

oh and also a refusal by people on ideological grounds to accept the rate of false accusations could possibly be higher than the rate of prosecutions for them. I referred to that as well .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when i referred to idiots espousing extremist feminist ideology i thought it was clear i was referring to the idiotic extremist premise that there be no presumption of innocence for the accused. How on earth you managed to twist this into meaning feminism is what motivates false rape accusers is something so far out of my power of comprehension i can find no rational explanation for it .
> 
> you, or more specifically what your saying,  sounds completely mad. How you can derive thst understanding from what i actually wrote actually astounds me . I said no such thing and never would say such a thing. Particularly not on such a serious subject like this one , not as a pisstake or wind up even. Im genuinely offended youve taken that position from what i said.


Oh for the love of god. If you don't want people to be offended by what you write, don't be so ambiguous. And it's a bit late in the day to claim you're offended given everything you've said to me on this thread.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2013)

Ah, fackit, I'm out.  I haven't really got the constitution for one of these multipage pursuits.  However CR, even though you've taken flack wouldn't you at least agree you 'overdid it' (in relation to EQG and maybe others)?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Ah, fackit, I'm out.  I haven't really got the constitution for one of these multipage pursuits.  However CR, even though you've taken flack wouldn't you at least agree you 'overdid it' (in relation to EQG and maybe others)?


Think I've had enough too. It's late. I'm off to bed.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Oh for the love of god. If you don't want people to be offended by what you write, don't be so ambiguous. And it's a bit late in the day to claim you're offended given everything you've said to me on this thread.



in fairness ive also , breifly, complimented you in this thread, and when a number of people were critical of you at the same time i made clear it should stop because that type of thing can come accross as getting personal and the like . You cant deny that .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> in fairness ive also , breifly, complimented you in this thread, and when a number of people were critical of you at the same time i made clear it should stop because that type of thing can come accross as getting personal and the like . You cant deny that .


I'm not and never have. But it still doesn't cancel out what you accused me of.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Ah, fackit, I'm out.  I haven't really got the constitution for one of these multipage pursuits.  However CR, even though you've taken flack wouldn't you at least agree you 'overdid it' (in relation to EQG and maybe others)?



if itll stop the persuit then yes, im happy to

sorry equation girl.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2013)

coley said:


> Would you hazard a guess at the %?


no


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no i didnt, I accused you in particular of exhibiting a blase attitude to someone being wrongly convicted of a heinous sexual offence, which you most certainly did . And i quoted precisely were you did .
> I also said there were others who  barely disguised the fact theyd be happy to see innocent people get sent down on false accustations. And  I was right. Truxta openly admitted to it on the previous page.
> 
> therefore im apologising for fuck all.
> ...



Yeah you know what - considering the millions of women that haven't gotten any kind of justice I'd be fine with sending a very few innocent men down. I suppose, since we're doing hyperbole, that you'd be fine with thousands of rapes going unpunished so that no innocent man goes to jail?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when you have the decency to apologise for what you did then ill be happy to. I wont be apologising to truxta under any circumsances as that poster has openly admitted they would be happy to see innocent people go to jail, which proved my point .



If you accept the use of a criminal justice system to administrate criminal justice, then you alsoaccept that sometimes innocent people are accused and found guilty of crimes.  No system is perfect or even near-perfect, and that's *without* introducing any "human factor" into the equation.  The best that can be done is vigilance in making sure that the number of innocents is as low as possible, though, outwith the ability to travel through time to crime scenes and gather evidence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Probably already mentioned, I haven't read the thread.
> 
> Surely in every case where an accused person is found not guilty, the accuser could be accused of making a false claim? I am sure if that happened a lot fewer people would make accusations, than those that do.



Don't be daft.
Defendants aren't only found "not guilty" because they were falsely accused.  They're also found not guilty because of corrupt testimony; because of poor procedure by the criminal justice system and because of technicalities.  Would you want those people, who evaded paying for their crime by the skin of their teeth, to be given a free pass in the form of their accuser being arrested?

You're dumber than a sack of spanners.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> The fact that many of those names were convicted without affecting their public standing says a lot about how difficult it is for victims to achieve justice when rape is not viewed as a serious crime by those in a position to do something about it.
> 
> It says nothing at all about how false accusations affect people in general.



Unfortunately, the criminal justice system's "institutional" attitude to crimes of sexual assault against women is still based in the idea that women are secondary before the law (justice is, effectively, male justice), and the chattel of a man.  I'm not saying that this is some sort of drect mapping on the part of the criminal justice system, but that certain attitudes are entrenched in minds and are reinforced through reference to legislation that has never actively sought to balance attitude against reality.
That the criminal justice system draws most of its functionaries from a fairly small stratum of the professional (and still predominantly male) middle-classes is also a very real issue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no i didnt, I accused you in particular of exhibiting a blase attitude to someone being wrongly convicted of a heinous sexual offence, which you most certainly did . And i quoted precisely were you did .
> I also said there were others who  barely disguised the fact theyd be happy to see innocent people get sent down on false accustations. And  I was right. Truxta openly admitted to it on the previous page.
> 
> therefore im apologising for fuck all.
> ...



Disingenuous shite.

What's disturbing is that anyone reading your posts on the first two pages of this thread would arrive at the conclusion that you're chatting disingenuous shite too, yet you still attempt to bully your way out of the shit you dug yourself into with regard to posts #35 and 39.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

revol68 said:


> not to be fence sitting prick of a liberal but I don't think either of youse were giving particularly charitable readings to each other.



Fuck off, you fence-sitting liberal prick!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Yeah you know what - considering the millions of women that haven't gotten any kind of justice I'd be fine with sending a very few innocent men down. I suppose, since we're doing hyperbole, that you'd be fine with thousands of rapes going unpunished so that no innocent man goes to jail?


I find it very worrying that anyone would so thoughtlessly give up their rights like this. Sorry, Truxta, but this post is, imo, incredibly naive, and does not recognise the extent to which a powerful state can shit on its people without certain limits to its power, limits that have been hard-won from below. One of those limits is the right to your day in court, and a presumption of innocence in that court. It reminds me of the way that people have accepted having some of those rights thrown away in the name of counter-terrorism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Truxta can defend himself on that one, but as he made that post earlier today it has no bearing on you making your accusations _last night_.  You still don't seem able to verify your claims.



Because he can't.  I've looked at the posts in question on the first two pages of the thread, and there's no way, this side of actually looking to do so, that any of eqg's posts say what CR claims they do, or that CR has made a claim that could actually be verified through reference to posts on this thread, rather than through CR's perceptions about posters, and the possibility that he filters his reading of posts wholly through those perceptions.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I find it very worrying that anyone would so thoughtlessly give up their rights like this. Sorry, Truxta, but this post is, imo, incredibly naive, and does not recognise the extent to which a powerful state can shit on its people without certain limits to its power, limits that have been hard-won from below. One of those limits is the right to your day in court, and a presumption of innocence in that court. It reminds me of the way that people have accepted having some of those rights thrown away in the name of counter-terrorism.


Therefore we should prosecute all credible claims of rape regardless of the chance of conviction?

I think that might be the best approach. 

But it would make the conviction rate much lower than it is now and it would be very expensive to pursue so many cases with little realistic chance of conviction. 

What proportion of reported rapes are prosecuted at the moment?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I find it very worrying that anyone would so thoughtlessly give up their rights like this. Sorry, Truxta, but this post is, imo, incredibly naive, and does not recognise the extent to which a powerful state can shit on its people without certain limits to its power, limits that have been hard-won from below. One of those limits is the right to your day in court, and a presumption of innocence in that court. It reminds me of the way that people have accepted having some of those rights thrown away in the name of counter-terrorism.


Where have I said people should give up their rights? What I said was that I'd agree with "changing the required standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to that of on the balance of probabilities" as put by TopCat. That doesn't mean doing away with the presumption of innocence.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no thats just more utter shite youve just made up . What i must be saying is actually that your a dishonest  shit.



you want to make yourself more clear then, sunshine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Where have I said people should give up their rights? What I said was that I'd agree with "changing the required standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to that of on the balance of probabilities" as put by TopCat. That doesn't mean doing away with the presumption of innocence.



You have said people should give up their rights by saying that the standard of proof needed to deprive them of their liberty should be lowered. That, right there, is the giving up of rights - an increase in the power of the state over the individual.

I don't think you've thought through the implications of what you're saying at all.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have said people should give up their rights by saying that the standard of proof needed to deprive them of their liberty should be lowered. That, right there, is the giving up of rights - an increase in the power of the state over the individual.
> 
> I don't think you've thought through the implications of what you're saying at all.


They'll still have the presumption of innonce, trial by jury and all the rest of it. But I guess you, at the extreme end, would rather see thousands of rapes go unpunished than a single innocent person go to jail?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> They'll still have the presumption of innonce, trial by jury and all the rest of it. But I guess you, at the extreme end, would rather see thousands of rapes go unpunished than a single innocent person go to jail?


I would like to see the standard of proof that the state must demonstrate in order to deprive a person of their liberty remaining as 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To give up that is to take a step towards tyranny.

The rest of what you say is emotive nonsense. I've already given some idea of the kind of thing I would like to see change wrt rape.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would like to see the standard of proof that the state must demonstrate in order to deprive a person of their liberty remaining as 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To give up that is to take a step towards tyranny.
> 
> The rest of what you say is emotive nonsense. I've already given some idea of the kind of thing I would like to see change wrt rape.


Emotive nonsense? It's the logical conclusion to your argument - you uphold the right to a particular standard of proof above that of the right to justice - having many more rapists convicted. Nothing particularly emotive about it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

If you lower the burden of proof, it is no longer justice.

edited. I'm leaving this here.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Emotive nonsense? It's the logical conclusion to your argument - you uphold the right to a particular standard of proof above that of the right to justice - having many more rapists convicted. Nothing particularly emotive about it.


Rigging the system against the defendant probably would not make juries any more willing to convict than they are now --whatever words you choose to describe the level of proof needed.


----------



## captainmission (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> What proportion of reported rapes are prosecuted at the moment?



18% of reported rapes come to trial.

there's a interesting graph here - http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/1276_Rape3.png

i was suprised to see juries are more likely to find guilty than not guilty.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> They'll still have the presumption of innonce, trial by jury and all the rest of it. But I guess you, at the extreme end, would rather see thousands of rapes go unpunished than a single innocent person go to jail?



youre at the extreme end, not LBJ by any means. And accusing someone of wanting to see rapists go free because they dont agree with your idiocy is pretty low. Although you can do that because you know absolutely nobody here will have a go at you over it .
Insults like disingenious shite, cunt, despicable shit etc are reserved solely for others.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

captainmission said:


> 18% of reported rapes come to trial.
> 
> there's a interesting graph here - http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/1276_Rape3.png
> 
> i was suprised to see juries are more likely to find guilty than not guilty.


They don't prosecute cases unless a conviction is more likely than not.

I asked about the conviction rate on another thread. It is lower than for other crimes --by how much depends on the crime. I'll try and find the post.

Thank you for the graph. Lot of information!


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

The post I mentioned --although similar numbers are in that graph now I've looked at it properly.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ild-rape-charges.306379/page-17#post-12545745

Just working out what the conviction rate actually is seems quite complicated.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you lower the burden of proof, it is no longer justice.
> 
> edited. I'm leaving this here.



the issue is that justice is already not happening, and the system is already rigged, currently against rape victims.  if you can be raped with impunity how can you call that justice?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 29, 2013)

Lowering the burden of proof in any criminal matter would be a disaster. Any such erosion to the scales of justice would be rolled out by governments and used to oppress all sorts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

_Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? _


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> _Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? _


What's Jay-Z got to do with anything?


----------



## coley (Oct 29, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Lowering the burden of proof in any criminal matter would be a disaster. Any such erosion to the scales of justice would be rolled out by governments and used to oppress all sorts.


Just where would it stop? Beyond reasonable doubt is the benchmark that gives us a degree of safety in law. As has been often said on here society's perceptions need to change, patriarchy etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> They'll still have the presumption of innonce, trial by jury and all the rest of it. But I guess you, at the extreme end, would rather see thousands of rapes go unpunished than a single innocent person go to jail?



As I said earlier, if you accept living within a system with a criminal justice system, then jailed innocents are always going to be part and parcel of that (or of *any*) criminal justice system, even if one excludes malice.  The "human factor" is what determines this - people are fallible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would like to see the standard of proof that the state must demonstrate in order to deprive a person of their liberty remaining as 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To give up that is to take a step towards tyranny.



The issue "at stake" here, is that a standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" is as flexible as the barristers in the court are convincing in their narrative. "Beyond reasonable doubt" isn't a quantified standard of evidentiary "burden of proof", it's a subjective attempt to provide a seemingly-objective semblance of a standard of proof.


----------



## coley (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said earlier, if you accept living within a system with a criminal justice system, then jailed innocents are always going to be part and parcel of that (or of *any*) criminal justice system, even if one excludes malice.  The "human factor" is what determines this - people are fallible.


That's why keeping a level playing field is important,you can't have different burdens of proof for different offences.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Rigging the system against the defendant probably would not make juries any more willing to convict than they are now --whatever words you choose to describe the level of proof needed.



In fact "rigged" standards of proof often lead to so-called "perverse" verdicts, where juries choose to use their common sense, rather than going along with a rule of law that they find onerous or objectionable.

IIRC the law that accumulated the most perverse verdicts was the sedition law in the late 18th/early 19th century, because its' scope had been broadened to such a wide remit that you could theoretically be arrested for any political dissent at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The issue "at stake" here, is that a standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" is as flexible as the barristers in the court are convincing in their narrative. "Beyond reasonable doubt" isn't a quantified standard of evidentiary "burden of proof", it's a subjective attempt to provide a seemingly-objective semblance of a standard of proof.



A system run by humans will be fallible, as you said. But a legal system is an attempt, however flawed, to quantify. There are two standards of proof already in law: 'balance of probabilities' and 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Are you suggesting that in practice, there is no difference between the two? I would suggest quite the contrary - that simply the act of instructing a jury that they should be 'beyond reasonable doubt' changes their judgement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

coley said:


> That's why keeping a level playing field is important,you can't have different burdens of proof for different offences.



As I said, though, effectively the burden of proof differs every time a case is tried, because in an adversarial criminal justice systems how effectively a brief narrativises the events in question can have an effect on how the case is viewed, and the burden of proof becomes subject to that narrative. 

In my humble opinion, adversarial criminal justice systems suck leper dick.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In my humble opinion, adversarial criminal justice systems suck leper dick.


A big issue. I don't know enough about inquisitorial systems to make a judgement as to which is better. You may well be right, though, that there are far better ways to do things.


----------



## coley (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said, though, effectively the burden of proof differs every time a case is tried, because in an adversarial criminal justice systems how effectively a brief narrativises the events in question can have an effect on how the case is viewed, and the burden of proof becomes subject to that narrative.
> 
> In my humble opinion, adversarial criminal justice systems suck leper dick.


What system would you prefer?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A system run by humans will be fallible, as you said. But a legal system is an attempt, however flawed, to quantify. There are two standards of proof already in law: 'balance of probabilities' and 'beyond reasonable doubt'.



There's only one standard in criminal law - the latter.  The former applies only to civil law.



> Are you suggesting that in practice, there is no difference between the two? I would suggest quite the contrary - that simply the act of instructing a jury that they should be 'beyond reasonable doubt' changes their judgement.



No, I'm saying that the act of storytelling inherent to a court case can make a mockery of what "beyond reasonable doubt" is seen to mean, because it can be about who tells the story that most impresses itself upon a jury, rather than about a clinical presentation and examination of evidence, proof and theory.


----------



## coley (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's only one standard in criminal law - the latter.  The former applies only to civil law.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that the act of storytelling inherent to a court case can make a mockery of what "beyond reasonable doubt" is seen to mean, because it can be about who tells the story that most impresses itself upon a jury, rather than about a clinical presentation and examination of evidence, proof and theory.


Surely that presents a case for having a higher standard for jurors?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

coley said:


> What system would you prefer?



An inquisitorial system, where what is investigated is not primarily based on securing or not securing a conviction, but rather explicating the circumstances and actions of all parties to an event in order to ascertain whether a crime has taken place.


----------



## coley (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> An inquisitorial system, where what is investigated is not primarily based on securing or not securing a conviction, but rather explicating the circumstances and actions of all parties to an event in order to ascertain whether a crime has taken place.


Forgive my naivety but I thought that was what the police are for?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's only one standard in criminal law - the latter.  The former applies only to civil law.


I know. And even then only bits of civil law. To reach a verdict of suicide, for instance, a coroner must use 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 

The proposition here is to change this situation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

coley said:


> Surely that presents a case for having a higher standard for jurors?



Nope. People are fallible, we're also social animals who are swayed by good stories (4000 years of organised religion show us this!).  Setting a higher standard for jurors would miss the point that you can't alter peoples' psychological preference for a good story over a bad one!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

coley said:


> Forgive my naivety but I thought that was what the police are for?



Our system = police investigate, then forward evidence to the relevant prosecuting authority.

Inquisitorial system = police investigate under direction from a magistrate, who will assess representations from both victim and accused (and/or their lawyers) in order to "fine-tune" direction of the police.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

coley said:


> Just where would it stop? Beyond reasonable doubt is the benchmark that gives us a degree of safety in law. As has been often said on here society's perceptions need to change, patriarchy etc.



it is also the benchmark that gives rapists safety in law.  i do understand yours and TopCat's position though -i don't imagine rape victims feel happy that their experience is the price of safety in law.  and of course, represents the danger of taking a liberal position and trying to reform the structures of oppression rather than abolish them.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Our system = police investigate, then forward evidence to the relevant prosecuting authority.
> 
> Inquisitorial system = police investigate under direction from a magistrate, who will assess representations from both victim and accused (and/or their lawyers) in order to "fine-tune" direction of the police.


Like the Italian system?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

coley said:


> That's why keeping a level playing field is important,you can't have different burdens of proof for different offences.



we already do tbh.  look at terrorism offences!


----------



## coley (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope. People are fallible, we're also social animals who are swayed by good stories (4000 years of organised religion show us this!).  Setting a higher standard for jurors would miss the point that you can't alter peoples' psychological preference for a good story over a bad one!


Would reduce to fallibility to some extent though? when I worked doon the pit I would often see people called to juror service and think TF they ain't trying me and looking back in hindsight, I truly hope they never served on a rape case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> we already do tbh.  look at terrorism offences!


Yes, a fine example of an erosion of our rights and freedoms and safeguards against the tyranny of the state.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> the issue is that justice is already not happening, and the system is already rigged, currently against rape victims.  if you can be raped with impunity how can you call that justice?



Behind that stands another issue: The issue of *WHY* justice isn't being done, and fundamentally, in crimes of sexual assault against women, I'd contend that it's down to institutionalised sexism in the criminal justice system, and to the still-present sexism in everyday public life.


----------



## coley (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> we already do tbh.  look at terrorism offences!


Not happy with that either, or the double standards in 'hate crimes'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Lowering the burden of proof in any criminal matter would be a disaster. Any such erosion to the scales of justice would be rolled out by governments and used to oppress all sorts.



As we've already seen via the ever-weakening definitions of what constitute public order offences - as the burden on police and courts to prove criminal intent/and or criminal action has weakened, so oppression and supression of legitimate protest has strengthened.
I mean, I believe you're from my generation, so could you see the people you protested alongside in the late '70s or the '80s standing still for kettling etc? I can't! Most of them would've been consulting "uncle" Rudy Narayan the next day, complete with shoulder tab numbers, and demanding blood!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, a fine example of an erosion of our rights and freedoms and safeguards against the tyranny of the state.



so until we've torn down patriarchal capitalism, and re-educated ourselves enough that rape doesn't happen, is there anything practical we can do to help protect women?  or do we just thank our sisters, mothers, friends, and partners for accepting that their rapist is free so that _we're _protected from theoretical state violence?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> so until we've torn down patriarchal capitalism, and re-educated ourselves enough that rape doesn't happen, is there anything practical we can do to help protect women?  or do we just thank our sisters, mothers, friends, and partners for accepting that their rapist is free so that _we're _protected from theoretical state violence?


But JUSTICE! STATE OPPRESSION! THESE THINGS MATTER MORE!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Behind that stands another issue: The issue of *WHY* justice isn't being done, and fundamentally, in crimes of sexual assault against women, I'd contend that it's down to institutionalised sexism in the criminal justice system, and to the still-present sexism in everyday public life.



can we eradicate this through reform?  or does this also require waiting until after the revolution?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Like the Italian system?



And French and German etc.  They're not the *same* system (obviously!), but they follow the same lines, and although the German system is the only one I've researched, it does appear a bit more effective with regard to crimes of violence than an adversarial system.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> so until we've torn down patriarchal capitalism, and re-educated ourselves enough that rape doesn't happen, is there anything practical we can do to help protect women?  or do we just thank our sisters, mothers, friends, and partners for accepting that their rapist is free so that _we're _protected from theoretical state violence?


You've gone TruXta on me. False dichotomies galore. It's in everyone's interests that state violence is kept in check, just as anti-terrorism laws ought to concern everyone.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> But JUSTICE! STATE OPPRESSION! THESE THINGS MATTER MORE!



well, i'm sure there are plenty of people on here who would have served time for various things if the general burden of proof was relaxed.  so i can be sympathetic to that angle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> we already do tbh.  look at terrorism offences!



Which gets excused via "emergency legislation" and "national security" arguments, both of which are state-applied humbug that have proven to fail more often than they work, especially with regard to the post-2001 terrorism laws.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've gone TruXta on me. False dichotomies galore. It's in everyone's interests that state violence is kept in check, just as anti-terrorism laws ought to concern everyone.



no answer to that then?  do you think we should thank rape victims personally, or have a special day for it?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> well, i'm sure there are plenty of people on here who would have served time for various things if the general burden of proof was relaxed.  so i can be sympathetic to that angle.


That's not what I was arguing for tho. It'd be worth trialling it in rape cases IMO.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've gone TruXta on me. False dichotomies galore. It's in everyone's interests that state violence is kept in check, just as anti-terrorism laws ought to concern everyone.


Do you not believe that the current burden of proof contributes to the low prosecution and conviction rates for rape?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> no answer to that then?  do you think we should thank rape victims personally, or have a special day for it?



I think you can fuck off, now. That's a fucking shitty thing to say.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> That's not what I was arguing for tho. It'd be worth trialling it in rape cases IMO.



i know, i was trying to be empathic of people's positions, sorry if i made it look like you were saying something you weren't.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i know, i was trying to be empathic of people's positions, sorry if i made it look like you were saying something you weren't.


No problem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> so until we've torn down patriarchal capitalism, and re-educated ourselves enough that rape doesn't happen, is there anything practical we can do to help protect women?  or do we just thank our sisters, mothers, friends, and partners for accepting that their rapist is free so that _we're _protected from theoretical state violence?



The state could legislate, but the state won't.  The state is male and ruling class. It doesn't care or have to care that women suffer these brutalities.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you can fuck off, now. That's a fucking shitty thing to say.



yes, that's why i'm challenging you over your position.  because the implications are quite unpleasant.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The state could legislate, but the state won't.  The state is male and ruling class. It doesn't care or have to care that women suffer these brutalities.



yeah, i know   not sure there is an answer really.

e2a:  massive societal and cultural revolution by any means necessary, obv.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> yes, that's why i'm challenging you over your position.  because the implications are quite unpleasant.


Go back and reread everything i've written then, as you've clearly not understood it. Bye.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 29, 2013)

no, the only thing you've said you want changed is, quite rightly, "The prosecution should not be able to use the woman's dress, state of inebriation, where she is walking, at what time of night, or any other such circumstances as part of their defence. They should not be allowed to mention it. It is not a crime to walk down a street late at night in a short dress when drunk, and that should not be admissible evidence. The woman's sexual history should also not be admissible. Having sex with lots of different people is also not a crime."

this is correct and right.  you've not said anything else except that we should not lower the burden of proof for rape under any circumstance, because we need to protect ourselves from the state.

i made a point about where this leads wrt rape, which you refused to discuss calling it false dichotomy without explaining how i am wrong about where that led.  
now you say i don't understand your position but you won't explain why.

i'm off now, going to the football.  feel free not engage further with my reasoning.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

Lowering the burden of proof would only reinforce the kind of narrative Casually Red shat out earlier. "Women lie about rape and feminists make sure they get away with it."

It would not help at all.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Lowering the burden of proof would only reinforce the kind of narrative Casually Red shat out earlier. "Women lie about rape and feminists make sure they get away with it."
> 
> It would not help at all.


Right, that's decided then.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which gets excused via "emergency legislation" and "national security" arguments, both of which are state-applied humbug that have proven to fail more often than they work, especially with regard to the post-2001 terrorism laws.


Indeed. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was a temporary measure that got re affirmed every year for 15 years.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Lowering the burden of proof would only reinforce the kind of narrative Casually Red shat out earlier. "Women lie about rape and feminists make sure they get away with it."
> 
> It would not help at all.



Did Casually Red write those words?


----------



## toggle (Oct 29, 2013)

I'd like to see education of juries in rape trials on some issues, as a prelude for teaching this to the rest of society as well

1. what el-ahrairah has said above of it not being a crime for women to walk alone at night in a short skirt and her sexual history should be inadmissable

2. what is and isn't consent. 

3. that rape victims can and do respond to an attack in a variety of ways and 'she's not acting the way a victim does' ie. distressed but not too distressed, should not be used to infer she wasn't raped.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Did CR wrote those words?


It is a summary of what I understood this post to mean


Casually Red said:


> no im certainly not. Im saying some people on this board are refusing to accept the very basic premise that a low rate of convictions for this heinous crime, for thats what it is, is linked to a low rate of prosecutions in the first place. And that the amount of people committing such crimes and getting away with it , while low, is still higher than they would like to admit, for ideological reasons.
> 
> The reasons for a low prosecution rate as far as I can see is that its an extremely difficult crime to prove in court  . And furthermore that it would be a near medievalist system that would result in every woman who brought an unsuccessful rape case in turn being prosecuted for false allegations. No civilised society could countenance such a thing .
> 
> And how you arrived at such an outlandish conclusion is a bit bizarre frankly.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2013)

If we kept the _standard_ of proof (ie beyond reasonable doubt) the same - but introduced a reversal of _burden_ of proof* similar to how it currently works in civil sex discrimination claims - would that potentially work?

* claimant makes out a prima facie case of rape then burden swaps to defendant to prove they didn't rape.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Do you not believe that the current burden of proof contributes to the low prosecution and conviction rates for rape?


Yes it does. If it were lowered conviction rates would rise and because of that the prospect of conviction would rise leading to more prosecutions. 
There would be many other consequences.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> It is a summary of what I understood this post to mean


Well putting the words you chose in quote marks and attributing them to Casually Red is really not on. 

As for your extrapolation of CR's post, it's bizarre. I can't see how you would arrive at such conclusions. Could you explain?


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Yes it does. If it were lowered conviction rates would rise and because of that the prospect of conviction would rise leading to more prosecutions.
> There would be many other consequences.


Conviction rates probably would not rise. Violent Panda explained why not in #394


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> can we eradicate this through reform?  or does this also require waiting until after the revolution?



I'd like to think that reform is the way to go, but recent history doesn't give me a lot of hope.  Legislation is increasingly about restriction/social control and the marketisation of society, rather than the improvement of the human condition, and the ruling classes are as they always have been - arrogant, aloof and with one eye on the main chance for personal enricchment.
So, I don't think that reform is going to ease the lot of women, because where's the percentage for the ruling class to do so?


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Well putting the words you chose in quote marks and attributing them to Casually Red is really not on.
> 
> As for your extrapolation of CR's post, it's bizarre. I can't see how you would arrive at such conclusions. Could you explain?


I don't think the post taken as a whole implies that it is a direct quote from him.

It took me a few passes to make sense of it but I don't think my mentioning it as an example of that kind of narrative is unreasonable.

I may still be failing to make sense of it.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Lowering the burden of proof would only reinforce the kind of narrative Casually Red shat out earlier. "Women lie about rape and feminists make sure they get away with it."
> 
> It would not help at all.



no i fucking never, now stop talking shit

wanker


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Well putting the words you chose in quote marks and attributing them to Casually Red is really not on.
> 
> As for your extrapolation of CR's post, it's bizarre. I can't see how you would arrive at such conclusions. Could you explain?



because he shes being a cunt id have thought


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Lowering the burden of proof would only reinforce the kind of narrative Casually Red shat out earlier. "Women lie about rape and feminists make sure they get away with it."
> 
> It would not help at all.


He most certainly did not say that and to put it in quotes and make it look as if he did is a really low thing to do.

Even if you're paraphrasing you haven't got the meaning even close to what he said.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

I wasn't paraphrasing him, I was paraphrasing the "kind of narrative".

I did find the post hard to work out but he seems to say

--there is a low rate of conviction for falsely alleging rape because the crime is rarely prosecuted
--it is more common than is admitted because of ideology [feminism]

I said that I might still be struggling to understand the post correctly. There is no point screaming that I got it wrong without explaining what it actually does mean.

Same response to CR.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> I wasn't paraphrasing him, I was paraphrasing the "kind of narrative".
> 
> I did find the post hard to work out but he seems to say
> 
> ...


No-one's 'screaming you got it wrong', what we're saying is that it's a shitty thing to put something in quotes and attribute it to someone when they haven't said it.

But what you've posted is two different things in two different posts.


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> with respect thats got sweet fuck all to do with the actual subject at hand , so im just as perplexed with  that statement as i am with the issue of this subject being the basis of a number of threads . I dont know why both of you are doing that . I also dont know why you posted that report as evidence to back up your point when you admit minutes later theres a reluctance to bring prosecutions for that particular crime, which is pretty heinous in my book.
> 
> 
> id suggest its evidence of no such thing , and that a low conviction rate is simply linked to a low rate of prosecutions in the first place . And while I dont for a minute believe theres an exceedingly high rate of false accusations I do believe its a particulrly despicable and heinous crime that a lot more people get away with than many would like to admit . Mainly due to ideological reasons .


Premise 1 - low rate of prosecution for false allegations of rape
Premise 2 - false allegations of rape are a heinous crime
Premise 3 - there is not an exceedingly high rate of false allegations of rape
Premise 4 - more people get away with false allegations of rape than many would like to admit

Argument/conclusion drawn from premises 1 to 4 - "ideology" (undefined) is the main cause of the difference between low rate of prosecutions and higher rate of unprosecuted allegations.

Is ^ this correct?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

no, its a pile of bollocks. Post clearly states ideology..namely personal interpretations of feminism.. is the reason  why* people on this board *will refuse to accept the rate of false allegations made are not equivalent to the rate of convictions for them . Which the poster who put up the statistics for false accusation convictions on this thread about a conviction for that crime was trying to claim. The issue on this thread prior to the whataboutery fest and moral panic that followed was not rape statistics but statistics for a different crime entirely. The point made was solely that the CPS statistics werent all that reliable as an indicator of its prevalence as a crime. Nothing more.
The reason given for non prosecution was clearly outlined as a difficult crime to prove in the first place, as well as it being outrageous to think rape victims should be prosecuted if their attacker gets off .  ideology wasnt even remotely alluded to as a reason. Ideology was solely used to explain why* people on this board* will refuse to accept the CPS statistics on prosecutions cant be relied upon as an indicator of its true scale as an offence . That was the issue at hand .

how the fuck anything else was extrapolated from that is something i simply do not understand. Paranoia is my best guess.


----------



## toggle (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no, its a pile of bollocks. Post clearly states ideology..namely personal interpretations of feminism.. is the reason  why* people on this board *will refuse to accept the rate of false allegations made are not equivalent to the rate of convictions for them . Which the poster who put up the statistics for false accusation convictions on this thread about a conviction for that crime was trying to claim. The issue on this thread prior to the whataboutery fest and moral panic that followed was not rape statistics but statistics for a different crime entirely. The point made was solely that the CPS statistics werent all that reliable as an indicator of its prevalence as a crime. Nothing more.
> The reason given for non prosecution was clearly outlined as a difficult crime to prove in the first place, as well as it being outrageous to think rape victims should be prosecuted if their attacker gets off .  ideology wasnt even remotely alluded to as a reason. Ideology was solely used to explain why* people on this board* will refuse to accept the CPS statistics on prosecutions cant be relied upon as an indicator of its true scale as an offence . That was the issue at hand .
> 
> how the fuck anything else was extrapolated from that is something i simply do not understand. Paranoia is my best guess.




so what evidence have you given for your views on false allegation?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

and while Im at it I also made another post further clarifying the issue of ideology even further, which i thought was pretty unmistakable. I stated pretty clearly feminism wasnt the reason why people on this board wouldnt accept the statistics were a bit misleading. It was because theyre a bunch of wankers who just happen to be feminists as well .

Dont understand why that wasnt quoted in any of this, as its pretty key to the ideology issue.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

toggle said:


> so what evidence have you given for your views on false allegation?



you seriously want me to post evidence as to why CPS statistics on prosecutions can be misleading as to the true prevalence of a crime being committed. On a thread were people have more than convincingly  made the case the rate of rape prosecutions and convictions do not reflect the true scale of its prevalence as a crime

are you flipping serious sunshine


----------



## Sapphireblue (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> <snip>
> 
> how the fuck anything else was extrapolated from that is something i simply do not understand. Paranoia is my best guess.



the original post(s) were really, really unclear. i did not know what you were on about.

obviously, you're slightly miffed that people interpreted things wrongly. i can understand that you might think it's unfair that people jumped to the interpretation they did, but i think it's a bit misguided to say you can't understand why you weren't understood. 

if it helps, i understand you now.


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> you seriously want me to post evidence as to why CPS statistics on prosecutions can be misleading as to the true prevalence of a crime being committed. On a thread were people have more than convincingly  made the case the rate of rape prosecutions and convictions do not reflect the true scale of its prevalence as a crime
> 
> are you flipping serious sunshine




Ok then if we /you are accepting that official statistics don't reflect the true picture how are YOU reaching your conclusions about the rate of false allegations ?


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no, its a pile of bollocks. Post clearly states ideology..namely personal interpretations of feminism.. is the reason  why* people on this board *will refuse to accept the rate of false allegations made are not equivalent to the rate of convictions for them . Which the poster who put up the statistics for false accusation convictions on this thread about a conviction for that crime was trying to claim. The issue on this thread prior to the whataboutery fest and moral panic that followed was not rape statistics but statistics for a different crime entirely. The point made was solely that the CPS statistics werent all that reliable as an indicator of its prevalence as a crime. Nothing more.
> The reason given for non prosecution was clearly outlined as a difficult crime to prove in the first place, as well as it being outrageous to think rape victims should be prosecuted if their attacker gets off .  ideology wasnt even remotely alluded to as a reason. Ideology was solely used to explain why* people on this board* will refuse to accept the CPS statistics on prosecutions cant be relied upon as an indicator of its true scale as an offence . That was the issue at hand .
> 
> how the fuck anything else was extrapolated from that is something i simply do not understand. Paranoia is my best guess.


Hang on. I haven't accused you of anything and I didn't originally pick you up on that post. All I've done now is set out your argument as you described it in that post. If your premises and/or argument weren't clear and led to any misinterpretation, that's not *solely* the fault of the people misinterpreting.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> Ok then if we /you are accepting that official statistics don't reflect the true picture how are YOU reaching your conclusions about the rate of false allegations ?



have you missed that bit about it being a very difficult crime to prove, and the CPS not liking to take on cases that are very difficult to prove . And what have i said about the rate of false allegations. Have i refferred at any time to that rate as high, or alarming, or worrying. no, not at any time
ive stated the rate is *low* in my opinion, but not as low as the statistics for prosecutions of it . Which that particular poster at the start of the thread was trying to claim .


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> have you missed that bit about it being a very difficult crime to prove, and the CPS not liking to take on cases that are very difficult to prove . And what have i said about the rate of false allegations. Have i refferred at any time to that rate as high, or alarming, or worrying. no, not at any time
> ive stated the rate is *low* in my opinion, but not as low as the statistics for prosecutions of it . Which that particular poster at the start of the thread was trying to claim .



I didn't say that you said the rate was high or alarming but you did say (in your opinion) it is higher than people believe and that a lot more people (well we're really talking about women for the most part) get away with it than people believe.........because of 'ideology', whatever that means?


----------



## past caring (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Our system = police investigate, then forward evidence to the relevant prosecuting authority.
> 
> Inquisitorial system = police investigate under direction from a magistrate, who will assess representations from both victim and accused (and/or their lawyers) in order to "fine-tune" direction of the police.





TruXta said:


> Like the Italian system?





ViolentPanda said:


> And French and German etc.  They're not the *same* system (obviously!), but they follow the same lines, and although the German system is the only one I've researched, it does appear a bit more effective with regard to crimes of violence than an adversarial system.



Neither the German nor Italian systems have juries, iirc, just so we're clear. France does, but there the inquisitorial function of the court is more limited - it's effectively a glorified CPS, except that both the prosecution and defence are able to make representations on whether there is a case to answer. If the court decides that there is, the case then proceeds to an _adversarial_ trial with a jury.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> I didn't say that you said the rate was high or alarming but you did say (in your opinion) it is higher than people believe and that a lot more people (well we're really talking about women for the most part) get away with it than people believe.........because of 'ideology', whatever that means?



oh for fucks sake


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> oh for fucks sake



Oi don't throw your toys out of the pram........i haven't sworn or been abusive to you, i am seriously trying to understand and make sense of what you are saying but you appear to move your goalposts every time you are challenged........



> And while I dont for a minute believe theres an exceedingly high rate of false accusations I do believe its a particulrly despicable and heinous crime* that a lot more people get away with than many would like to admit . Mainly due to ideological reasons .*


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> and while Im at it I also made another post further clarifying the issue of ideology even further, which i thought was pretty unmistakable. I stated pretty clearly feminism wasnt the reason why people on this board wouldnt accept the statistics were a bit misleading. It was because theyre a bunch of wankers who just happen to be feminists as well .
> 
> Dont understand why that wasnt quoted in any of this, as its pretty key to the ideology issue.


Would you care to name these people?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> I didn't say that you said the rate was high or alarming but you did say (in your opinion) it is higher than people believe and that a lot more people (well we're really talking about women for the most part) get away with it than people believe.........because of 'ideology', whatever that means?


To add to what mentalchik has written, Casually Red, what are your sources for the rate being higher?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

what the fuck did i do in a past life  ...

the fucking ideological fucking reason refers solely to the reason why some people on this board will obstinately refuse to accept the CPS statistics arent all that reliable. It has got zero fuck all sweet eff all fucking all to do with the CPS or juries being hotbeds of feminism. I am not David Icke. I do not believe feminists are lizards, much less lizards who control the worlkd by secret committees. I just believe there are people on urban who will go doolally if theyre contradicted on certain issues and accuse you of all sorts, and the motivation for that is because they are dickheads who happen to subscribe to an ideology and they view your contradiction as an assault on that ideology .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Would you care to name these people?



everyone whos had a go at me over this or anything else ever. Every last one of the basatards.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

feck this..life is too short and blood pressure too high..,


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> everyone whos had a go at me over this or anything else ever. Every last one of the basatards.


Look you can't claim that people on this board are driven by ideological reasons such as feminism and then refuse to name anyone. You must have had specific people in mind when you wrote it.

Besides, haven't you learnt by now not to make claims or assertions you can't back up with sources?


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> what the fuck did i do in a past life  ...
> 
> the fucking ideological fucking reason refers solely to the reason why some people on this board will obstinately refuse to accept the CPS statistics arent all that reliable. It has got zero fuck all sweet eff all fucking all to do with the CPS or juries being hotbeds of feminism. I am not David Icke. I do not believe feminists are lizards, much less lizards who control the worlkd by secret committees. I just believe there are people on urban who will go doolally if theyre contradicted on certain issues and accuse you of all sorts, and the motivation for that is because they are dickheads who happen to subscribe to an ideology and they view your contradiction as an assault on that ideology .



Are you deliberately misreading what i asked ?

I haven't in any way refused to accept that the official statistics aren't reliable and fwiw i haven't fucking mentioned feminism.............i was married to a copper who dealt with these sorts of crimes for quite a long time and have my own idea s of the rates of false allegations and i was politely asking you what YOU are basing yours on as you appear to be suggesting that i (and others) are challenging you because you are somehow the bearer of truth and it's upsetting us to hear such a thing................


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> what the fuck did i do in a past life  ...
> 
> the fucking ideological fucking reason refers solely to the reason why some people on this board will obstinately refuse to accept the CPS statistics arent all that reliable. It has got zero fuck all sweet eff all fucking all to do with the CPS or juries being hotbeds of feminism. I am not David Icke. I do not believe feminists are lizards, much less lizards who control the worlkd by secret committees. I just believe there are people on urban who will go doolally if theyre contradicted on certain issues and accuse you of all sorts, and the motivation for that is because they are dickheads who happen to subscribe to an ideology and they view your contradiction as an assault on that ideology .


No-one's accused you of bloody anything, and no-one has disagreed with you purely because they are a feminist.

And, for the record, it's crap like this that makes you come across as a misogynist.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

I just don't get why CR has had this massive victim complex throughout this thread. Yeah, he's been called a cunt, but so fucking what that's just urban.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I just don't get why CR has had this massive victim complex throughout this thread. Yeah, he's been called a cunt, but so fucking what that's just urban.


This thread has been remarkably abuse-free, consider previous discussions on the subject.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> No-one's accused you of bloody anything, and no-one has disagreed with you purely because they are a feminist.
> 
> And, for the record, it's crap like this that makes you come across as a misogynist.



i said it was because they were a dickhead, not a feminist


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> Oi don't throw your toys out of the pram........i haven't sworn or been abusive to you, ..




true, you havent. my apologies. That was uncalled for .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i said it was because they were a dickhead, not a feminist


Dickheads who subscribe to an ideology, you said.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Dickheads who describe to an ideology, you said.



yes, the dickhead being in the primacy, not the ideology. that was clarified very early on, i asked why nobody quoted that post


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> yes, the dickhead being in the primacy, not the ideology. that was clarified very early on, i asked why nobody quoted that post


Except your posts don't go on about dickheads, they talk about feminists and ideologies so you can hardly blame anyone for focusing on that part.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Except your posts don't go on about dickheads, they talk about feminists and ideologies so you can hardly blame anyone for focusing on that part.




only because there was 3 million posts thereafter insisting i talk about them while the dickhead post was completely ignored


eta, page 2
*
actually no, what I meant to say was basic idiocy on this board centred around an extremist interpretation of an ideology . Theres nothing wrong with the ideology itself, its just that theres idiots on this board who adhere to it*

dont think that could be any clearer


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> only because there was 3 million posts thereafter insisting i talk about them while the dickhead post was completely ignored


Put those goalposts on wheels they'll be easier to move next time.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

no,  post above, my position was made chrystal clear on page 2 . It was others moving the goalposts in order to issue their own red cards and take their own penalty kicks by deliberately refusing to acknowlege that as my stated position on the issue of feminism around this topic . the topic being CPS statistics for deliberately false accusations versus actual deliberately false accusations.


----------



## toggle (Oct 29, 2013)

what is certain is that there is a perception that women lie about rape and other offenses against them all the time, but I'm yet to see any *credible* evidence that the rate of false allegations of rape are any higher than for other crimes and is inflated by the way some women can be treated when they report rape and the way they are judged by a society that has expectations of what a victim behaves like so police record an allegation as false when the victim is not sufficiently injured or distressed, or where women have to retract an allegation to stop a prosecution that they cannot cope with, leading to absurdities like this and an increase in complaints listed as being a false allegation.

The CPS report also discusses that in a significant number of cases of provably false allegation, that is cases where there is evidence beyond the police deciding they don't think the victim is victimey enough and recording the allegation as false to avoid investigating, a number of them are making a cry for help, there are other problems there that need to be addressed to help them, the rape allegation could be considered a cry for help.

what the CPS stats do prove is that the very few instances of false allegation that reach court get a massively disproportionate amount of attention when compared to the number of rapes that reach court, even if the conviction rates compared to the number of offenses are the same for both crimes. This disproportionate attention feeds the belief women frequently lie from embarrassment or regret or to attack a man who didn't all them back, and is a significant part of the cause of the problems above.


I have not claimed that the 35 prosecutions are the only instance of false allegation that happened


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no,  post above, my position was made chrystal clear on page 2 . It was others moving the goalposts in order to issue their own red cards and take their own penalty kicks by deliberately refusing to acknowlege that as my stated position on the issue of feminism around this topic . the topic being CPS statistics for deliberately false accusations versus actual deliberately false accusations.


That is not factually correct and you know it. 

And if something is deliberate it must also be actually deliberate, it can't be accidentally deliberate by definition. 

If you wrote posts in plain English a lot of misunderstanding, confusion and misdirection simply wouldn't have happened on this thread


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

For the academics - research into false rape allegations:



> "False allegation" is an imprecise term that is frequently used, but does not convey the same meaning to everyone. False allegations are statements that are unproven and untrue in the spirit of deliberateness or deceit. *False allegations of sexual assault are relatively rare occurrences*. For an allegation to be false, there first must be the motivation to deceive. There then must be unproven, untrue statements about the perpetrator(s), act(s), and/or setting that are either false accusations of false denials. It is recommended that false allegations be expressed using the following format:False allegation = false accusation/denial with respect to perpetrator(s)/act(s)/setting.



From the Journal Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 1993 Nov;31(11):15-20, *'False allegation. A concept in the context of rape' by MM Aiken.*


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

[quote="toggle, post: 12665695, member: 





> what is certain is that there is a perception that women lie about rape and other offenses against them all the time, but I'm yet to see any *credible* evidence that the rate of false allegations of rape are any higher than for other crimes


where on earth did anyone for one second suggest or imply they were higher than for other crimes..or even anywere similar...even remotely. That plainly didnt happen anywhere on this thread. Your being disingenuous and creating your own strawman.


> and is inflated by the way some women can be treated when they report rape and the way they are judged by a society that has expectations of what a victim behaves like so police record an allegation as false when the victim is not sufficiently injured or distressed, or where women have to retract an allegation to stop a prosecution that they cannot cope with, leading to absurdities like this and an increase in complaints listed as being a false allegation.



nobody has disputed , even remotely, that rape victims can be treated unsympathetically, and even ignored by some elements of the police. But what your suggesting is that other women who commit a serious crime should not be the subject of media reportage. Or discussion where their actions are rightly condemned for what they are... utterly despicable.



> The CPS report also discusses that in a significant number of cases of provably false allegation, that is cases where there is evidence beyond the police deciding they don't think the victim is victimey enough and recording the allegation as false to avoid investigating, a number of them are making a cry for help, there are other problems there that need to be addressed to help them, the rape allegation could be considered a cry for help.



and that there are also evil lying bastards deliberately out to make someone elses life a misery, or do you refuse to acknowlege that women are just as capable of deliberately evil and malicious actions as men are


> what the CPS stats do prove is that the very few instances of false allegation that reach court get a massively disproportionate amount of attention when compared to the number of rapes that reach court, even if the conviction rates compared to the number of offenses are the same for both crimes. This disproportionate attention feeds the belief women frequently lie from embarrassment or regret or to attack a man who didn't all them back, and is a significant part of the cause of the problems above.



and as ive agreed with this , that these false and malicious complaints  are so harmful to the perception of genuine victims, not enough of whom come forward, a logical deterrent would be heavier sentences for these offenders. Just as wed hope it would be with rapists too. But no. My desire to see heavier sentences for these evil bastards was denounced as misogyny, and even equated with support for light sentences for rapists .



> I have not claimed that the 35 prosecutions are the only instance of false allegation that happened



of course not, you merely insinuated it quite strongly.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> That is not factually correct and you know it.
> 
> And if something is deliberate it must also be actually deliberate, it can't be accidentally deliberate by definition.
> 
> If you wrote posts in plain English a lot of misunderstanding, confusion and misdirection simply wouldn't have happened on this thread



the post was in very plain english and expressed my view quite accurately. that it was deliberately ignored for the purposes of attacking me is not my fault. My posts were being quoted all over the place and heavily scrutinised in order to have a go at me. That one was strangely invisible, despite it clarifying beyiond any doubt my use of the term ideological .

shouldnt have had to post it again myself.

shouldnt have bothered either as it will still be ignored regardless


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> the post was in very plain english and expressed my view quite accurately. that it was deliberately ignored for the purposes of attacking me is not my fault. My posts were being quoted all over the place and heavily scrutinised in order to have a go at me. That one was strangely invisible, despite it clarifying beyiond any doubt my use of the term ideological .
> 
> shouldnt have had to post it again myself.
> 
> shouldnt have bothered either as it will still be ignored regardless


If you think plain English is saying something like the bit in bold:


Casually Red said:


> no,  post above, my position was made chrystal clear on page 2 . It was others moving the goalposts in order to issue their own red cards and take their own penalty kicks by deliberately refusing to acknowlege that as my stated position on the issue of feminism around this topic . *the topic being CPS statistics for deliberately false accusations versus actual deliberately false accusations.*



then it's no wonder your posts are being misunderstood. You're not being clear at all, several posts of both genders have found your posts difficult to understand, as evidenced by the multiple misunderstandings.

And no-one was 'attacking' you, you were making statements that you hadn't said X,Y,Z when your posts showed that you had. It's called 'debating'. You've been treated no differently than anybody else on this thread, and to start claiming victim status now is a low trick.

You're not a newbie, you've been active in the politics forum for a long time so stop pretending that this is all new to you and act like the grown-up you are. People disagree with some of your views - and some of those people are WOMEN - it doesn't mean that they're ideologically driven or out to falsely accuse innocent men of rape. False accusations skew perception of the real issue - that rape prosecutions are low and rape convictions are lower.


----------



## coley (Oct 29, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no,  post above, my position was made chrystal clear on page 2 . It was others moving the goalposts in order to issue their own red cards and take their own penalty kicks by deliberately refusing to acknowlege that as my stated position on the issue of feminism around this topic . the topic being CPS statistics for deliberately false accusations versus actual deliberately false accusations.


The final score is one all and will now be settled by penalties, EQG and Toggle will both have six goes to decide who will have first crack at CR
Cesare as ref


----------



## cesare (Oct 29, 2013)

Don't make me ref


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> Don't make me ref


Linesman? Linesperson?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Linesman? Linesperson?


Nooooooo!


----------



## coley (Oct 30, 2013)

cesare said:


> Don't make me ref


Ok, all seeing impartial digital whatsit they are seeking to deploy, my knowledge of sport is somewhat limited


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> [quote="toggle, post: 12665695, member:
> where on earth did anyone for one second suggest or imply they were higher than for other crimes..or even anywere similar...even remotely. That plainly didnt happen anywhere on this thread. Your being disingenuous and creating your own strawman.
> 
> 
> ...




what a load of utter bollocks.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2013)

cesare said:


> Nooooooo!


Physio then.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Physio then.


That might be a goer


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

toggle said:


> what a load of utter bollocks.



quite the rebuttal


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> quite the rebuttal



i thought it might be more your level of comprehension.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2013)

Will give you one thing though, you're certainly making wading through a 1960's explanation of whiggism seem more palatable


----------



## coley (Oct 30, 2013)

cesare said:


> That might be a goer



Champion, sod CR and others I have this reoccurring groin strain.............?


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2013)

coley said:


> Champion, sod CR and others I have this reoccurring groin strain.............?


Plaster of Paris cast, I reckon.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

coley said:


> Champion, sod CR and others I have this reoccurring groin strain.............?



Somebody put a trigger warning on this thread, cringe


----------



## coley (Oct 30, 2013)

cesare said:


> Plaster of Paris cast, I reckon.


Polyfilla, don't trust these excitable continental types


----------



## coley (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Somebody put a trigger warning on this thread, cringe


Intentional derail, it's gone way beyond a serious debate and into the ad hom, apols if you disagree.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

[quote="equationgirl, post: 12665840, member: 




> then it's no wonder your posts are being misunderstood. You're not being clear at all, several *posts of both genders* have found your posts difficult to understand, as evidenced by the multiple misunderstandings.



nope its idiots of both genders who have chosen to deliberately ignore that post of utter clarity in order to deliberately misrepresent what i was saying. The post was perfectly understandable, but inconvenient to what they were at . Therefore deliberately ignored and not misunderstood.


> And no-one was 'attacking' you, you were making statements that you hadn't said X,Y,Z when your posts showed that you had. It's called 'debating'. You've been treated no differently than anybody else on this thread, and to start claiming victim status now is a low trick.



oh really, so i just imagined being called a despicable shit, a cunt, a misognyst and..what else....thats right..a bigot. Those werent actual attacks then. I must have just imagined you appending your likes to that tirade of abuse as well . Not to mention my near evisceration for the use of *a pronoun* , as part of my misogynist agenda of objectifying women.

well hush my mouth, i wasnt attacked afterall


> You're not a newbie, you've been active in the politics forum for a long time so stop pretending that this is all new to you and act like the grown-up you are.



i havent pretended to be a newbie. I thought Id made clear in my long and bitter sweet experience of using these boards I was painfully aware there was a shower of dickheads here wholl misrepresent what you say just to have a go at you and paint you in the worst light possible . But thats right, the post were I actually said  that was completely invisible and thats why it was undetectable to the naked eye . Or completely indecipherable, whatever the excuse for completely ignoring it is at this moment in time.


> People disagree with some of your views - and some of those people are WOMEN - it doesn't mean that they're ideologically driven or out to falsely accuse innocent men of rape.



ive no problem whatsoever with people of whatever gender disagreeing with my views. What i do have a problem with is the deliberate misrepresentation of those views in order to paint me as some sort of woman hating rape enthusiast . I also have a problem with people who are happy to see innocent people go to jail and accuse others who arent happy about it of wanting to see rapists go free. And im perfectly entitled to have a problem with that and not be accused of being pro rape or soft on rapists or unsympathetic to victims.


> False accusations skew perception of *the real issue* - that rape prosecutions are low and rape convictions are lower.



dont you mean the real injustice ?

You seem to be advocating outright censorship . People should be perfectly entitled to discuss this issue without having their characters ripped to bits and dodgy assumptions made, or worse, concocted against them . Nobody should have the right to tell them they shouldnt talk about that and insist  they discuss a different issue instead  The issue on this thread was a malicious and false accusation. Discussion of the subject pretty much wasnt permitted, the op was attacked for even posting the subject. And my view that a stiff deterrent was needed to stop the very thing that you admit skews perception of the accounts of rape victims was dismissed as evidence of more misogyny , bigotry and a desire to see lenient sentences for rapists . And the only reasoni can detect for that unreasonable and illogical  kind of behaviour is that its what idiots tend to do when they are ideologically driven. Regardless of what the actual ideology is. The behaviour is generally the same regardless.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2013)

There is a strong link between promoting rape myths - like by highlighting false allegations without mentioning how rare they are compared to rapes- and women's unwillingness or inability to face reporting rapes. 

there is also a link between highlighting false allegation without mentioning how rare it is compared to rape - and the general attitudes in society that encourage a belief that women lie.

what i've done is highlight how rare false allegation is compared to rape. 

and I'll do that every time false allegations are brought up by someone with a clearly unpleasant agenda of highlighting false allegations.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

toggle said:


> There is a strong link between promoting rape myths - like by highlighting false allegations without mentioning how rare they are compared to rapes- and women's unwillingness or inability to face reporting rapes.
> 
> there is also a link between highlighting false allegation without mentioning how rare it is compared to rape - and the general attitudes in society that encourage a belief that women lie.
> 
> ...



sorry but I find this patronising.

I'm quite capable of reading a thread about a false rape allegation without needing someone remind me how rare it is compared to actual rapes. I'm pretty capable of reading and discussing such an issue without swallowing or perpetuating rape myths, likewise I can read an article about a crime committed by say an immigrant without needing patronised by someone reminding that immigrants are no more criminal than the general population etc

Maybe credit the people of urban with a bit more wit.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2013)

I'm sure all the woman who are told their rape wasn't actually real are astoundingly concerned that you feel a bit patronised.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> what the fuck did i do in a past life  ...



Going by what you do on here, you probably acted the cunt. 



> the fucking ideological fucking reason refers solely to the reason why some people on this board will obstinately refuse to accept the CPS statistics arent all that reliable. It has got zero fuck all sweet eff all fucking all to do with the CPS or juries being hotbeds of feminism. I am not David Icke. I do not believe feminists are lizards, much less lizards who control the worlkd by secret committees. I just believe there are people on urban who will go doolally if theyre contradicted on certain issues and accuse you of all sorts, and the motivation for that is because they are dickheads who happen to subscribe to an ideology and they view your contradiction as an assault on that ideology .




You do realise that this, as with most of your posts since you opened your gob on page 2 of this thread, looks very much like you've constructed a post-event justification?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

toggle said:


> I'm sure all the woman who are told their rape wasn't actually real are astoundingly concerned that you feel a bit patronised.



yes, because of course you being a condescending arse like this actually brings real comfort and benefit to those who have been raped, and isn't just you being a bit of a dick on the internet.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Going by what you do on here, you probably acted the cunt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i shouldnt have had to justify myself at any point, i didnt do anything wrong or say anything wrong.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> sorry but I find this patronising.
> 
> I'm quite capable of reading a thread about a false rape allegation without needing someone remind me how rare it is compared to actual rapes. I'm pretty capable of reading and discussing such an issue without swallowing or perpetuating rape myths, likewise I can read an article about a crime committed by say an immigrant without needing patronised by someone reminding that immigrants are no more criminal than the general population etc
> 
> Maybe credit the people of urban with a bit more wit.



exactly, wish id bloody said that


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i shouldnt have had to justify myself at any point, i didnt do anything wrong or say anything wrong.


Apart from everything you've posted on this thread, obviously.

The point of politics forum is justifying our views and debating them with others. You've singularly failed to do that on this thread any time you've been asked to.

And as for your comment about censorship, you're just twisting my words again. I've said no such thing.

Maybe if you didn't act like such an idiot yourself, you wouldn't get treated like one.


----------



## Tooter (Oct 30, 2013)

> You seem to be advocating outright censorship . People should be perfectly entitled to discuss this issue without having their characters ripped to bits and dodgy assumptions made, or worse, concocted against them . Nobody should have the right to tell them they shouldnt talk about that and insist they discuss a different issue instead The issue on this thread was a malicious and false accusation. Discussion of the subject pretty much wasnt permitted, the op was attacked for even posting the subject. And my view that a stiff deterrent was needed to stop the very thing that you admit skews perception of the accounts of rape victims was dismissed as evidence of more misogyny , bigotry and a desire to see lenient sentences for rapists .



^^this

this thread has been completely derailed. 



> False accusations skew perception of *the real issue* - that rape prosecutions are low and rape convictions are lower.
> dont you mean the real injustice ?



It's a completely *seperate* issue. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact rape prosecutions and convictions are lower?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why bitch and moan about her sentence instead of focussing on why so many rapists serve derisory sentences for the crimes they carried out?



Because that's not the subject of this thread?


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 30, 2013)

Tooter said:


> ^^this
> 
> this thread has been completely derailed.



no it hasn't............threads like conversations irl don't stick to a rigid subject matter........


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

But it happened 2 posts after the OP on this thread!


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 30, 2013)

well as the op hasn't
actually been a huge presence on the thread to make their
argument/point etc.............


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> well *as the op* you haven't actually been a huge presence on the thread to make your argument/point etc.............



I've not read it before. I replied to EG above then skimmed it. Same old, same old.

Are you suggesting that I started the thread?


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 30, 2013)

Really though you can't expect to use that headline as a thread starter and not expect the debate to _not_ include the whole subject of rape and attitudes towards it, legal system etc...surely not


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 30, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I've not read it before. I replied to EG above then skimmed it. Same old, same old.
> 
> Are you suggesting that I started the thread?



apologies i edited there (actually went and got my glasses )


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Tooter said:


> ^^this
> 
> this thread has been completely derailed.



Speak to CR about that.



Tooter said:


> It's a completely *seperate* issue. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact rape prosecutions and convictions are lower?



It's not completely separate at all. Murder and burglary are completely separate, rape and false rape accusations are unfortunately not.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

It's like a thread about a terrorist attack that has someone running in shouting about the various crimes of the state.

Yes, we are aware that the state is the overwhelming terrorist, yes we are aware that the media focus heavily on terror attacks by non state actors whilst either excusing or not addressing the bigger crimes of the state. Most of us don't need telling, it's not the daily mail comments section. As such comments about why don't we focus on state killings on such a thread could be read as crass whataboutery, especially on a forum which is generally critical of the state.

What appears to have happened here is that people are basically talking at cross purposes, with some interpreting the other as being an apologist for the terrorists attacks whilst the other sees the focus on the terrorist attack as apologism for state violence. I like to imagine when you take the heat out the issue that no one is actually acting as an apologist for either and it's really just a matter of tone.

Saying that casually red does defend all sorts of travesties and reactionary bastards under the notion they are "anti imperialist"...


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

It's not just a matter of tone in the slightest ffs


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

Really?

So is CR actually looking to justify rape by discussing false allegations?

Are you trying to justify false allegations by bringing up the fact failure to prosecute let alone convict rapists is far more common?

I don't think that's the case and now youse are at logger heads after giving very uncharitable readings of each other. 

But hey continue the bun fight


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Really?
> 
> So is CR actually looking to justify rape by discussing false allegations?
> 
> ...



I'm seeking to make the point that the undue level of attention given to false allegation is causing a great deal of harm.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Really?
> 
> So is CR actually looking to justify rape by discussing false allegations?
> 
> ...


'Uncharitable reading'? He claimed feminists want to see innocent men in prison for conviction statistics and I'm uncharitable?

Perhaps you should look up what tone means.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> 'Uncharitable reading'? He claimed feminists want to see innocent men in prison for conviction statistics and I'm uncharitable?
> 
> Perhaps you should look up what tone means.



I don't think CR knows what it means either, considering what he's accused us both of.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

toggle said:


> I'm seeking to make the point that the undue level of attention given to false allegation is causing a great deal of harm.



So basically no one should discuss this because some fuckwits use it to perpeuate rape myths?

Should we not discuss other things that reactionary shits fixate on? 

Like I said I see no reason why it is not possible to discuss this thread without turning into a raving misogynist arguing that women always lie about rape etc

Likewise a discussion on say the 7/7 bombs can be had without people turning into state terrorism supporting idiots.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> 'Uncharitable reading'? He claimed feminists want to see innocent men in prison for conviction statistics and I'm uncharitable?
> 
> Perhaps you should look up what tone means.



He didn't quite say that though, did he.

Just as you didn't say "who cares about men who are falsely accused, when so many rapists get away with it".

Anyway carry on, it's not at all going round in ciricles.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> So basically no one should discuss this because some fuckwits use it to perpeuate rape myths?
> 
> Should we not discuss other things that reactionary shits fixate on?
> 
> ...


But it didn't start off as a discussion put in context at all. This is the point at the heart of all this - that the OP was made to exaggerate the occurrence of false rape allegations. There was no attempt to relate their rarity to the number of reported rape cases.

Had CR not stormed onto the thread with his 'ideologically driven' reasons, I think the discussion would have gone in a very different direction.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> So basically no one should discuss this because some fuckwits use it to perpeuate rape myths?
> 
> Should we not discuss other things that reactionary shits fixate on?
> 
> ...




belief in rape myths isn't limited to a few fuckwits.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2013)

Revol68, part of the reason why this thread went in the direction it did is that the OP has previously started a similar thread. That quite naturally led others to assume that there was an agenda involved.

[edited to add: equation girl beat me to it]

On the issue of stiff sentences for false allegations: Six months in jail for making up a lie about someone, a lie that did not lead to a miscarriage of justice and did not lead to an innocent person spending time in prison or having their life ruined, is in my view a stiff sentence. Particularly if the person sentenced had no previous. Some of the throw the book at em sorts here seem to want this woman to be punished not on the basis of her own crime but straightforwardly as a deterrent to others. I'm not fond of that kind of argument for tougher sentences for crime in general and I don't see any reason why this should be an exception.

Further, I'd suggest that the people most likely to be deterred by the public lynching of women like this one are not the relatively rare troubled or vindictive women who bring false allegations, but the much larger number of women who have just faced the nightmare of being raped and are considering whether or not they can potentially face another nightmare in the form of an investigation, trial, etc. It's hard enough for rape victims to go to the police. This kind of fulminating about how people who bring false allegations should be punished as if they were rapists themselves, will only play on the all too real fear of not being believed. Is it really so hard to see that a story about someone getting a lengthy stretch for a false allegation will only add weight to the question "what if they don't believe me?" Do we really want to do that?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> He didn't quite say that though, did he.
> 
> Just as you didn't say "who cares about men who are falsely accused, when so many rapists get away with it".
> 
> Anyway carry on, it's not at all going round in ciricles.


Actually he did, from post 10 of this thread onwards. Yet when he was asked to point out who on urban these people were he couldn't.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2013)

harsh sentences for the purpose of deterrence will also make an incorrect point to a great many people that there is a vast need for deterring large numbers of  vindictive false allegations. 

which will make the treatment of victims by the criminal justice system worse and will lower the possibility of conviction.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 30, 2013)

toggle said:


> belief in rape myths isn't limited to a few fuckwits.


That's horrifying.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 30, 2013)

toggle said:


> belief in rape myths isn't limited to a few fuckwits.


toggle presents the daily heil as proof.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 30, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> toggle presents the daily heil as proof.


You haven't read the article.

Or you don't know what ICM is.

Or your reaction reflects very poorly on you.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

toggle said:


> belief in rape myths isn't limited to a few fuckwits.



Since when did some = few?

Some = not all.

But please continue to condescent.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 30, 2013)

Smyz said:


> You haven't read the article.
> 
> Or you don't know what ICM is.
> 
> Or your reaction reflects very poorly on you.


Does it have anything to do with a woman committing perjury, accusing two men of rape when they didn't?


----------



## Smyz (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Since when did some = few?
> 
> Some = not all.
> 
> But please continue to condescent.


When these attitudes are represented on juries the numerical meaning of "some" makes a big difference.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Does it have anything to do with a woman committing perjury, accusing two men of rape when they didn't?



Why don't you read the fucking article before repeatedly posting about it?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Why don't you read the fucking article before repeatedly posting about it?


I haven't posted about it.  I asked what it was about.   I'm not in the habit of reading that piece of shit and would need very good reason to do so.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I haven't posted about it.  I asked what it was about.   I'm not in the habit of reading that piece of shit and would need very good reason to do so.


 A difficult thread, real issues discussed, people get upset (on both 'sides') -- last thing it needs is some idiot firing cheap shots who hasn't even read what the thread is about.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 30, 2013)

Wilf said:


> A difficult thread, real issues discussed, people get upset (on both 'sides') -- last thing it needs is some idiot firing cheap shots who hasn't even read what the thread is about.


I've read the whole thread.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I've read the whole thread.


 The '2 men' didn't exist and she was done for perverting the course of justice, not perjury.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

i


toggle said:


> Will give you one thing though, you're certainly making wading through a 1960's explanation of whiggism seem more palatable



ah, a student. Might have guessed.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 30, 2013)

Wilf said:


> The '2 men' didn't exist and she was done for perverting the course of justice, not perjury.


Didn't I tell you I don't read the mail?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

toggle said:


> I'm seeking to make the point that the undue level of attention given to false allegation is causing a great deal of harm.



so therefore we arent allowed to fucking talk about it, dont be shy for christs sake. Were the topic allowed to be discussed by grown adults , even for an instant, wed all be running about calling women sllaaggs and opining they all deserved it . Completely unable to help ourselves.

Youve made your point over and over again as a justification for not permitting the subject to be discussed and as a justification for smearing the character of posters who might wish to .


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> so therefore we arent allowed to fucking talk about it, dont be shy for christs sake. Were the topic allowed to be discussed by grown adults , even for an instant, wed all be running about calling women sllaaggs and opining they all deserved it . Completely unable to help ourselves.
> 
> Youve made your point over and over again as a justification for not permitting the subject to be discussed and as a justification for smearing the character of posters who might wish to .


What is there to discuss? The length of sentencing for rape allegation crimes? The reasons why women do it? The fact that some people's hysteria around rape allegations and their perpetrators can make it harder for rape victims to press charges? Which is more important to you?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> It's not just a matter of tone in the slightest ffs




what is it then, spit it out. Say what you mean clearly and concisely so we can all understand . If its not a matter of tone then its obviously a matter of substance. So you are saying im a rape supporter...dont understand your shyness.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What is there to discuss? The length of sentencing for rape allegation crimes? The reasons why women do it? The fact that some people's hysteria around rape allegations and their perpetrators can make it harder for rape victims to press charges? Which is more important to you?



All of that should be up for discussion.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> All of that should be up for discussion.


Sure, but which is more important, and why?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Sure, but which is more important, and why?



That's completely subjective and dependant on the context of the debate.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 30, 2013)

When a very large proportion of rapists are set free to rape again by claiming that their victim is lying about it, responsible reporting of allegations that truly are false requires context.

Context that most newspapers and the poster who started this thread repeatedly choose to omit.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> That's completely subjective and dependant on the context of the debate.


It's completely subjective? Really? Contextual sure, but completely subjective? Come the fuck on.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> what is it then, spit it out. Say what you mean clearly and concisely so we can all understand . If its not a matter of tone then its obviously a matter of substance. So you are saying im a rape supporter...dont understand your shyness.


Clearly I am not saying you're a rape supporter. And your post is just trying to goad me.

You seem to think that everything is black and white, that because we don't see things the exact same way that you do, we must be therefore saying the polar opposite. Hence your 'rape supporter' nonsense above.

Grown-ups can see the shades of grey in an argument. You just want everything to be black and white so you can rage against something, _anything_ in fact.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It's completely subjective? Really?



Well of course it is.

Someone wishing to discuss the issue in the context of comparative sentencing would consider the the length of the sentence of primary importance. Examination of the psychological circumstances of the accuser would make "why did she do it?" the most important aspect. 

"The fact that some people's hysteria around rape allegations and their perpetrators can make it harder for rape victims to press charges?" is only of primary importance if one wishes to frame the debate from that perspective.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

toggle said:


> I'm seeking to make the point that the undue level of attention given to false allegation is causing a great deal of harm.



wheres your evidence for this, i dont see any . You could well be right but you need to demonstrate how that is the case .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> wheres your evidence for this, i dont see any . You could well be right but you need to demonstrate how that is the case .


Why? You don't feel the need to so why should anybody else have to?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Well of course it is.
> 
> Someone wishing to discuss the issue in the context of comparative sentencing would consider the the length of the sentence of primary importance. Examination of the psychological circumstances of the accuser would make "why did she do it?" the most important aspect.
> 
> "The fact that some people's hysteria around rape allegations and their perpetrators can make it harder for rape victims to press charges?" is only of primary importance if one wishes to frame the debate from that perspective.


Jesus fucking wept.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why? You don't feel the need to so why should anybody else have to?


tell you what, im going to put you on ignore for just a little while to stop this bickering going any further. im not doing it forever as you do make good points in other threads. but its gone too far in this one.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Well of course it is.
> 
> Someone wishing to discuss the issue in the context of comparative sentencing would consider the the length of the sentence of primary importance. Examination of the psychological circumstances of the accuser would make "why did she do it?" the most important aspect.
> 
> "The fact that some people's hysteria around rape allegations and their perpetrators can make it harder for rape victims to press charges?" is only of primary importance if one wishes to frame the debate from that perspective.


Go and read this threads and the other threads about rape issues, then come back.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Clearly I am not saying you're a rape supporter. And your post is just trying to goad me.
> 
> You seem to think that everything is black and white, that because we don't see things the exact same way that you do, we must be therefore saying the polar opposite. Hence your 'rape supporter' nonsense above.
> 
> Grown-ups can see the shades of grey in an argument. You just want everything to be black and white so you can rage against something, _anything_ in fact.



You made clear to me it wasn't a matter of tone but now apparently it's about shades of grey.

Make up your mind.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> tell you what, im going to put you on ignore for just a little while to stop this bickering going any further. im not doing it forever as you do make good points in other threads. but its gone too far in this one.


I don't think you could be any more patronising, I really don't.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Jesus fucking wept.



 I've just explained possible subjectivities regarding the questions you raised in relation to the case in the OP.

What's the problem?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Go and read this threads and the other threads about rape issues, then come back.



I'll read the threads I want to, thanks.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> You made clear to me it wasn't a matter of tone but now apparently it's about shades of grey.
> 
> Make up your mind.


It's common knowledge that tone is virtually impossible to discern in the written word unless clear wording or an indication of the sentiment behind the words is used, especially in emails or internet posts.

Shades of grey was in reference to CR always assuming a polar opposite viewpoint no matter what is posted rather than thinking about the other viewpoints in between black and white.

But hey, don't let reading the posts get in the way of you jumping on me.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

anyway, could someone provide us with some actual data or evidence which could help us understand the amount of juries which are letting rapists off because of media reports on false allegations. That would be helpful, thanks very much in advance .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I'll read the threads I want to, thanks.


Then if you're going to argue from the viewpoint of the uninformed, you will get picked up on it.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> anyway, could someone provide us with some actual data or evidence which could help us understand the amount of juries which are letting rapists off because of media reports on false allegations. That would be helpful, thanks very much in advance .


When you provide your sources for your claims, sure.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I've just explained possible subjectivities regarding the questions you raised in relation to the case in the OP.
> 
> What's the problem?


You know what? Figure it out yourself. Or don't.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Then if you're going to argue from the viewpoint of the uninformed, you will get picked up on it.



Uninformed about what?

You haven't got a clue what I'm arguing have you?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> It's common knowledge that tone is virtually impossible to discern in the written word unless clear wording or an indication of the sentiment behind the words is used, especially in emails or internet posts.
> 
> Shades of grey was in reference to CR always assuming a polar opposite viewpoint no matter what is posted rather than thinking about the other viewpoints in between black and white.
> 
> But hey, don't let reading the posts get in the way of you jumping on me.



Tone is an analogy for shades of grey ie not black and white, as you put it. It's why a printer has a toner.

But don't let anything like consistency get in the way of maintaining this bun fight.

And I'm not jumping on you, I actually like you as a poster, whilst being not too keen on CR, but I take issue with some of the ways you've gone about your argument, namely the pronoun nonsense and now your blatant inconsistency.

And seriously stick to maths your attempt at literary criticism is severely lacking and reads like an excuse for arbitrarism and irrationality.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You know what? Figure it out yourself. Or don't.



Brilliant!

I've made a completely uncontroversial point regarding subjectivity of debating positions, you're getting your knickers in a knot and EG is frothing bollocks.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> anyway, could someone provide us with some actual data or evidence which could help us understand the amount of juries which are letting rapists off because of media reports on false allegations. That would be helpful, thanks very much in advance .


 Off hand, no, but that's partly because researchers are not allowed regular access to juries (occasionally, but not very often).  I suspect it's more whether cases like this add to a narrative about rape, build up a nagging doubt in the mind's of juries, allow defence barristers to gnaw away  at the defendant etc.  It's not so much that this case feeds the rabid creeps, such as these:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/rape-is-post-sex-regret.html
It's more what it does to the public debate.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Tone is an analogy for shades of grey ie not black and white, as you put it. It's why a printer has a toner.
> 
> But don't let anything like consistency get in the way of maintaining this bun fight.
> 
> And I'm not jumping on you, I actually like you as a poster, whilst being not too keen on CR, but I take issue with some of the ways you've gone about your argument, namely the pronoun nonsense and now your blatant inconsistency.


Then you're using tone in a different way to the way I've been taught in written communication. It's not inconsistency on my part, it's an assumption about the definition on yours.

And your last statement is a bit patronising to be honest.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Off hand, no, but that's partly because researchers are not allowed regular access to juries (occasionally, but not very often).  I suspect it's more whether cases like this add to a narrative about rape, build up a nagging doubt in the mind's of juries, allow defence barristers to gnaw away  at the defendant etc.  It's not so much that this case feeds the rabid creeps, such as these:
> http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/rape-is-post-sex-regret.html
> It's more what it does to the public debate.


Ah yes, I remember his blog, he's a delight.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

ok, i thought this was a very informative read. It covers some of the points made specifically by LBJ earlier that i found interesting and positive . Its along the lines of how i would have liked to see this thread progress initially and addresses the issue of commonly held myths from a variety of angles.

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/debunking-rape-myths


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Brilliant!
> 
> I've made a completely uncontroversial point regarding subjectivity of debating positions, you're getting your knickers in a knot and EG is frothing bollocks.


Knickers in a knot? Hardly. Actually I'm wavering between thinking you're a bit disingenious, or you genuinely believe what you're writing, which is a bit wtf. Anyway, good night to you.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2013)

... [and because I can't edit the last one] I'm not of course suggesting cases like this shouldn't be reported. It's just  the prominence and tone that are the problem.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Then you're using tone in a different way to the way I've been taught in written communication. It's not inconsistency on my part, it's an assumption about the definition on yours.
> 
> And your last statement is a bit patronising to be honest.


ETA: Here is a typical definition of tone (in this case in the context of written business communications):



> *Appropriate Tone*
> Appropriate _tone_ In writing, _tone_ is defined as the author's attitude or emotion toward the subject and the reader
> While this might only seem appropriate for writers of literature, business writers also need to be concerned about _tone_
> In business writing, using the appropriate _tone_ ensures that the message is communicated properly


https://www.boundless.com/business/definition/tone/


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Knickers in a knot? Hardly. Actually I'm wavering between thinking you're a bit disingenious, or you genuinely believe what you're writing, which is a bit wtf. Anyway, good night to you.



 Astonishing. 

"Why did she do it?" and "Is the sentence reasonable?" are perfectly valid threads of the debate that you and others are seeking to shut down in favour of 'it doesn't happen often and other aspects of rape are more important'.  

Good night to you too.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> ok, i thought this was a very informative read. It covers some of the points made specifically by LBJ earlier that i found interesting and positive . Its along the lines of how i would have liked to see this thread progress initially and addresses the issue of commonly held myths from a variety of angles.
> 
> http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/debunking-rape-myths


With respect, not once did you take the thread in that direction, and you were pretty inflammatory from the start. Or if you want a discussion on rape myths, start one.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Off hand, no, but that's partly because researchers are not allowed regular access to juries (occasionally, but not very often).  I suspect it's more whether cases like this add to a narrative about rape, build up a nagging doubt in the mind's of juries, allow defence barristers to gnaw away  at the defendant etc.  It's not so much that this case feeds the rabid creeps, such as these:
> http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/rape-is-post-sex-regret.html
> It's more what it does to the public debate.



with respect wilf thats some nutter on the internet. I see were your coming from but theres no actual evidence i can see that shite like that blog actually sways juries. I havent even read the blog btw as im sure it will just depress me.

Just on the issue of actual statistics I found this from an article by Nigel Hawkes in the Times. I dont know if hes a cnut or not but he made these points about the figures that get bandied around about false accusations and how hard it is to get a handle on the true scale, and why.

_Others disagree. In a recent letter to The Times (19 July 2010), two barristers, David Wolchover and Anthony Heaton-Armstrong, say that they believe concoction is much commoner in rape trials than in other offences.

They sought, under the Freedom of Information Act, to get a breakdown of false allegations by offence type, in order to see if the official figures were justified. They were turned down on grounds of cost, and encouraged Baroness Stern, who was conducting an inquiry on behalf of the Government Equalities Office, to seek the same information. She, too, was rebuffed, they say.
Her report quotes police officers, Crown Prosecution lawyers and judges as saying that false accusations are very rare. But the two barristers say they listed a “huge number of established cases of concoction” in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly (April 24, 2010)._

_Official documents offer a range of figures. The Crown Prosecution Service’s Rape Manual, in a section called Societal Myths, states that “studies have indicated that only 2 per cent of all reported rapes are false, which is slightly less than false reporting in all other crimes”.

It gives no references to these studies, but the 2 per cent figure originates in the US and has been frequently cited. An attempt to trace it to its source by a US lawyer, Edward Greer, found that it originated in the feminist writer Susan Brownmiller’s 1976 book Against our Will, using data quoted by a judge that in turn came from the Commander of the New York City Rape Analysis Squad in the mid-1970s. There appears to be no published report to substantiate the claim, nor any evidence of how the statistics were collected.  _

So from what I can see from that article and this one, http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/debunking-rape-myths

there looks to be myths abounding on both sides. And nobody really knows what the true picture is surrounding this very emotive issue .


----------



## revol68 (Oct 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Then you're using tone in a different way to the way I've been taught in written communication. It's not inconsistency on my part, it's an assumption about the definition on yours.
> 
> And your last statement is a bit patronising to be honest.



So tone isn't a metaphor for shades of something rather than discrete/binary divisions? As for your hilarious rules of written communication, are you on wind up, "business rules", really that's where you getyour understanding of language from. Even if you don't understand my use of tone to be a metaphor for shades of grey (explaining a metaphor through metaphor, it really does "go all the way down") you surely could grasp the meaning from the context it was being used in.

And yes the last bit was meant to be patronising, when I'm being insulting I don't try to hide it in a passive aggressive manner.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> with respect wilf thats some nutter on the internet. I see were your coming from but theres no actual evidence i can see that shite like that blog actually sways juries. I havent even read the blog btw as im sure it will just depress me.
> .


Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was suggesting the blog was so offensively stupid it couldn't have much impact on any debate.  It's the way the _mail_ reported this story, without any attempt to say how rare these stories are or the much, much bigger picture of unreported rapes/unconvicted rapes, that was the problem (and had the potential to influence debate).  There's even the issue of whether it should have made a national newspaper at all, maybe at most a regional.  And I'm saying that without rowing back from what I agreed the other night, that what the woman did in this particular case was horrific.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 30, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was suggesting the blog was so offensively stupid it couldn't have much impact on any debate.  It's the way the _mail_ reported this story, without any attempt to say how rare these stories are or the much, much bigger picture of unreported rapes/unconvicted rapes, that was the problem (and had the potential to influence debate).  There's even the issue of whether it should have made a national newspaper at all, maybe at most a regional.  And I'm saying that without rowing back from what I agreed the other night, that what the woman did in this particular case was horrific.



.See were your coming from now . well those are  definitely legitimate points, but im still not convinced the rarity of the problem of false accusation is just as rare as the cps figures suggest . Another thing that sort of outraged me was a case in Teeside were a case was thrown after it was revealed it was the 8th time the same woman had make a false complaint . And Im going to myself...genuine rape victims are finding it seriously difficult at times to even get their day in court..yet the CPS permits this to happen 8 times in a row..wtf is going on . And theres no way that would have happened in my view if say after the third or 4th false compalint that  woman had been given an exemplary sentence.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 31, 2013)

The original source for that material (from the Criminal law and justice weekly, 24 April 2010) was based on the surveryed attitudes of mock jurors, not actual jurors by the way.

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Rape-Trials (may need to register for access, but there is a free 14 day trial)



> As criminal justice professionals working at the coal face know very well, a large proportion of complainants in rape trials clearly do not conform to the victim stereotype and yet jurors nonetheless convict in untold numbers of cases in which the complainant has departed from the stereotype. Indeed, this is borne out by the fact that juries convict in rape cases to an extent which is at least comparable with that in offences of serious violence across the board. (In earlier writings we extracted from the criminal statistics for 2006 the statistically insignificant comparative figure of 31 as against 33 per cent for jury convictions respectively in rape and offences of violence generally: see “Debunking rape myths,” 158 New Law Journal 117-129, (2008) January 25; “The rape myths myth,” Counsel, March 2008; “Rape, myths and statistics,” Counsel, May 2008; “The truth about rape: forget the myths and look at the statistics,” (2009) The Times October 15. The recent study of jury conviction rates over the years 2006 to 2009 conducted by Professor Cheryl Thomas on behalf of the Ministry of Justice gives a much higher figure: 62 per cent for sexual assault; 52 per cent for non-fatal injury and 63 per cent for homicide related offences: Are Juries Fair? MoJ Research Series 1/10, February 2010. In her recent review, Baroness Stern drew attention to the way in which presentation of the conviction rate in rape peculiarly contrasted with that for other offences: The Stern Review: A report by Baroness Vivien Stern CBE of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales, Government Equalities Office and Home Office, March 2010, pp.42-46.)
> 
> The message is clear: too many defendants are not being acquitted. Whatever members of the public in general or mock jurors in particular might believe to be “typical” about rape victim behaviour, real jurors in actual trials are not significantly swayed by the victim stereotype to acquit. If the figures were skewed by myths, the conviction rate in contested cases would be significantly less than it is. But the statistics actually convey a rather encouraging bulletin. Given that most rape trials are concerned with non-stranger encounters in private where the issue is usually consent and the scientific evidence is therefore usually irrelevant, where the jury will be required to grapple with what must be the supremely difficult task of trying to make sense of the states of mind of the two parties involved and where many jurors will be only too well aware of the constant stream of shocking reports in the popular press of rape allegations which are shown to be false it is truly a wonder that the contested case conviction rate is as high as it is. As to the insidious knock-on impact of false allegations Judge LJ, as he then was (now Lord Judge CJ), said, memorably, in R. v. Carrington-Jones [2007] EWCA Crim 2551, para.26, that, “every occasion of a proved false allegation has an insidious effect on public confidence in the truth of genuine complaints, sometimes allowing doubt to creep in where none should in truth exist.”
> 
> ...



Now I'm not 100% convinced by everything the authors say, but I think this highlights the problem of accurate data collection in this area quite well - that how someone thinks they would react in a simulated scenario and how someone acts in real life may be completely different. So I'm not sure that these survey results can be used to confidently determine the rate of false accusations for rape allegations.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 31, 2013)

revol68 said:


> So tone isn't a metaphor for shades of something rather than discrete/binary divisions? As for your hilarious rules of written communication, are you on wind up, "business rules", really that's where you getyour understanding of language from. Even if you don't understand my use of tone to be a metaphor for shades of grey (explaining a metaphor through metaphor, it really does "go all the way down") you surely could grasp the meaning from the context it was being used in.
> 
> And yes the last bit was meant to be patronising, when I'm being insulting I don't try to hide it in a passive aggressive manner.


Neither do I. How about you use a bit of imagination with your insults, passive aggresive makes you appear very childish.

I'm not on the wind up. Believe what you want.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 31, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> .See were your coming from now . well those are  definitely legitimate points, but im still not convinced the rarity of the problem of false accusation is just as rare as the cps figures suggest . Another thing that sort of outraged me was a case in Teeside were a case was thrown after it was revealed it was the 8th time the same woman had make a false complaint . And Im going to myself...genuine rape victims are finding it seriously difficult at times to even get their day in court..yet the CPS permits this to happen 8 times in a row..wtf is going on . And theres no way that would have happened in my view if say after the third or 4th false compalint that  woman had been given an exemplary sentence.


The book about rape investigation was quite infromative on that point, and said that repeated false allegations could indicate a mental health issue.

It's cases like these that give me no confidence in the CPS.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 31, 2013)

revol68 said:


> So tone isn't a metaphor for shades of something rather than discrete/binary divisions? As for your hilarious rules of written communication, are you on wind up, "business rules", really that's where you getyour understanding of language from. Even if you don't understand my use of tone to be a metaphor for shades of grey (explaining a metaphor through metaphor, it really does "go all the way down") you surely could grasp the meaning from the context it was being used in.
> 
> And yes the last bit was meant to be patronising, when I'm being insulting I don't try to hide it in a passive aggressive manner.


And the meaning of a word depends on the context. Don't know why you're getting so wound up because two people have used the same word to mean two different things. It's not my fault if you assumed something about my posting style.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 31, 2013)

Also from the Criminal Law and Justice Weekly article:



> Is it correct that false allegations are no more likely in rape cases than in other allegations of crime? As we have conceded on previous occasions, there are as yet no collated official statistics on the incidence of false allegations in rape as compared with non-sexual allegations (see above citations and letter, (2009) The Times October 23.) That does not mean of course that there are not other valid sources of evidence suggesting an unusually high incidence in rape cases. There is certainly no shortage of academic attempts to study the incidence systematically. However, from an able review by Rumney of the very many research studies on the topic it is apparent that there is a very wide range of estimates of the incidence of concoction, much inconsistency in applying criteria of measurement, variation as to what is meant by a false allegation and a considerable element of subjectivity on the part of those professionals from whom the researchers have sought to compile statistical estimates (Rumney, Phillip N. S., “False allegations of rape,” (2006) 65(1) Cambridge Law Journal, pp.128-158).
> 
> Across the range of studies Rumney reviewed estimates of the proportion of false rape complaints *vary between two per cent and 50 per cent, the higher estimates being typical amongst investigating police officers.* It may be interesting to note that high estimates also predominated in a straw poll conducted by the second of the present authors among investigating officers involved in sexual offence cases in which he had defended during the course of the past several months. In contrast, those “in the system” to whom Baroness Stern spoke “felt that there were very few” false allegations (The Stern Review, p.40, citing a CPS lawyer who had prosecuted a false allegation only once in his 20 years of prosecuting, an experienced police officer who had come across two such cases in 15 years and the Judges to whom she talked, five being identified by name: pp.139-140). In their response to the Stern Review this was reduced by the Government, absurdly, to the observation that “[a]necdotal evidence indicates that false allegations are rare” (Interim Government Response to the Stern Review, Equalities Office, March 2010, “Key facts about rape,” p.9).


----------



## Smyz (Oct 31, 2013)

I don't have much confidence in the views of those authors.

"It will always be difficult to prove rape, especially in the absence of independent support for the complainant’s allegations. In its quest to reduce the incidence of rape, to prosecute rapists to conviction and to decrease the frequency of false complaints, we would suggest that the government ought to direct its efforts to the following goals:

--educating potential victims of sexual assault on the adoption of risk-avoidance strategies;

--lending proper encouragement and support to those who do come forward;

--more thorough and efficient evidence-gathering, case preparation and management;

--refining and deploying adequate safeguards to expose concoction; and

--emphasising to potential false complainants—perhaps with the help of rape victim support groups—how damaging to the credibility of genuine complainants false complaints can be."


First item on their list of ideas is to educate women about how to protect themselves. 

No mention at all about educating men about not raping.

Two out of five items focusing on catching and or preventing false accusations.

Hmm


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 31, 2013)

It's just a hand-wavy list of nice things. The idea that women need educating about false allegations is laughable and patronising. As is the first item on the list.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 31, 2013)

Smyz said:


> First item on their list of ideas is to educate women about how to protect themselves.



whats wrong with that ? There are rapists out there, theres a serious amount of women being attacked. Whats wrong with educating them about how to minimise the risk of attack. We all know they shouldnt be attacked but the fact is they are being.



> No mention at all about educating men about not raping.



your proposals on this idea please.



> Two out of five items focusing on catching and or preventing false accusations.
> 
> Hmm



imagine, defence barristers having an issue with false accusations. The nerve of them.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 31, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's just a hand-wavy list of nice things. The idea that women need educating about false allegations is laughable and patronising. As is the first item on the list.



Yup, I doubt if someone was prepared to make a false allegation of rape that a little talk telling them about how difficult it makes it for other women is going to help much.

Likewise those government adverts informing me that "rape is wrong", as if actual rapists were just in need of that little reminder to stop them raping.

These and the "don't walk home alone" stuff are really the desperate (and often counterproductive) measures of a state that has given up on politics proper, instead settling for patronising citizens to be good little boys and girls. It should be no surprise that this happens as the very means that could empower women in general are being stripped away or sold off. This is a state that leaves rape crisis centres to beg for money and whose general austerity measures have feel disproportionately on women, no doubt leaving many women in abusive situations with less means of escape.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 31, 2013)

Educating women on how not be be raped is ridiculous - as if there's a magic set of things you can do and voila! Nobody rapes you! Ever!!!

Women are raped because men rape them. It doesn't matter what they wear, what they've done, what they've drank, what mode of transport they use.  That's not to say the risk can't be minimised to a certain degree, but it's not like only drunk women are raped or only women who wear miniskirts. 

I think a lot of this is also so rubbish because it stems from the notion that the only rape is stranger rape where a woman fights hard not to be raped, a very old-fashioned and now inaccurate view of what constitutes rape.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 31, 2013)

Smyz said:


> No mention at all about educating men about not raping.



Whilst the notion that the only men who rape are these stereotypical monsters with sweat permanently dripping from their brow is obviously massively counter productive and acts to avoid addressing the problem, I don't think rapists are just in need of a little education. Whilst the estimate is that between 5%(UK  Home Office) and 20% of US women have been raped, the figure for the amount of men who rape is significantly less (because rapists tend to have more than one victim). This suggests that issues isn't that these men grow up thinking rape is okay, rather that they simply don't particularly care in general or at specific times of their offence, or more likely they are apt at justifying their violence to themselves, to paint it as something else.

It will take more than a few classes and posters to address rape in a brutalising society.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 31, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's just a hand-wavy list of nice things. The idea that women need educating about false allegations is laughable and patronising. As is the first item on the list.



with respect it doesnt say that at all. It specifies _potential false complainants_ . Common sense would dictate that means people whos stories look decidedly iffy, people whove already made a number of false complaints. People who as has already been highlighted may well have underlying mental health issues and unlike those who dont may well not appreciate the very real harm theyre causing to others and possibly themselves.

People like these 2

8 false complaints

http://web.archive.org/web/20110615...ws/8678711.Woman___s_eight_false_rape_claims/

and another , 8 false complaints, hundreds of phone calls to the police, attempting to see the false complaints through at all costs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-493352/Woman-falsely-cried-rape-EIGHT-times-spared-jail.html

are you seriously of the view people like that dont require at the very least a sympathetic intervention to stop them doing what theyre doing earlier on or is laissez faire the best policy ? Prosecute and be damned ? send them to a mental institution ? Would you not agree something has to be done, and if so what ?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 31, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> with respect it doesnt say that at all. It specifies _potential false complainants_ . Common sense would dictate that means people whos stories look decidedly iffy, people whove already made a number of false complaints. People who as has already been highlighted may well have underlying mental health issues and unlike those who dont may well not appreciate the very real harm theyre causing to others and possibly themselves.
> 
> People like these 2
> 
> ...


the article actually stated that one of the possible pitfalls of false accusations is that the false complainant mimics a real rape complainant so well that she is believed completely and an innocent man is sent to prison. So it's not about an 'iffy' story at all, nor can the qualities of the false complaint be reduced to a checklist that can be used to determine if a case is real or not. And therein lies the problem.

I did quote all this from the rape investigation book earlier in the thread - the chapter on false allegations was available on google books and well worth a read.

Also, a false rape complainant does not necessarily have mental health issues, nor is someone with mental health issues more likely to make a rape complaint than someone without such issues, that said mental health can be a factor in some cases.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 31, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> with respect it doesnt say that at all. It specifies _potential false complainants_ . Common sense would dictate that means people whos stories look decidedly iffy, people whove already made a number of false complaints. People who as has already been highlighted may well have underlying mental health issues and unlike those who dont may well not appreciate the very real harm theyre causing to others and possibly themselves.
> 
> People like these 2
> 
> ...



Did you not read the bit where it says the cops did warn her about the seriousness of making false allegations because of her previous claims?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 31, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Did you not read the bit where it says the cops did warn her about the seriousness of making false allegations because of her previous claims?



i did. But what the breifs are saying is an agency like a womans group might be a bit more effective And anyways its not about her specifically, shes plainly at the extreme end of the scale .  It could well be theres no amount of talking to would stop her as shes that disturbed,  but that may well not be the case with others. Stopping them doing what they  are doing earlier on is in everyones interests. Genuine victims included bearing in the mind the resources that get tied up .
Are we to assume that everyone who makes a flase complaint is completly evil or do we assume theres a mix of both, people who want to cause harm and people who dont realise the harm theyre causing, the attention seekers and the like. If that portion can be weeded out earlier on then educating them is worth doing i reckon .


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I haven't posted about it.  I asked what it was about.   I'm not in the habit of reading that piece of shit and would need very good reason to do so.



If you are going to be disingenuous, you should at least do so in a vaguely credible way. Your two posts about this were plainly and obviously dismissals of toggle's argument and not serious requests for a summary of the article.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 31, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Yup, I doubt if someone was prepared to make a false allegation of rape that a little talk telling them about how difficult it makes it for other women is going to help much.
> 
> Likewise those government adverts informing me that "rape is wrong", as if actual rapists were just in need of that little reminder to stop them raping.
> 
> These and the "don't walk home alone" stuff are really the desperate (and often counterproductive) measures of a state that has given up on politics proper, instead settling for patronising citizens to be good little boys and girls. It should be no surprise that this happens as the very means that could empower women in general are being stripped away or sold off. This is a state that leaves rape crisis centres to beg for money and whose general austerity measures have feel disproportionately on women, no doubt leaving many women in abusive situations with less means of escape.



again, good points that id mostly agree with . But at the same time its a bit of an assumption they mean _dont walk home alone_. Theres other issues there like accepting drinks from strangers or even people you know, leaving your drinks unattended, rohypnol and the like, using legit taxis...stuff that your average studnts union will teach to women. And only a minority of women ever come in contact with a students union so the majority dont get this type of advice . And again they dont specify women in general, they specify potential victims. Which id assume means something along the lines of women who for whatever reason  are exceptionally vulnerable to attack moreso than others .
Which id amit could be a wrong assumption on my part, but as they specified potential victims as opposed to women in general its the meaning i took from it


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Stopping them doing what they  are doing earlier on is in everyones interests. Genuine victims included bearing in the mind the resources that get tied up .
> Are we to assume that everyone who makes a flase complaint is completly evil or do we assume theres a mix of both, people who want to cause harm and people who dont realise the harm theyre causing, the attention seekers and the like. If that portion can be weeded out earlier on then educating them is worth doing i reckon .



This would be a much more reasonable argument if the police and legal system faced some torrent of false complaints and had to work out some way of preserving their resources for other things. But that's not in fact the central problem with rape and the legal system, is it?

The core problem is that rape complaints aren't reported, aren't prosecuted when they are, and even if they are prosecuted too often result in acquittal. Placing more barriers in the way of complainants is unreservedly a terrible idea.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This would be a much more reasonable argument if the police and legal system faced some torrent of false complaints and had to work out some way of preserving their resources for other things. But that's not in fact the central problem with rape and the legal system, is it?
> 
> The core problem is that rape complaints aren't reported, aren't prosecuted when they are, and even if they are prosecuted too often result in acquittal. Placing more barriers in the way of complainants is unreservedly a terrible idea.



with respect that teeside one alone saw a string of men wrongly prosecuted one after the other over a 2 year period . Resources definitely are tied up . For every one of those cases detectives could have been better employed going after actual rapists. And theres still the question of how in the name of god those cases get to court when others cant. Without a doubt theres cases going to court repeatedly that simply shouldnt be. If you found yourself in the dock as a result of a serial false accusers lies  Id doubt youd be be insisting on a laissez faire approach to this particular problem.

And as their research also makes clear we dont actually know the full scale of the problem and how many resources are tied up as a result of it. The estimates vary pretty wildly. It seems no civil servant wants to take responsibility. Which isnt all that surprising.

Id go back to Hawkes article from the Times

_More recent British studies come up with figures of 8-12 per cent. Liz Kelly and colleagues from London Metropolitan University in a 2005 report for the Home Office (A gap or a chasm: understanding attrition in reported rape cases)  found that of 2,643 cases in their data set, 216 were classified as false allegations (8 per cent). But as a proportion of the cases not proceeding beyond the police stage (1,817) this represented 12 per cent.

These were judgements made by the police, which the authors of the report were reluctant to accept. In addition, there were 318 cases where the victim withdrew the claim (17 per cent) and a similar number (315, also 17 per cent) where the victim declined to complete the initial process, which the report attributes largely to poor handling of the initial complaint by the police, or the fear the women had of court proceedings and of being judged.

Such fears are entirely understandable, but it is also possible that some of these withdrawals represented false allegations which the complainants were reluctant to acknowledge. Of all the rapes reported, 12 per cent failed to make any progress because the complainant declined to make a formal complaint, refused to have a forensic examination, failed to give a statement or withheld information. 

Pity the poor civil servant who has been asked by Mr Blunt to produce “an independent assessment of the current research and statistics on defendant anonymity in rape cases”. *The statistics are so open to interpretation that what you believe they show depends very much on the preconceptions you start out with.*_


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2013)

Casually Red said:
			
		

> If you found yourself in the dock as a result of a serial false accusers lies  Id doubt youd be be insisting on a laissez faire approach to this particular problem.



If I'd been hit by lightning I would likely spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about the terrifying prospect of pure electricity smiting me from the sky.

There is no reason to believe that false rape complaints are any more prevalent than false complaints of other crimes. There are reasons, given the horrific ordeal that a complaint can involve, to assume that they are less likely. The cops are not overrun with false complaints of any kind. Yes, false complaints happen. No, I don't think that's trivial, or to be dismissed. But, ultimately we live in a society in which unpunished rapists outnumber people wrongly convicted of rape by orders of magnitude. And there is nothing unreasonable in thinking that the bigger problem takes priority.


----------



## Smyz (Oct 31, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Whilst the notion that the only men who rape are these stereotypical monsters with sweat permanently dripping from their brow is obviously massively counter productive and acts to avoid addressing the problem, I don't think rapists are just in need of a little education. Whilst the estimate is that between 5%(UK  Home Office) and 20% of US women have been raped, the figure for the amount of men who rape is significantly less (because rapists tend to have more than one victim). This suggests that issues isn't that these men grow up thinking rape is okay, rather that they simply don't particularly care in general or at specific times of their offence, or more likely they are apt at justifying their violence to themselves, to paint it as something else.
> 
> It will take more than a few classes and posters to address rape in a brutalising society.


I'm thinking of the kinds of things covered in this article http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...event_sexual_assault_on_college_campuses.html

Some of the research quoted on this thread states that a third of rapists are teenagers. I don't know how many older rapists started as teenagers.

There's also this post
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...d-buried-memories.301023/page-5#post-11667761
which states that 40% of child sex abusers are siblings.

Better and earlier sex education might prevent a lot of this from happening.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> no, the only thing you've said you want changed is, quite rightly, "The prosecution should not be able to use the woman's dress, state of inebriation, where she is walking, at what time of night, or any other such circumstances as part of their defence. They should not be allowed to mention it. It is not a crime to walk down a street late at night in a short dress when drunk, and that should not be admissible evidence. The woman's sexual history should also not be admissible. Having sex with lots of different people is also not a crime."
> 
> this is correct and right.  you've not said anything else except that we should not lower the burden of proof for rape under any circumstance, because we need to protect ourselves from the state.
> 
> ...



Reasoning? I've put forward the same position as top cat more or less, yet you extend fluffy bears towards him and attempt to belittle me? That says more about you than it does about me.

I'm disappointed in you, bluestreak. Very disappointed. You're not engaging with the argument, but with your preconceptions of the person making the argument. That you would have such dim, and utterly wrong, preconceptions about me is very disappointing. 

I was wrong before. Don't go and look at what I've posted before. Go and look at what you've posted. It's a fucking disgrace.


----------



## toggle (Nov 1, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> _ But as a proportion of the cases not proceeding beyond the police stage (1,817) this represented 12 per cent.
> _



a figure based solely on police opinions of who they chose to believe, those who were victimey enough.

there's a reason the researchers didn't consider that figure entirely credible.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 1, 2013)

Smyz said:


> I'm thinking of the kinds of things covered in this article http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...event_sexual_assault_on_college_campuses.html
> 
> Some of the research quoted on this thread states that a third of rapists are teenagers. I don't know how many older rapists started as teenagers.
> 
> ...



the issue of siblings abusing eachother/younger children is complicated by the fact that often the abuser is being or has been abused themselves by an adult or is doing it to "please" an adult...so it is different in causes than an adult abusing a child.

*a third of rapists being teenagers does not surprise me ... there has been so much warped stuff about sex and rape since the 1990's...
football pundits/fans saying that this player "raped" a team ... because he played well

*pubs with lap dancing on housing estates

*free hardcore porn available on phones as well as computers...anything from sex with sleeping women, blind drunk women or even rape porn can easily be found

*the re- emergence of sex to advertise /sell just about every thing

*the watering down of rape with terms like "date-rape" and "one womans rape is another womans bad date"

*the re-emergence of "she was asking for it" arguments re a woman being dressed in a certain way, having a drink, a sexuality etc.

* the "jokes" that women say one thing but mean the opposite...ie no don't mean know

*the idea that rape is by a stranger or is violent being pushed again


All of this was always going to impact on people ... young people included


----------



## RubyBlue (Nov 1, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Reasoning? I've put forward the same position as top cat more or less, yet you extend fluffy bears towards him and attempt to belittle me? That says more about you than it does about me.
> 
> I'm disappointed in you, bluestreak. Very disappointed. You're not engaging with the argument, but with your preconceptions of the person making the argument. That you would have such dim, and utterly wrong, preconceptions about me is very disappointing.
> 
> I was wrong before. Don't go and look at what I've posted before. Go and look at what you've posted. It's a fucking disgrace.


 
I always thought you were a good poster but I have loads more respect for you after reading this thread - as I have another couple of posters ...


----------



## RubyBlue (Nov 1, 2013)

revol68 said:


> And I'm not jumping on you, I actually like you as a poster, whilst being not too keen on CR, but I take issue with some of the ways you've gone about your argument, namely the pronoun nonsense and now your blatant inconsistency.


 
If I had been called a misogynist, a cunt  and a shit I doubt if I would feel like apologising - I think CR seriously made a mistake in one of his initial posts but FFS!  There has been a lot of nastiness on all sides here.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 1, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> the issue of siblings abusing eachother/younger children is complicated by the fact that often the abuser is being or has been abused themselves by an adult or is doing it to "please" an adult...so it is different in causes than an adult abusing a child.
> 
> *a third of rapists being teenagers does not surprise me ... there has been so much warped stuff about sex and rape since the 1990's...
> football pundits/fans saying that this player "raped" a team ... because he played well
> ...



You seem to be mistaking the research about rapists starting as teenagers with arguments that rape is rising amongst today's teenagers. Frankly I don't buy the idea that the attitudes you are talking about are "re-emerging" or are any more prevalent with teenagers now than they were in the past.

"date rape" doesn't water down "rape", on the contrary what it does is make clear that rape is not just something done by strangers or necessarily involve explicit violence (leaving marks, cuts and bruises).

Your post reads like Daily Mail tosh.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 1, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm disappointed in you, bluestreak. Very disappointed. You're not engaging with the argument, but with your preconceptions of the person making the argument. That you would have such dim, and utterly wrong, preconceptions about me is very disappointing.
> 
> I was wrong before. Don't go and look at what I've posted before. Go and look at what you've posted. It's a fucking disgrace.


 
i don't have any preconceptions about  except that you seem like a decent bloke and i don't doubt your commitment to social justice. my arguming with you is nothing personal whatsoever, but your position is what i'm debating.   you're trying to present the offence you take to my argument as proof that what i am saying is wrong, presumably so you don't have to explain why i'm wrong.  i'm not wrong.  i'm not saying i have an answer, though toggle's are pretty damn good.  if you think my position is a fucking disgrace then so be it.  that's a damn shame and i hope that you have the balls to patiently explain to any rape victims you know why they should be thankful that the burden of proof is where it is in law and that anyone who disagrees is a fucking disgrace.  i'm sure that they will take great comfort from it.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 1, 2013)

revol68 said:


> You seem to be mistaking the research about rapists starting as teenagers with arguments that rape is rising amongst today's teenagers. Frankly I don't buy the idea that the attitudes you are talking about are "re-emerging" or are any more prevalent with teenagers now than they were in the past.
> 
> "date rape" doesn't water down "rape", on the contrary what it does is make clear that rape is not just something done by strangers or necessarily involve explicit violence (leaving marks, cuts and bruises).
> 
> Your post reads like Daily Mail tosh.



For the first point you are right...I have made that mistake

But I am confused why you think I am spouting daily mail tosh.
Its the daily mail that uses terms like date rape and then seeks to suggest that there are degrees of rape...sorry if I was not clear but I was saying that rape was rape regardless of whether it was by a partner or a stranger or a friend

In the 90s there was a rise in what became known as laddism...I think that the lad culture has led to treating rape like a joke in some ways...there have been t shirts at freshers fairs with jokes about rape on them and rape is used in sporting terms.

Fair enough for you not to agree but why throw nonsense about me sounding like the mail? Hardly makes for a constructive discussion...and I certainly was not being offensive or dismissing rape


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 1, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> For the first point you are right...I have made that mistake
> 
> But I am confused why you think I am spouting daily mail tosh.
> Its the daily mail that uses terms like date rape and then seeks to suggest that there are degrees of rape...sorry if I was not clear but I was saying that rape was rape regardless of whether it was by a partner or a stranger or a friend
> ...


I thought the same as RubyBlue - that your post came across as saying date-rape wasn't 'real' rape. Thanks for clarifying.

The 'unilad' thread - about the issue you mention about freshers fair t-shirts - was a very interesting thread. Well worth a read if you have patience/time.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 2, 2013)

When I think of murder...it's a terrible word, it's a terrible concept.   I'm against it.

When I think of rape...it's actually a worse word, it's a terrible concept.  I'm against it.

However...there are degrees of murder and degrees of rape, just as there are degrees of any crime apart from serial killing and genocide and such absolutely inexcusable shit.

In the eyes of the law a 6 year old boy who goes out with a 5 year old girl and they stay together until they are 16 and 15 and sleep together and then get married 3 years later...he raped her in the eyes of the law.  I'm not throwing in a straw man, not arguing or replying to anyone in particular or unparticular.

There are degrees of rape.   If you were a girl under 16 and a boy 16 or above that slept with you...rape.   If there are no degrees of rape then there are no degrees of punishment.   Punishment should fit the crime.

I know about rape, I know what it's about.   The punishment should fit the perpetrator, not the word.

So...I think...anyone who accuses a person of a crime and is found to be deliberately lying about it should be liable to the same punishment as they seek for others.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 2, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> So...I think...anyone who accuses a person of a crime and is found to be deliberately lying about it should be liable to the same punishment as they seek for others.



I don't think drawing equivalences is particularly helpful, but if you must seek an equivalence, then being found guilty of a malicious accusation is more equivalent to a failed rape attempt. A man grabs a woman intending to rape her but she wrestles free of his grip and runs away - if it's equivalent to anything, it is equivalent to that: you tried to have someone convicted of a crime, but failed.

But then exact equivalences do not exist, and falsely accusing someone of rape is a different kind of thing from raping someone, or attempting to rape someone, or even intending to rape someone. And five years or whatever in jail is a different kind of thing from being raped.

Rapists should be punished. They should also be taken out of society for potentially a long time to protect others. And they should also be helped - helped to an understanding of the damage they have done, and then helped to come to terms with the knowledge that they caused that damage, and - hopefully - eventually given the chance to make amends in some way. But those amends have to be made to society as a whole - you can't unrape your victim. She has been punished but committed no crime. That particular injustice cannot be righted - that unjust fact has entered the world.

A person making a false accusation also needs to be punished, as well as helped to an understanding of the damage she tried to do. But she is less in need to make amends and does not necessarily need to be taken out of society to protect others.

So I would like to see very different punishments - a rapist must be sent to jail, but I don't necessarily see value in sending a false accuser to jail at all.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 2, 2013)

.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

8115 said:


> I think the notion of date rape is ok?



think you need to clarify... and quickly before the posse arrives... that you mean that the concept of 'date rape' is a legitimate one ... before you are accused of being a rape apologist... or even advocate.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> think you need to clarify... and quickly before the posse arrives... that you mean that the concept of 'date rape' is a legitimate one ... before you are accused of being a rape apologist... or even advocate.


I think it's pretty obvious that that's what I would mean.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 2, 2013)

8115's edited, Liam. Maybe better if you do too.

Tbh, I thought the post was pretty clear in what it was trying to say.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So I would like to see very different punishments - a rapist must be sent to jail, but I don't necessarily see value in sending a false accuser to jail at all.



 I suspect you would have substantially different view if you were the one being falsely accused and having your life ruined over a malicious, false allegation.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 2, 2013)

No it's fine.  I just can't be bothered to get into a big debate on the subject is all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I suspect you would have substantially different view if you were the one being falsely accused and having your life ruined over a malicious, false allegation.


Yes, possibly. Which is one of the reasons why I think that it is a good idea that the victims of the crime do not get to decide the punishments, however hard that might feel sometimes.

I'd hope not, though. I might hate that person's guts, but still not want to see them sent to prison for ages.

tbh I think what I'd want more than anything else would be simply a sincerely felt, unreserved apology. I rather naively started complaint proceedings against the police once for something they had done to me - and what I wanted really was an acknowledgement that they had fucked up and an apology. It soon became clear that whatever happened, I would not get that, that they would only ever admit to small ( and understandable, surely, if you see it from _our_ point of view?) mistakes. And that is no apology at all. 

/derail, what happened was nothing to do with rape, although it was all started by a false report to the police about me. One of the problems was that, having believed that initial report, they at no time questioned its truth or reliability, even though there was no evidence to support it, and in fact, a pause for thought would have told them that the person making the claim could not possibly have known what they said they knew. An example of how it is important for the police to take any accusation or report seriously, but not to simply act as if it were true. Act as if it might be true.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

8115 said:


> I think it's pretty obvious that that's what I would mean.



Yes. I read it exactly as you wrote it.

But unfortunately you left yourself open to mis-reading, misrepresentation and approbation by other posters on this very thread. However, now that clarification has been sought and clearly given, only the nuttiest of posters would now attempt such a thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> There are degrees of rape.   If you were a girl under 16 and a boy 16 or above that slept with you...rape.   If there are no degrees of rape then there are no degrees of punishment.   Punishment should fit the crime.
> 
> I know about rape, I know what it's about.   The punishment should fit the perpetrator, not the word.



In law there are no degrees of rape.  That said, there are degrees of sexual assault, and alternative offences under which a defendant can be charged. 
Your example of the 16 year old boy sleeping with a 15 year old girl who he's been in a platonic relationship with since primary school misses the point that he wouldn't be charged with rape, he'd be charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (where the punishment is usually a community order, or a CD), because the CPS know that "consent rape" cases (i.e. cases where the victim consents in fact, but not in law) are hard to win.  USI has been on the statutes for nearly 100 years now, precisely for the reasons you've mentioned above.  It allows the authorities to send a message, without unnecessarily penalising teenagers in what may be a committed relationship.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2013)

RubyBlue said:


> If I had been called a misogynist, a cunt  and a shit I doubt if I would feel like apologising - I think CR seriously made a mistake in one of his initial posts but FFS!  There has been a lot of nastiness on all sides here.


 Agreed - and CD apologise for some of that earlier stuff.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 2, 2013)

The word "misogynist" gets thrown around here far too lightly.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> The word "misogynist" gets thrown around here far too lightly.



No, sexist behaviour is far too tolerated.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 2, 2013)

Yeah, right.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> The word "misogynist" gets thrown around here far too lightly.



Yes. Because it carries such implicit power. It's a powerful and emotive word and once people get accused of it they become so busy defending themselves they often lose track of what the argument is about... which is of course often the intention of the person who bandied  the accusation about in the first place

I was loudly accused of being a 'misogynist' by a a posh woman on the LUAS in Dublin once. She added that 'But you probably could not even spell it, could you?'

My answer "M-I-S-O-G-Y-N-I-S-T... now can you spell stuck-up old cunt" did not go down too well with her but it amused my work colleagues.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> No, sexist behaviour is far too tolerated.



You're right that sexism is far too tolerated but a sexist isn't necessarily a misogynist. I don't think so anyway.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 2, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> You're right that sexism is far too tolerated but a sexist isn't necessarily a misogynist. I don't think so anyway.


I agree that a sexist isn't necessarily a misogynist. But whenever a topic like this is discussed the same views come up again and again from the same people. And some of those views can be seen as misogynistic.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I agree that a sexist isn't necessarily a misogynist. But whenever a topic like this is discussed the same views come up again and again from the same people. And some of those views* can be seen *as misogynistic.



especially if you are willing to stretch yourself to reach such a perspective. You have to be prepared to put the hours of training in though.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> especially if you are willing to stretch yourself to reach such a perspective. You have to be prepared to put the hours of training in though.


What are you going on about now?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Yes. Because it carries such implicit power. It's a powerful and emotive word and once people get accused of it they become so busy defending themselves they often lose track of what the argument is about... which is of course often the intention of the person who bandied  the accusation about in the first place
> 
> I was loudly accused of being a 'misogynist' by a a posh woman on the LUAS in Dublin once. She added that 'But you probably could not even spell it, could you?'
> 
> My answer "M-I-S-O-G-Y-N-I-S-T... now can you spell stuck-up old cunt" did not go down too well with her but it amused my work colleagues.


If I've ever used the word misogynist, it's because I think whatever has been said is misogynistic. It is not some weapon to be deployed to push an argument off track, and to claim it's just a word to be used as such is ridiculous.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

and yet...


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> and yet...


and yet what?

If you have something to say, just spit it out LiamO.


----------



## toggle (Nov 2, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i don't have any preconceptions about  except that you seem like a decent bloke and i don't doubt your commitment to social justice. my arguming with you is nothing personal whatsoever, but your position is what i'm debating.   you're trying to present the offence you take to my argument as proof that what i am saying is wrong, presumably so you don't have to explain why i'm wrong.  i'm not wrong.  i'm not saying i have an answer, though toggle's are pretty damn good.  if you think my position is a fucking disgrace then so be it.  that's a damn shame and i hope that you have the balls to patiently explain to any rape victims you know why they should be thankful that the burden of proof is where it is in law and that anyone who disagrees is a fucking disgrace.  i'm sure that they will take great comfort from it.



Some places I can get emotive over due to my past experiences, including over the conviction rates and treatment of victims, but I will disagree with you here on this one.

As someone who has been raped, I do not personally believe that the burden of proof is either the problem or that changing it will be a solution. Moving it to a similar place to the balance of probabilities in civil cases does not not solve the problem of the underlying beliefs in society that nice/rich/sexy men don't rape, that certain patterns of female behavior indicate consent and that women are blatant and serial liars and that claims about the prevalence of violence and sexual assault against women in our society are propaganda by rad fems who think all men are rapists. The prevalence of this kind of myth to some degree or another is present in most of us to some degree. Even those of us that are more than aware that the socialization we got that short skirts cause rape is a load of bollocks.

I'll also address that one specifically, bar a few who do not speak for me or any woman I have ever met, most women do not believe all men are rapists. There is one group that believe it. and that's rapists. The man who rapes thinks that you all do that or would do if you could get away with it. The issue is, that a lot of men who would not rape still believe in rape myths, or laugh at rape jokes and that is telling those bastards they are right, that all men secretly agree with them. Real men don't rape campaigns are about getting those men to think before they speak, or speak in agreement with the campaign and isolate the rapist. it's not a solution, but it is a start.


Please don't quote this, I may delete some of it later.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> especially if you are willing to stretch yourself to reach such a perspective. You have to be prepared to put the hours of training in though.




what is this rubbish then ?


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

what bit do you not follow?


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> what bit do you not follow?



is that for me ?

i have followed the thread from the beginning ta !

oh and by the way why jump straight in with being patronising ?


----------



## toggle (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> what bit do you not follow?



the bit where you chose to make unpleasant insinuations rather than say what you actually mean. 

iks that so you can pretend we all misinterpreted you when you get ripped a new one?


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

what are you all bitching and moaning about now?


----------



## toggle (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> what are you all bitching and moaning about now?



didn't take long


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> what are you all bitching and moaning about now?



wow, i'd watch yourself before you cut yourself on that sharp tongue


----------



## toggle (Nov 2, 2013)

i think he's borrowed CR's phrasebook for the evening


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> what are you all bitching and moaning about now?


Nobody is 'bitching and moaning' as you so eloquently put it - and it's interesting that you're trying to make some kind of point by using the exact phrase I posted early on in this thread.

If you've got a problem with me just come out and say it. Making these cryptic posts just makes you seem a bit of a muppet, frankly.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

toggle said:


> i think he's borrowed CR's phrasebook for the evening



it's hardly CR's phrase is it?  Given it was used by another poster, who happened to be female. The same poster who would have jumped all over a male poster for using such a turn of phrase. 

The same poster who then went all stroppy because she was referred to as 'she'.


----------



## toggle (Nov 2, 2013)

you're not actually going to explain yourself, are you.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

To whom should I feel the need to explain myself? and why?

I certainly won't be explaining myself to Derek Faye herself. No matter how much she bitches and moans about it.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> it's hardly CR's phrase is it?  Given it was used by another poster, who happened to be female. The same poster who would have jumped all over a male poster for using such a turn of phrase.
> 
> The same poster who then went all stroppy because she was referred to as 'she'.


Don't tell me what I would have done. And 'stroppy'? Hardly. Pissed off, yes, given the way accusations were being flung in my direction.

I note that you've deliberated not used my name in that post too.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> To whom should I feel the need to explain myself? and why?


If you're going to make cryptic or bizarre posts, don't act all surprised when people ask you to explain what you meant by them.

It doesn't make you seem clever by the way, it makes you seem a bit of an idiot trying to be clever and doesn't work.


----------



## Sweet FA (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> what are you all bitching and moaning about now?


Great work.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 2, 2013)

Sweet FA said:


> Great work.



it's a direct quote. from this thread.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> To whom should I feel the need to explain myself? and why?
> 
> I certainly won't be explaining myself to Derek Faye herself. No matter how much she bitches and moans about it.


Derek Faye? Nice 

Looks like you're the only one bitching and moaning, Liam.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, right.



Says someone whose past form reveals him as occasionally deliberately sexist because he thinks it's harmless.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> especially if you are willing to stretch yourself to reach such a perspective. You have to be prepared to put the hours of training in though.



Would it be as difficult as the hours of training you put into being a twat?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> what are you all bitching and moaning about now?



Probably that your attempts at subtle provocation are so unsubtle.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Says someone whose past form reveals him as occasionally deliberately sexist because he thinks it's harmless.



Eh?

Is this that benevolent sexism schtick again?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Eh?
> 
> Is this that benevolent sexism schtick again?



No, it's the "cunty Si sometimes posts deliberately provocational posts because he thinks it's clever/has been at the Pinot Noir again" _schtick_.
And yes, I know you invariably apologise "the morning after"!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 3, 2013)

Oh, that.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2013)

toggle said:


> Please don't quote this, I may delete some of it later.


 Okay, I won't.  But still a great post.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2013)

By the by, I don't agree with Casually Red on a lot of 'social issues' and certainly didn't agree with his position in the first few pages of this thread. However, I don't think we should leave it that he's in anyway misgynistic - he isn't.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

edited


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

Wilf said:


> By the by, I don't agree with Casually Red on a lot of 'social issues' and certainly didn't agree with his position in the first few pages of this thread. However, I don't think we should leave it that he's in anyway misgynistic - he isn't.



I appreciate what your saying , but with respect my position on the first few pages of this thread was simply that the CPS figures for false accusation prosecutions were misleading as to their true scale . And that people on here would take issue with that statement  due to their own ideological bent . Thats precisely what happened , a witchunt followed . Certain posters with extremist feminist views went goosestepping off on a mad blitzkrieg of abuse and utter dishonesty accusing all and sundry of all sorts of vile stuff .
However I posted examples of 2 women alone who were responsible for 8 false accusations each, and werent prosecuted for the first 7 each . Thats 2 women alone responsible for 16 false accusations, and no prosecutions for 14 of those false accusations . With the CPs rate of prosecution   standing at 32 prosecutions . My point was ta fair one  and not remotely misogynistic . In fact the only sexism whatsoever ive engaged in on this thread is not to tell a certain female poster to go and royally fuck herself , and where she can stick her pronouns,  when the same nonsense  from a male poster most certainly would have resulted in that kind of retort . Theres simply headcases on here who are way too immature to engage in a civilised adult discussion without going off at the deep end and venting their own idiocy and prejudices. And utter dishonesty .


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> paraphrase this narrative while your at it, go fuck yourself you dishonest lying bag of lizard cunts


Um, who are you calling 'a lying bag of lizard cunts'? Only I'm a bit confused as to why...


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I appreciate what your saying , but with respect my position on the first few pages of this thread was simply that the CPS figures for false accusation prosecutions were misleading as to their true scale . And that people on here would take issue with that statement  due to their own ideological bent . Thats precisely what happened , a witchunt followed . Certain posters with extremist feminist views went goosestepping off on a mad blitzkrieg of abuse and utter dishonesty accusing all and sundry of all sorts of vile stuff .
> However I posted examples of 2 women alone who were responsible for 8 false accusations each, and werent prosecuted for the first 7 each . Thats 2 women alone responsible for 16 false accusations, and no prosecutions for 14 of those false accusations . With the CPs rate of prosecution   standing at 32 prosecutions . My point was ta fair one  and not remotely misogynistic . In fact the only sexism whatsoever ive engaged in on this thread is not to tell a certain female poster to go and royally fuck herself , and where she can stick her pronouns,  when the same nonsense  from a male poster most certainly would have resulted in that kind of retort . Theres simply headcases on here who are way too immature to engage in a civilised adult discussion without going off at the deep end and venting their own idiocy and prejudices. And utter dishonesty .


You can tell me to go fuck myself all you want.

But it's not me that's going off on one, and it wasn't me throwing around the false accusations.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I appreciate what your saying , but with respect my position on the first few pages of this thread was simply that the CPS figures for false accusation prosecutions were misleading as to their true scale . And that people on here would take issue with that statement  due to their own ideological bent . Thats precisely what happened , a witchunt followed . *Certain posters with extremist feminist views went goosestepping off on a mad blitzkrieg of abuse and utter dishonesty accusing all and sundry of all sorts of vile stuff *.
> However I posted examples of 2 women alone who were responsible for 8 false accusations each, and werent prosecuted for the first 7 each . Thats 2 women alone responsible for 16 false accusations, and no prosecutions for 14 of those false accusations . With the CPs rate of prosecution   standing at 32 prosecutions . My point was ta fair one  and not remotely misogynistic . In fact the only sexism whatsoever ive engaged in on this thread is not to tell a certain female poster to go and royally fuck herself , and where she can stick her pronouns,  when the same nonsense  from a male poster most certainly would have resulted in that kind of retort . Theres simply headcases on here who are way too immature to engage in a civilised adult discussion without going off at the deep end and venting their own idiocy and prejudices. And utter dishonesty .



Plus it's really difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt when you post up stuff like the bolded statement. As I've said before, it's stuff like that that makes you appear as misogynistic, whether you intend to or not, whether you mean it or not.

But if you've got any sense you'll apologise for what you just wrote because likening feminists to nazis is just wrong.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red The bolded bit's well funny, cos if you think these are "extremist feminist views" you really don't get out much


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I appreciate what your saying , but with respect my position on the first few pages of this thread was simply that the CPS figures for false accusation prosecutions were misleading as to their true scale . And that people on here would take issue with that statement  due to their own ideological bent . Thats precisely what happened , a witchunt followed . Certain posters with extremist feminist views went goosestepping off on a mad blitzkrieg of abuse and utter dishonesty accusing all and sundry of all sorts of vile stuff .



the cps figures for rape prosecutions are misleading as to their true scale. what we can achieve is a comparison between the two figures and a look at the press attention given to rapes and cases of false allegation and see that false allegations tend to be given a completely disproportionate amount of attention which perpetuates the myth that they are more common than they are. 

your accusations of extremism are entirely a figment of your own imagination and the accusation of naziism is completely out of order


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 4, 2013)

Has this thread really reached a point millimetres from the word feminazis? Really?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> Casually Red The bolded bit's well funny, cos if you think these are "extremist feminist views" you really don't get out much


I'd go off and find some radfem reading materials but I suspect it won't be appreciated


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> Casually Red The bolded bit's well funny, cos if you think these are "extremist feminist views" you really don't get out much



Do you think his brain would implode if we showed him stuff like Cathy Brennan's shite?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 4, 2013)

Brownmiller might be more appropriate, given the subject.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Has this thread really reached a point millimetres from the word feminazis? Really?


Apparently so. A sad day for urban.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

toggle said:


> a figure based solely on police opinions of who they chose to believe, those who were victimey enough.
> 
> there's a reason the researchers didn't consider that figure entirely credible.



no its not *solely based* on that, theres a range of other issues which were clearly highlighted. More fucking dishonesty .


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Disagreement is not dishonesty.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Has this thread really reached a point millimetres from the word feminazis? Really?



TBF you're the one who's brought the word "feminazis" into the thread. Not CR and not anyone else.

Bit of a wanker's trick, that.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

toggle said:


> i think he's borrowed CR's phrasebook for the evening


 more dishonesty


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no its not *solely based* on that, theres a range of other issues which were clearly highlighted. More fucking dishonesty .



another load of unproovable assumptions. 

like the assumption that a significant percentage of the women who refused examination were making a false allegation? I wonder, is not wanting to be touched after having been raped not victimey enough?

or the assumption that a significant percentage of women who withdrew allegation were making a false allegation, because clearly the police are treating women so well. and women are never pressured to withdraw, or find they mentally can't cope with proceeding.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> more dishonesty



yes, that's probably what you will post.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I certainly won't be explaining myself to Derek Faye herself. No matter how much _*she*_ bitches and moans about it.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> TBF you're the one who's brought the word "feminazis" into the thread. Not CR and not anyone else.
> 
> Bit of a wanker's trick, that.


"extreme feminism" + "goosestepping" + "blitzkrieg" = pretty bloody close to feminaziism.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> TBF you're the one who's brought the word "feminazis" into the thread. Not CR and not anyone else.
> 
> Bit of a wanker's trick, that.


CR bought the goosestepping first though.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Brownmiller might be more appropriate, given the subject.



probably true. 

or SCUM.

brennan was just the first radfem dick that came to mind


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

toggle said:


> another load of unproovable assumptions.
> 
> like the assumption that a significant percentage of the women who refused examination were making a false allegation? I wonder, is not wanting to be touched after having been raped not victimey enough?
> 
> or the assumption that a significant percentage of women who withdrew allegation were making a false allegation, because clearly the police are treating women so well. and women are never pressured to withdraw, or find they mentally can't cope with proceeding.



do you understand what the word solely means .  If not dont use it .Youve outright excluded any possibility of such issues ever being the result of a false accusation . Now its no longer _solely _but _significantly_, a completely different issue . You have no way to quantify it, neither do I . Nor apparently does anyone else .

Therefore even more deliberate dishonesty .


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> "extreme feminism" + "goosestepping" + "blitzkrieg" = pretty bloody close to feminaziism.



Yeah. Fair enough.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> "extreme feminism" + "goosestepping" + "blitzkrieg" = pretty bloody close to feminaziism.



it's another insinuation that can almost be backed out of when they are called on it. 

the sort of little coward that can't even make a proper accusation


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> "extreme feminism" + "goosestepping" + "blitzkrieg" = pretty bloody close to feminaziism.



or intolerant arseholes who over react to everything


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> do you understand what the word solely means .  If not dont use it .Youve outright excluded any possibility of such issues ever being the result of a false accusation . Now its no longer _solely _but _significantly_, a completely different issue . You have no way to quantify it, neither do I . Nor apparently does anyone else .
> 
> Therefore even more deliberate dishonesty .


How does not being able to accurately quantify something make it dishonest?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

toggle said:


> it's another insinuation that can almost be backed out of when they are called on it.
> 
> the sort of little coward that can't even make a proper accusation



cough

I said *intolerant arseholes who over react to everything*

that other word simply isnt an insult I ever use . For a variety of reasons, primarily its colonisation by misogynists .


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> or intolerant arseholes who over react to everything


I refer you to your own measured, tolerant, under-reaction "extremist feminist views went goosestepping off on a mad blitzkrieg of abuse and utter dishonesty"


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> or intolerant arseholes who over react to everything


You can hardly blame women for being pissed off when you liken extreme feminism to nazism. Especially as no extreme feminist views have been expressed on this thread.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> I refer you to your own measured, tolerant, under-reaction "extremist feminist views went goosestepping off on a mad blitzkrieg of abuse and utter dishonesty"



well they did . Like a bunch of panzers charging through Krakow, arrogantly firing misogynist bombs left right and centre with rare abandon .


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> do you understand what the word solely means .  If not dont use it .Youve outright excluded any possibility of such issues ever being the result of a false accusation . Now its no longer _solely _but _significantly_, a completely different issue . You have no way to quantify it, neither do I . Nor apparently does anyone else .
> 
> Therefore even more deliberate dishonesty .



who provided the researchers with the figure of false allegation.

were any of those investigated further?

or were the figures solely provided by the police on a basis of their judgement alone?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well they did . Like a bunch of panzers charging through Krakow, arrogantly firing misogynist bombs left right and centre with rare abandon .


What is wrong with you?


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well they did . Like a bunch of panzers charging through Krakow, arrogantly firing misogynist bombs left right and centre with rare abandon .



and you have responded to this perception with all the subtlety of a nailbomb


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 4, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> TBF you're the one who's brought the word "feminazis" into the thread. Not CR and not anyone else.
> 
> Bit of a wanker's trick, that.



Don't think you've been reading the discussion too closely, have you?


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> cough
> 
> I said *intolerant arseholes who over react to everything*
> 
> that other word simply isnt an insult I ever use . For a variety of reasons, primarily its colonisation by misogynists .




so you are a coward who can't own your insinuations.

another one


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

toggle said:


> who provided the researchers with the figure of false allegation.
> 
> were any of those investigated further?
> 
> or were the figures solely provided by the police on a basis of their judgement alone?



it doesnt matter, your point was that no prosecutions took place *solely* as a result of police disbelief . Its not a believable position . Theres a variety of reasons why , your point was just wrong .


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it doesnt matter, your point was that no prosecutions took place *solely* as a result of police disbelief . Its not a believable position . Theres a variety of reasons why , your point was just wrong .



that wasn't my position at all. 

if you go back and try reading it instead instead of just flying off one one, you might see that.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

toggle said:


> so you are a coward who can't own your insinuations.
> 
> another one



oh fuck off, if i want to insult someone im not remotely shy about it . But im not going to use the word you want me to use any more than Ill be dicated to by a bunch of fucking wankers about what subjects I as a grown adult am allowed to discuss .


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well they did . Like a bunch of panzers charging through Krakow, arrogantly firing misogynist bombs left right and centre with rare abandon .


With you gallantly maintaining your position as Captain Mainwaring


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> oh fuck off, if i want to insult someone im not remotely shy about it . But im not going to use the word you want me to use any more than Ill be dicated to by a bunch of fucking wankers about what subjects I as a grown adult am allowed to discuss .


But you're not discussing this subject either, you're hurling insults at any feminist you think is about.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> With you gallantly maintaining your position as Captain Mainwaring



well, i'm pmsl.

CR, think he's just pissed


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> With you gallantly maintaining your position as Captain Mainwaring



silly boy


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> oh fuck off, if i want to insult someone im not remotely shy about it . But im not going to use the word you want me to use any more than Ill be dicated to by a bunch of fucking wankers about what subjects I as a grown adult am allowed to discuss .



if you were discussing this as an adult, there wouldn't be an issue. you're discussing it as a pissed up wanker.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 4, 2013)

no, im discussing an issue you and a few others want to stop people from ever discussing . And frankly ive finished discussing it until someone who isnt a wanker makes a post worth responding to .


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> *oh fuck off, if i want to insult someone im not remotely shy about it *. But im not going to use the word you want me to use any more than Ill be dicated to by a bunch of fucking wankers about what subjects I as a grown adult am allowed to discuss .


Really?


Casually Red said:


> I appreciate what your saying , but with respect my position on the first few pages of this thread was simply that the CPS figures for false accusation prosecutions were misleading as to their true scale . And that people on here would take issue with that statement  due to their own ideological bent . Thats precisely what happened , a witchunt followed . Certain posters with extremist feminist views went goosestepping off on a mad blitzkrieg of abuse and utter dishonesty accusing all and sundry of all sorts of vile stuff .
> However I posted examples of 2 women alone who were responsible for 8 false accusations each, and werent prosecuted for the first 7 each . Thats 2 women alone responsible for 16 false accusations, and no prosecutions for 14 of those false accusations . With the CPs rate of prosecution   standing at 32 prosecutions . My point was ta fair one  and not remotely misogynistic . *In fact the only sexism whatsoever ive engaged in on this thread is not to tell a certain female poster to go and royally fuck herself* , and where she can stick her pronouns,  when the same nonsense  from a male poster most certainly would have resulted in that kind of retort . Theres simply headcases on here who are way too immature to engage in a civilised adult discussion without going off at the deep end and venting their own idiocy and prejudices. And utter dishonesty .



You _haven't _insulted me out of some misplaced sense of gallantry/sexism even though you want to? 

Go right ahead.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

and a goostepping panzer division ins't a nazi analogy. 

does he really think anyone believes him?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no, im discussing an issue you and a few others want to stop people from ever discussing . And frankly ive finished discussing it until someone who isnt a wanker makes a post worth responding to .


This is an issue we all wanted to discuss, but you're the one who has nothing but disrupt this thread right from page 1.


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

the problem is EG, you're not discussing it in the approved way.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

toggle said:


> the problem is EG, you're not discussing it in the approved way.


Clearly 

*consults handbook*


----------



## toggle (Nov 4, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Clearly
> 
> *consults handbook*



try this one


----------



## fogbat (Nov 4, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Clearly
> 
> *consults handbook*


Deactivate your misogynist bombs, ffs


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

fogbat said:


> Deactivate your misogynist bombs, ffs


If I knew what they bloody were, I would!!


----------



## weepiper (Nov 4, 2013)

Exactly what does Casually Red add to this community and why is he still here?


----------



## fogbat (Nov 4, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> If I knew what they bloody were, I would!!



I'm not clear whether they'd target women or misogynists


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 4, 2013)

fogbat said:


> Deactivate your misogynist bombs, ffs



i read that as 'misogynist boobs'.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well they did . Like a bunch of panzers charging through Krakow, arrogantly firing misogynist bombs left right and centre with rare abandon .



I mean come on. What is this fucking bullshit.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 4, 2013)

fogbat said:


> I'm not clear whether they'd target women or misogynists


Probably both, to be sure.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2013)

I may have to reconsider my future career as a peacemaker. 

CR, I still don't think you are a misogynist, but you are being a bit of a dick now (_quite_ a bit).


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well they did . Like a bunch of panzers charging through Krakow, arrogantly firing misogynist bombs left right and centre with rare abandon .


So you're equating feminists with Nazis, yes?

Stop it please. Now.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 4, 2013)

No, don't ban him, it'll only add to his victim complex.

Or make it perm.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 4, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Exactly what does Casually Red add to this community and why is he still here?


I agree with most of what he's said.

The fact is there's a nasty little tribe on urban who always do this shit.   I remember thriller getting banned when they twisted a thread he made.   It just escalated and spread into different threads.   A couple got a short ban for it, I recall.   A few more should have followed them.

Pure poison, when they get started.

I agree with CR and others but all that's happening is that that nasty little gang gets to burn things. 

Rape is usually about power, it's an extension of bullying, it's an extension of hate, of disrespect, of dehumanizing those you meet.

In this thread I see bullying, hate, people talking about people like they're not human, disrespect.

Isn't that the breeding ground of rape, murder, racism, sexism?


----------



## Favelado (Nov 4, 2013)

I think I'll watch telly.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 4, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I think I'll watch telly.



I think I'll go get in the bath.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I agree with most of what he's said.
> 
> The fact is there's a nasty little tribe on urban who always do this shit.   I remember thriller getting banned when they twisted a thread he made.   It just escalated and spread into different threads.   A couple got a short ban for it, I recall.   A few more should have followed them.
> 
> ...


 Wow.  Fucking, fucking, fucking wow - are you really saying.... No, just, just, WOW.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 4, 2013)

weepiper said:


> I think I'll go get in the bath.


Don't go firing any misogynist bath bombs.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 4, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Wow.  Fucking, fucking, fucking wow - are you really saying.... No, just, just, WOW.



Yes, yes he is.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 4, 2013)

we are literally worse than Hitler.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

This thread is not now worth it (and the people not on the right side), not from the content offered by CR, or his friends ( check dexters record on sheridans record, it's skin crawling) or for discussion of the issue. 2013 UK. Fuck off.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This thread is not now worth it (and the people not on the right side), not from the content offered by CR, or his friends ( check dexters record on sheridans record, it's skin crawling) or for discussion of the issue. 2013 UK. Fuck off.


 I still feel we could stick #726 on a stake outside the city walls - as a warning to history.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I agree with most of what he's said.
> 
> The fact is there's a nasty little tribe on urban who always do this shit.   I remember thriller getting banned when they twisted a thread he made.   It just escalated and spread into different threads.   A couple got a short ban for it, I recall.   A few more should have followed them.
> 
> ...


Drew, you've just liked a post that says people who disagree with this person have raped him.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2013)

Doomed


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

killallmenz


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This thread is not now worth it (and the people not on the right side), not from the content offered by CR, or his friends ( check dexters record on sheridans record, it's skin crawling) or for discussion of the issue. 2013 UK. Fuck off.


Maybe better if you just link to the offending posts...or report them.   After all...if they're so skin-crawling you'll be able to find them quick enough.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> Doomed


 Even infinity, monkeys and typewriters couldn't have come up with Dexter's little nugget of wisdom.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 5, 2013)

Jesus Christ. This thread really has triggered a couple of spectacular self-immolations.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Jesus Christ. This thread really has triggered a couple of spectacular self-immolations.


I know - I'm tempted to go back to Dexter's still smouldering whizzbang, but think I'll obey firebrigade advice, it being 5th of November and all that.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 5, 2013)

editor said:


> So you're equating feminists with Nazis, yes?
> 
> Stop it please. Now.



CR is being a dick but atleast it's led to return of one of my favourite Urban tropes, Editors, yes/no, questions.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2013)

The thread that has everything - very difficult to know what to buy it for Christmas.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 5, 2013)

Wilf said:


> The thread that has everything - very difficult to know what to buy it for Christmas.



Peace.

A little piece of Poland and a...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


>



This thread is another fine example...of you and Liam giving each other reach-arounds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> or intolerant arseholes who over react to everything



If you had an ounce of reflexivity, you'd facepalm yourself for that post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

toggle said:


> and you have responded to this perception with all the subtlety of a nailbomb



He thinks he's being clever, not quite grasping that he's holding up a banner saying "look at me, I'm a cunt!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I agree with most of what he's said.
> 
> The fact is there's a nasty little tribe on urban who always do this shit.   I remember thriller getting banned when they twisted a thread he made.



That's how *you* interpreted it.
Strangely, the majority of posters who expressed an opinion, saw things differently.

Still, I expect that they were all just bullies, unlike you and thriller.



> It just escalated and spread into different threads.   A couple got a short ban for it, I recall.   A few more should have followed them.
> 
> Pure poison, when they get started.



What's really ridiculous is that you don't see that your apologism is more poisonous, but then being such a self-righteous person, you'll never notice your own failings when you can pull others up on theirs.



> I agree with CR and others but all that's happening is that that nasty little gang gets to burn things.
> 
> Rape is usually about power, it's an extension of bullying, it's an extension of hate, of disrespect, of dehumanizing those you meet.
> 
> ...



Yes, what you perceive as bullying is exactly the cause of rape, murder, sexism and racism.  

You complete tosser!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Wow.  Fucking, fucking, fucking wow - are you really saying.... No, just, just, WOW.



Yes, he *is* really saying what you think he's saying.

And worse, he actually believes he's right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Drew, you've just liked a post that says people who disagree with this person have raped him.



One supposes that taking dexter's "disagreement equals rape" as a framework, gobbing on him on the street would constitute murder.


----------



## toggle (Nov 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, he *is* really saying what you think he's saying.
> 
> And worse, he actually believes he's right.



buit it is his sort of bullshit that does provide some very clear evidence as to why feminism is far from a battle won.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Peace.
> 
> A little piece of Poland and a...



Mel Brooks is sending you a bill for $100,000 for posting his work unattributed.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mel Brooks is sending you a bill for $100,000 for posting his work unattributed.


 Mel Gibson will be sending dexter a bill.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

toggle said:


> buit it is his sort of bullshit that does provide some very clear evidence as to why feminism is far from a battle won.



It has everything - stupidity, partisanship, patriarchal assumptions - I feel like shouting "house!".

I don't think he's even tangentially-aware of just how offensive and wrong-headed his post is, either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Mel Gibson will be sending dexter a bill.



I thought the level of stupidity was familiar!


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought the level of stupidity was familiar!


 At least it shows arrestees have access to wifi in the back of LAPD vehicles.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> One supposes that taking dexter's "disagreement equals rape" as a framework, gobbing on him on the street would constitute murder.


 Unfriending on facebook - _the new holocaust_.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 5, 2013)

Words fail me. I didn't think that CR's crass 'feminism = nazism' stance could be topped. I'm appalled that Dexter managed it. Absolutely appalled.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 5, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Words fail me. I didn't think that CR's crass 'feminism = nazism' stance could be topped. I'm appalled that Dexter managed it. Absolutely appalled.


He's basically saying that feminism causes rape. That's pretty pretty astonishing!


----------



## weepiper (Nov 5, 2013)

TruXta said:


> He's basically saying that feminism causes rape. That's pretty pretty astonishing!



Not that unusual, just more victim-blaming. If we wouldn't get men so angry with our uppity opinions they wouldn't lose their tempers and rape us


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 5, 2013)

TruXta said:


> He's basically saying that feminism causes rape. That's pretty pretty astonishing!


Substitute 'racism' for 'feminism' and anyone posting that would have been on a permaban. But it's okay to write feminism still. Appalling.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 5, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Not that unusual, just more victim-blaming. If we wouldn't get men so angry with our uppity opinions they wouldn't lose their tempers and rape us


Sadly not too far from the truth in some cases.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 5, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Not that unusual


Maybe not.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mel Brooks is sending you a bill for $100,000 for posting his work unattributed.



Cheque's in the post Mel.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 5, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I agree with most of what he's said.
> 
> The fact is there's a nasty little tribe on urban who always do this shit.   I remember thriller getting banned when they twisted a thread he made.   It just escalated and spread into different threads.   A couple got a short ban for it, I recall.   A few more should have followed them.
> 
> ...




You have to be fucking joking !


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 5, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> You have to be fucking joking !


It would appear not.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 5, 2013)

Earlier on in this thread I was a bit annoyed that we were having yet another thread about a false rape claim. At this point, I'm beginning to change my mind. Perhaps one of these every year or so would serve a useful function here in allowing everyone to keep their ignore lists updated.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Earlier on in this thread I was a bit annoyed that we were having yet another thread about a false rape claim. At this point, I'm beginning to change my mind. Perhaps one of these every year or so would serve a useful function here in allowing everyone to keep their ignore lists updated.


Which reminds me...


----------



## existentialist (Nov 5, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Rape is usually about power, it's an extension of bullying, it's an extension of hate, of disrespect, of dehumanizing those you meet.
> 
> In this thread I see bullying, hate, people talking about people like they're not human, disrespect.
> 
> Isn't that the breeding ground of rape, murder, racism, sexism?


Fuck me.

In a thread which has bounced from dubious grasping-at-straws quasi-metaphor to humunguously inappropriate parallel-drawing, I think you've not just taken the biscuit, but the entire fucking chocolate-coated selection box, complete with foil-wrapped mint plain chocolate centrepiece that there's only ever one of.

I think you've also actually almost (only almost) managed to make CR look like a moderate, decent human being!

So the fact that rape is, in your view, a kind of bullying (I think it is FAR more complex than that, but we'll let that lie), and that you feel that in some way, the reactions to the OP's contentions are themselves apparently a kind of bullying, somehow that makes arguing against the OP's position a kind of rape?

Are you _serious_?

Tell me you're pissed off your face on cheap cider. Tell me you're mainlining lavatory cleaner while screwing your landlord's wife, watching East Enders, and not paying attention to what you're writing here.

Because if you truly thought through what you just wrote, the excuses are going to have to be even more embarrassing than those...

ETA: oh, and that's before I saw all the shit about how suddenly the repulsive thriller turns out to be some kind of victim of a man-hating feminist collective conspiracy?

Seriously, go fuck yourself. Because, to have any kind of internal consistency, your thought processes should completely rule out the prospect of your fucking, or being fucked by, a woman.


----------



## toggle (Nov 5, 2013)




----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 5, 2013)

existentialist said:


> ...Seriously, go fuck yourself. Because, to have any kind of internal consistency, your thought processes should completely rule out the prospect of your fucking, or being fucked by, a woman.


And that's relevant to what?  I'm a 49 year old grand-dad.

I didn't compare anyone to anything, just some people chose to take it that way.

I said that if you have hate in your mind and you don't address it you are in the breeding grounds of worse things.   I said that violent crimes are enabled by unbridled anger and dehumanising others.   If someone wants to take offence at that then they already had offence ready and loaded because it's a reasonable comment.   It can be debated many ways but they're not generally seen as positive traits.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 5, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> And that's relevant to what?  I'm a 49 year old grand-dad.
> 
> I didn't compare anyone to anything, just some people chose to take it that way.


Quite a few people. I came to this thread with pretty clean hands, and I was shocked at the equivalence you were drawing.




DexterTCN said:


> I said that if you have hate in your mind and you don't address it you are in the breeding grounds of worse things.   I said that violent crimes are enabled by unbridled anger and dehumanising others.   If someone wants to take offence at that then they already had offence ready and loaded because it's a reasonable comment.   It can be debated many ways but they're not generally seen as positive traits.


No, you didn't. Perhaps that was what you thought. What you *said* was a pretty unequivocal comparison between the attitudes of those protesting the outlook of the OP and the attitudes of those who rape, murder, etc...

At the *very* least, it was monumentally tactless. It's hard to see how it could really have been just that, though, particularly in the context of this car crash of a thread.


----------



## toggle (Nov 5, 2013)

victim blaming isn't generally seen as a positive trait, but you're brimming over in that


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 6, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Quite a few people. I came to this thread with pretty clean hands, and I was shocked at the equivalence you were drawing.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well....tact.	  Let's hand it around.

Like I said, too much anger, very personal.	It builds up.   Even if you vent it  you'll still have some residue.

I did mention a group I call a little gang but I've only done it 3 times in 9 years of posting and I don't pick fights with them or go on about them.   They make very reasonable and sometimes interesting posts on other topics but threads 'like this' kick them off.   It's not a gang, it's a bunch of people who are friends, I just don't know them so as with any stranger seeing a group of noisy ruffians I called them a gang.

I decided not to post in this one for what must be pretty obvious reasons....I saw a post very early on...the post said something like 'better a few innocent men are jailed than...' and I was like 'what the fuck' and then the safety mechanisms kicked in and like you said...car crash. 

Trouble is I kept reading it. 

You read a thread long enough you'll post in it 

Even with the best of intentions.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> He's basically saying that feminism causes rape. That's pretty pretty astonishing!


Dexter was a twat but that was not what he was saying at all, he was making a crass equivalence between people being a bit mean on this thread and rape (that they both come from the same place of anger and desire for power blah blah) there is no need for you to jump in with your standard dishonest shite.

By all means give Dexter shit for what he said but lets not allow lying pricks like you a free hand.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 6, 2013)

So the argument is that innocent men are being done when the vast majority of rapes are unreported? I think the innocent can rest pretty easy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Substitute 'racism' for 'feminism' and anyone posting that would have been on a permaban. But it's okay to write feminism still. Appalling.



I've seen posters on here be told they are overreacting or seeing racism where there isn't any by other posters who don't get how insidious and pervasive racism can be. On one particularly disgraceful occasion, johnny cannuck was given grief for taking exception to a post by a woman who said she felt threatened by seeing a black man on a dark street.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 6, 2013)

For the record, just because some of us speak out against anti-feminist comments it doesn't make us a gang.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Dexter was a twat but that was not what he was saying at all, he was making a crass equivalence between people being a bit mean on this thread and rape (that they both come from the same place of anger and desire for power blah blah) there is no need for you to jump in with your standard dishonest shite.
> 
> By all means give Dexter shit for what he said but lets not allow lying pricks like you a free hand.


 My reading of it too, tbh. However that 'crass equivalence' is every bit as astonishing and offensive.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

Wilf said:


> My reading of it too, tbh. However that 'crass equivalence' is every bit as astonishing and offensive.



I don't think it is as offensive as saying feminism causes rape, it's really fucking stupid but a claim of "rape is caused by feminism" would move it from the realm of (i'd hope) unthinking twattery and crassness into a much more sinister and calculated place.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 6, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Dexter was a twat but that was not what he was saying at all, he was making a crass equivalence between people being a bit mean on this thread and rape (that they both come from the same place of anger and desire for power blah blah) there is no need for you to jump in with your standard dishonest shite.
> 
> By all means give Dexter shit for what he said but lets not allow lying pricks like you a free hand.


Have another fuck off, cunt.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 6, 2013)

Is Dexter your mate since you're so eager to stick up for him?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 6, 2013)




----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 6, 2013)

The money's on its way, Yoko.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Is Dexter your mate since you're so eager to stick up for him?



Nope Dexter isn't my mate, but nice attempt at "guilt by association".

I just don't happen to like you or your constant need to be a dishonest piece of shit.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 6, 2013)

Guilt by association? Now who's being a dishonest prick? I might have had an uncharitable reading of Dexter's post, you had a much more charitable one. Hence the question. BTW you did exactly the same thing on the Girl called Jack thread where you asked Butchers' if Jack was a mate of his.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Guilt by association? Now who's being a dishonest prick? I might have had an uncharitable reading of Dexter's post, you had a much more charitable one. Hence the question. BTW you did exactly the same thing on the Girl called Jack thread where you asked Butchers' if Jack was a mate of his.


Think that was smokedout.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Guilt by association? Now who's being a dishonest prick? I might have had an uncharitable reading of Dexter's post, you had a much more charitable one. Hence the question. BTW you did exactly the same thing on the Girl called Jack thread where you asked Butchers' if Jack was a mate of his.



It's not that you were uncharitable, you were lying, big difference. You might have picked up on the question being rhetorical and tongue in cheek in regards to Butchers and a Girl Named Jack, the chances of them being mates being pretty slim. 

I'm glad you mentioned the Girl called Jack thread because that was another one where you did your usual dishonest fuck trick and could only respond with abuse.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Think that was smokedout.


It was revol.


revol68 said:


> It's not that you were uncharitable, you were lying, big difference. You might have picked up on the question being rhetorical and tongue in cheek in regards to Butchers and a Girl Named Jack, the chances of them being mates being pretty slim.
> 
> I'm glad you mentioned the Girl called Jack thread because that was another one where you did your usual dishonest fuck trick and could only respond with abuse.


Your powers of observation are truly astounding. Point out my lie then. Go on.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> He's basically saying that feminism causes rape. That's pretty pretty astonishing!



That's a lie.

I mean if you didn't have form for this kind of shit I'd maybe go with, "that's an incredibly shit reading involving some remarkable leaps of logic" but unfortunately for everyone, this isn't a one off, it's pretty much your MO.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 6, 2013)

revol68 said:


> That's a lie.
> 
> I mean if you didn't have form for this kind of shit I'd maybe go with, "that's an incredibly shit reading involving some remarkable leaps of logic" but unfortunately for everyone, this isn't a one off, it's pretty much your MO.


Well, in light of that amazing takedown I'll just have to bow out of this discussion, delete my account and slink off in shame don't I?  If you have any more shit you wanna fling my way feel free to PM me. I don't see the point in you polluting this thread with your childish beef anymore, and I shan't bother replying to any more of your inane accusations.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

yes, do fuck off.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 6, 2013)

Oh God, you think you've won now don't you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It was revol..


Ah ok, my mistake. I agree with revol that you have misrepresented dexter, though. The post was absurd enough not to need to do that, imo.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah ok, my mistake. I agree with revol that you have misrepresented dexter, though. The post was absurd enough not to need to do that, imo.


Misrepresentation? That'll be for you to decide. Lied? Nuh uh. Anyway, best do what I came in to the office to do. Later.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Fuck me.
> 
> In a thread which has bounced from dubious grasping-at-straws quasi-metaphor to humunguously inappropriate parallel-drawing, I think you've not just taken the biscuit, but the entire fucking chocolate-coated selection box, complete with foil-wrapped mint plain chocolate centrepiece that there's only ever one of.
> 
> ...



Nicely put!


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Nov 6, 2013)

This thread is like a car crash that keeps on giving.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> For the record, just because some of us speak out against anti-feminist comments it doesn't make us a gang.



Well, it does to those whose comments you dissect, and their fellow-travellers.  We know that from threads _passim_.  If likeminded posters make similar comments independently, they're part of a "collective" or a "monothought clique".


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I don't think it is as offensive as saying feminism causes rape, it's really fucking stupid but a claim of "rape is caused by feminism" would move it from the realm of (i'd hope) unthinking twattery and crassness into a much more sinister and calculated place.


 Fair enough.  To be honest I have a high tolerance for daftness, whether it be pure out-of-the-blue-whatthefuckery, wild linkages or leaps of logic.  What pissed me off about dexter's post was that it wasn't anything like that, but was an intended insult - and a dishonest one at that (dishonest in the sense that he can't _really_ think that rape and tinternet anger 'come from the same source' - _can he_?  )


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, it does to those whose comments you dissect, and their fellow-travellers.  We know that from threads _passim_.  If likeminded posters make similar comments independently, they're part of a "collective" or a "monothought clique".


 The first rule of the monothought clique is you don't.... 

Okay, okay, I'm going.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, it does to those whose comments you dissect, and their fellow-travellers.  We know that from threads _passim_.  If likeminded posters make similar comments independently, they're part of a "collective" or a "monothought clique".


Well, that is a particularly convenient way of reframing what could otherwise be considered a "groundswell of opinion"! 

What it is rather good at demonstrating is how readily some people will resort to victim status as a viable debating strategy...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Well, that is a particularly convenient way of reframing what could otherwise be considered a "groundswell of opinion"!
> 
> What it is rather good at demonstrating is how readily some people will resort to victim status as a viable debating strategy...



Nearly always posters drawn from a very small pool, too, I've noticed.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Fair enough.  To be honest I have a high tolerance for daftness, whether it be pure out-of-the-blue-whatthefuckery, wild linkages or leaps of logic.  What pissed me off about dexter's post was that it wasn't anything like that, but was an intended insult - and a dishonest one at that (dishonest in the sense that he can't _really_ think that rape and tinternet anger 'come from the same source' - _can he_?  )



Oh yeah it wasn't just some hippy drippy "insight" offered up cheesypoof style, it was clearly meant as an insult and part of an argument. I just think it was unthinking in that it didn't come from some thought out ideological position or agenda, whilst an argument that "feminism causes rape" certainly would.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Well, that is a particularly convenient way of reframing what could otherwise be considered a "groundswell of opinion"!
> 
> What it is rather good at demonstrating is how readily some people will resort to victim status as a viable debating strategy...


 And whilst this can rightly be described as a 'car crash thread', there's also a more, ahem, positive reading of it.  It began with what many, even the majority, saw as dodgy positions on the media reporting of false rape allegations (Vs the under-reporting of actual rapes) - which were challenged, with opinion and fact. That discussion was sparky and there were maybe some OTT personal attacks on both sides.  As a professional wimp I'm not always up for that personal knockabout stuff, but the discussion was at least had. Moreover having that discussion led to new info, stuff I certainly hadn't read, maybe even people reassessing their position [yes, I am that naively optimistic!].  Finally, the dexter stuff, yes it takes the car crash into multiple pile up, but you just can't let that stuff go unchallenged.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Nov 6, 2013)

Are they reported on more frequently because they happen less often?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Exactly what does Casually Red add to this community and why is he still here?



not touting to mods like a shite to get people i disagree with banned for a start .


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He thinks he's being clever, not quite grasping that he's holding up a banner saying "look at me, I'm a cunt!".



when its to a bunch of tedious whiny touting cunts im not really that bothered


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you had an ounce of reflexivity, you'd facepalm yourself for that post.



nah, dont think so .


----------



## weepiper (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> not touting to mods like a shite to get people i disagree with banned for a start .



And when have I done that? Ever? Go on, prove it. Dickhead.

Oh I see you thought that's what I was doing with that post, thought you meant I'd reported you. Nah, I was thinking out loud why you're still here when everyone thinks you're a cunt.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> And when have I done that? Ever? Go on, prove it. Dickhead.



prove what, when did i accuse you . Dipshit .

your only openly calling for me to be banned, i never said you were *secretly* trying to get me banned.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> And when have I done that? Ever? Go on, prove it. Dickhead.
> 
> Oh I see you thought that's what I was doing with that post, thought you meant I'd reported you. Nah, I was thinking out loud why you're still here when everyone thinks you're a cunt.



no ,your calling openly for me to be banned. Ive looked at it and thats exactly what your doing . Along with that weird bloke whos also calling for me to be perma banned. You dont need to send pms, your making the posts very openly .


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> And when have I done that? Ever? Go on, prove it.



TBF, this:



> Exactly what does Casually Red add to this community and why is he still here?




.... is an _extremely thinly_ veiled .... 'Casually Red disagrees with us and should be banned'.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

its not veiled at all. And watch yourself spymaster . EVERYONE thinks im a cunt and thats the basis I should be banned on . Your rudely interrupting that narrative/attempt .


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> its not veiled at all. And watch yourself spymaster . EVERYONE thinks im a cunt and thats the basis I should be banned on . Your rudely interrupting that narrative/attempt .


i'm not joining in this cunt group think


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

im spartacus !!


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im spartacus !!


 I was thinking more 'naughty little boy'.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I was thinking more 'naughty little boy'.



naughty is as naughty does. Touting and permaban mongerings a different issue. Thats a cunts trick. And a sign of an irredeemable cunt to the bone . Reminds me of broo touts and those ones who report you to the tv license.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 6, 2013)

Go to bed.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Go to bed.


 I haven't had me supper yet!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 6, 2013)

It's a bit early, surely?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 6, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> It's a bit early, surely?


I suppose we don't want him waking up at 3am and starting all over again. Maybe "go for a walk and watch some tv and go to bed" then.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Go to bed.



In what capacity are you suggesting that CR retires. That of a moderator, or that of a general poster, just wandering on through?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 6, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> In what capacity are you suggesting that CR retires. That of a moderator, or that of a general poster, just wandering on through?



It was a babysitter's suggestion: more in hope than in authority. CR will be stealing biscuits and watching  inappropriate DVDs whatever FM says.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> naughty is as naughty does. Touting and permaban mongerings a different issue. Thats a cunts trick. And a sign of an irredeemable cunt to the bone . Reminds me of broo touts and those ones who report you to the tv license.





FridgeMagnet said:


> Go to bed.





Wilf said:


> I haven't had me supper yet!



Surely CR and Wilf aren't the same person?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2013)

And TruXta; behave yourself, ffs.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Surely CR and Wilf aren't the same person?


 Is this like the 'reveal' in a horror story? I look into a mirror and staring back at me is...


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Is this like the 'reveal' in a horror story? I look into a mirror and staring back at me is...



not  a tout


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> not  a tout


wp did it openly, tbf. She didn't stab you in the back, she punched you in the face.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> not  a tout


 For what it's worth CR, whilst I disagree with your line on this thread, especially at the start, it's obvious you've had a fair bit slung at you - along with some misrepresentation.  Same time, you've slung a fair bit back, particularly last night's offerings.  And whilst you might have had a fairly tight group of people disagreeing throughout the thread and reinforcing each other's posts, that's not exactly a gang thing.  In part - statement of the obvious alert - _it might just be that they disagree with you._ I can understand you feeling pissed off, but do remember where this started - you dishing it out about 'extremist feminists' or some such_._


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not joining in this cunt group think



Nor am I. I'm joining the not a cunt groupthink.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nor am I. I'm joining the not a cunt groupthink.


 Not so fast me lad, there's a written test and at least 3 interviews.  We can't just let any old notcunt in.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 6, 2013)

Wilf said:


> For what it's worth CR, whilst I disagree with your line on this thread, especially at the start, it's obvious you've had a fair bit slung at you - along with some misrepresentation.  Same time, you've slung a fair bit back, particularly last night's offerings.  And whilst you might have had a fairly tight group of people disagreeing throughout the thread and reinforcing each other's posts, that's not exactly a gang thing.  In part - statement of the obvious alert - _it might just be that they disagree with you._ I can understand you feeling pissed off, but do remember where this started - you dishing it out about 'extremist feminists' or some such_._



If you're going to dish out personal abuse, you should be able to take it slung right back at you. Leave the mods out of it and let the livid warriors fight it out in words for our entertainment.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wp did it openly, tbf. She didn't stab you in the back, she punched you in the face.



now now...she explained  she was only _thinking out loud _on behalf of everyone else and not actually trying to get me banned herself _._

Thats not in the face or even between the shoulder blades, its in around the kidneys. With a rusty little blade . And then saying everyone else was putting you up to it .


----------



## weepiper (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> now now...she explained  she was only _thinking out loud _on behalf of everyone else and not actually trying to get me banned herself _._
> 
> Thats not in the face or even between the shoulder blades, its in around the kidneys. With a rusty little blade



Suck it up. If you want to dish it you'll have to take it too.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

Wilf said:


> but do remember where this started - you dishing it out about 'extremist feminists' or some such_._



nope, the abuse..namely _despicable piece of shit_ and an accusation of _horrible bigotry_ started well before I referred to extremist interpretations of an ideology as the reason why i was receiving that particular unwarranted abuse. I never once criticised or insulted feminism in the entire thread.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Suck it up. If you want to dish it you'll have to take it too.



ive no problem taking it or dishing it out  . Ive just got fuck all respect for anyone who denies they were openly trying to get me banned along with their little band of gits, snitches and low tackle from behind merchants.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> ive no problem taking it or dishing it out  . Ive just got fuck all respect for anyone who denies they were openly trying to get me banned along with their little band of gits


make your mind up, either I'm openly trying to get you banned or I'm a sneaky little backstabber, you can't have it both ways. Not like you had much respect for me before anyway is it?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> make your mind up, either I'm openly trying to get you banned or I'm a sneaky little backstabber, you can't have it both ways. Not like you had much respect for me before anyway is it?



 You were trying to get me banned then denied you were when i called you on it. Not me having it both ways .I cant respect that im afraid, in either instance . And I was a bit surprised and disappointed  tbh .


----------



## trashpony (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> nope, the abuse..namely _despicable piece of shit_ and an accusation of _horrible bigotry_ started well before I referred to extremist interpretations of an ideology as the reason why i was receiving that particular unwarranted abuse. I never once criticised or insulted feminism in the entire thread.


I called you a despicable piece of shit for saying this:


> And while I dont for a minute believe theres an exceedingly high rate of false accusations I do believe its a particulrly despicable and heinous crime that *a lot more people get away with than many would like to admit *. Mainly due to ideological reasons .



You're saying that a lot of women wrongly accuse men of rape and get them convicted for feminist LOLS.

I stand by what I said. That's a despicable thing to think and it makes you a despicable piece of shit for thinking it's an acceptable thing to vocalise. Fuck you and your tiny sad shitty little mind.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> I called you a despicable piece of shit for saying this:
> 
> 
> You're saying that a lot of women wrongly accuse men of rape and get them convicted for feminist LOLS.
> .



no im not, your saying what your saying , you dont speak for me you lying shite. I said the rate of false accusation was higher than the CPS statistics for false accusation convictions and some people have a problem with admitting that could ever be the case . Youve made up a pile of shite that has absoluetely nothing to do with the point i made . Because your a dishonest, disingenious shite .



> I stand by what I said. That's a despicable thing to think and it makes you a despicable piece of shit for thinking it's an acceptable thing to vocalise. Fuck you and your tiny sad shitty little mind



Stand by what you said all you like, its still a pack of fucking lies. Standing by it just makes you a determined liar . Go ahead and stand there .


----------



## trashpony (Nov 6, 2013)

What the fuck did you mean then? I'm paraphrasing but you said: 



> A lot more people get away with false accusations than many would like to admit



I'm really struggling to see how you meant anything else by that statement other than a lot of people (probably women) get away with accusing people (men) of rape (and securing convictions, otherwise they're not 'getting away with it') when the men are innocent. 

Can you explain what you meant if that isn't a good interpretation?

Is this the moment when the thread takes off again?


----------



## toggle (Nov 6, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Are they reported on more frequently because they happen less often?



I think the rarity makes them more interesting to the press. there's more of a novelty factor there.

I could comment a lot about patriarchal society wanting to discourage keep women in their place, but I'll try for a more generous interpretation as to why this sells papers. One thought I had was are there people who want to believe women make this stuff up, because that is a lesser 'evil' to them than the thought that thousands of men are getting away with rape? IDk it's probably a complex mix of a lot of stuff.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 6, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> TBF, this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not 'trying to get him banned because he disagrees with us'. Trying to get him banned would be 'mods why haven't you banned this prick'. I do wish, fervently, that he would just fuck off because he's a disruptive puerile shitstirring twat, however.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2013)

bollocks


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Are they reported on more frequently because they happen less often?



I think that's part of it, as well as the fact it ties into some quite deep running notions about "women spurned", bunny boilers and female irrationality/manipulation. Liked I said before male violence, even in the case of rape is still granted a "rationality" that is often denied to feminine violence.


toggle said:


> I think the rarity makes them more interesting to the press. there's more of a novelty factor there.
> 
> I could comment a lot about patriarchal society wanting to discourage keep women in their place, but I'll try for a more generous interpretation as to why this sells papers. One thought I had was are there people who want to believe women make this stuff up, because that is a lesser 'evil' to them than the thought that thousands of men are getting away with rape? IDk it's probably a complex mix of a lot of stuff.



I don't think it is as direct as keeping women in "their place", rather I think it ties into notions of female irrationality, "spurned women", "bunny boilers" which in itself is tied to the exclusion of women from naked aggression, so "feminine" violence is generally sublimated into a more cloaked mode, in this "private sphere" it is understood as less transparent/rational than say male aggression and even violence. The fear of false rape allegations therefore takes on a form much bigger than it's basis in reality because the suppression of visible female violence provides fertile ground for fantasies of hidden schemes. Much like how slave owners had a fear of slave plots that was more often than not well out of proportion to the reality.

Just some brain farts tbh, and hiding in the toilet from work.


----------



## toggle (Nov 6, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I think that's part of it, as well as the fact it ties into some quite deep running notions about "women spurned", bunny boilers and female irrationality/manipulation. Liked I said before male violence, even in the case of rape is still granted a "rationality" to it that is d
> 
> 
> I don't think it is as direct as keeping women in "their place", rather I think it ties into notions of female irrationality, "spurned women", "bunny boilers" which in itself is tied to the exclusion of women from naked aggression, so "feminine" violence is generally sublimated into a more cloaked mode, in this "private sphere" it is understood as less transparent/rational than say male aggression and even violence. The fear of false rape allegations therefore takes on a form much bigger than it's basis in reality because the suppression of visible female violence provides fertile ground for fantasies of hidden schemes. Much like how slave owners had a fear of slave plots that was more often than not well out of proportion to the reality.
> ...



if that's what you can post from the work loos, you should do that more often.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> What the fuck did you mean then? I'm paraphrasing but you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what i meant is that the poster i was replying to pointed to 32 prosecutions to show  how rare false accusations were . I said they were more prevalent than the rate of prosecutions for them , that the rate of false accusations was considerably higher than the rate of rate of prosecutions for them , that using that particular data was misleading . Which is true . I later linked to two women alone whod been responsible for 16 false accusations, only 2 of which resulted in a prosecution .

and you arent struggling to understand anything, your deliberately trying to blacken me with shit I never said in the first place  .


> I'm paraphrasing but you said:



yeah yeah


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> What the fuck did you mean then? I'm paraphrasing but you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How about it means what he said?... and has repeated _ad nauseum?_...

1. A lot of women who make false accusations *are not prosecuted* for making the false accusations.

2. He backed this up by citing  cases in Cleveland... where two women eventually *were* prosecuted for making false accusations... but only after previously making *seven *false allegations* each... *and not being prosecuted for them.

3. He also said that *some people* were unwilling/unable to even acknowledge this phenomenon exists - due to ideological reasons.

I believe he is right on all three of the above.

Points 1 & 2 are simple statements of fact.

Point 3 is a sad commentary on the tendency of the left to - instead of recognising the existence of said phenomenon and analysing/investigating/commenting on it - to simply either a) deny it's existence or b) accuse anyone of mentioning it of being a rape apologist/despicable shit/troll/misogynist. Simply, it would seem, because it does not suit their narrative. Daily Mail style head-in-the-sand refusal to engae with anything that does not conform with your worldview.

This tendency is widespread on any number of issues. The most noticeable one for me is that of denying the existence of _any_ people who take the piss benefits-wise. Apparently you are not even allowed to _mention_ this because it 'frames the debate in the wrong way'. 

I think this tendency has historically done the cause of the left immeasurable harm. Urban is rife with it.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> now now...she explained  she was only _thinking out loud _on behalf of everyone else and not actually trying to get me banned herself _._
> 
> Thats not in the face or even between the shoulder blades, its in around the kidneys. With a rusty little blade . And then saying everyone else was putting you up to it .


I have to say that I'm finding the punchy aggression/poor little victim flip-flop just a bit hard to keep up with...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I have to say that I'm finding the punchy aggression/poor little victim flip-flop just a bit hard to keep up with...



He's an Irish republican, it's like breathing...


----------



## existentialist (Nov 6, 2013)

revol68 said:


> He's an Irish republican, it's like breathing...


Ah, I wondered what all the oversensitivity about "touts" was all about...


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

revol68 said:


> The fear of false rape allegations therefore takes on a form much bigger than it's basis in reality because the suppression of visible female violence provides fertile ground for fantasies of hidden schemes. *Much like how slave owners had a fear of slave plots that was more often than not well out of proportion to the reality.*




This. especially the bold bit.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> what i meant is that the poster i was replying to pointed to 32 prosecutions to show  how rare false accusations were . I said they were more prevalent than the rate of prosecutions for them , that the rate of false accusations was considerably higher than the rate of rate of prosecutions for them , that using that particular data was misleading . Which is true . I later linked to two women alone whod been responsible for 16 false accusations, only 2 of which resulted in a prosecution .
> 
> and you arent struggling to understand anything, your deliberately trying to blacken me with shit I never said in the first place  .
> 
> ...


But they're not 'getting away' with them, are they, if they're not being prosecuted? Someone makes a spurious accusation, the CPS examines it, the case is dropped.

AFAIK, the rate of false accusations of rape is no higher than it it is for any other crime

ETA: LiamO - I didn't read all his posts. They were too boring


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

I would also like to say that the reasons why people might make false allegations are varied and complex.

I do not believe they are necessarily made out of malicious intent - even in cases such as this one. I have seen no explanation of why this particular woman went down the path she did and would not wish to speculate on.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I have to say that I'm finding the punchy aggression/poor little victim flip-flop just a bit hard to keep up with...



when i start shreiking about the presence of a pronoun get back to  me.

Disagreements one thing, downright stinking lies are another . And the underlying issue here is rape afterall, not football . I cant let lies and misrepresentation go on this subject . No fucking way . Theyre not getting away with saying that shit .


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 6, 2013)

golly, nice to check back in and see the mysogynist gang still in full flow and still pretending to be concerned liberals.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> ETA: LiamO - I didn't read all his posts. They were too boring



He would not have had to make 90% of them if some posters did not insist on (either through malicious intent or being blinded by ideology - the very point he was making) _choosing_ to read his early ones in a particular way.

Tbf, CR could help himself immeasurably if he used a little more punctuation and white space. Sometimes I have to re-read his posts myself to discern their meaning.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> golly, nice to check back in and see the mysogynist gang still in full flow and still pretending to be concerned liberals.



Yes. Every time it calms down a bit and gets rational(ish)... some helpful drive-by sniper ignites it all again.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when i start shreiking about the presence of a pronoun get back to  me.
> 
> Disagreements one thing, downright stinking lies are another . And the underlying issue here is rape afterall, not football . I cant let lies and misrepresentation go on this subject . No fucking way . Theyre not getting away with saying that shit .


You, Crusader After Truth?? It's an interesting notion, I'll give you that.

I haven't been following this thread nearly closely enough to be able to contribute any more than vague broad-brush impressions, but the vague broad-brush impression I have is that, with the amount of thundering and crashing around you've done on it - whatever the justification - it's no wonder you've made a few opponents. And watching you doing the shrinking lily bit because someone _might_ have hinted that the place would be nicer without you...well, personally, I think that's about as incongruous as the crusader after truth thing.

Big man like you, being upset by a...*gurl*? Tsk.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Big man like you, being upset by a...*gurl*? Tsk.



That's just silly. 

and disingenuous.

and beneath you tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2013)

existentialist said:


> You, Crusader After Truth?? It's an interesting notion, I'll give you that.
> 
> I haven't been following this thread nearly closely enough to be able to contribute any more than vague broad-brush impressions, but the vague broad-brush impression I have is that, with the amount of thundering and crashing around you've done on it - whatever the justification - it's no wonder you've made a few opponents. And watching you doing the shrinking lily bit because someone _might_ have hinted that the place would be nicer without you...well, personally, I think that's about as incongruous as the crusader after truth thing.
> 
> Big man like you, being upset by a...*gurl*? Tsk.


there's lots of people the site would be better off without, but each time someone like e.g. dwyer or detective-boy gets banned there's imo more loss than gain for the boards, not least because i always enjoyed needling the fuckers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2013)

LiamO said:


> That's just silly.
> 
> and disingenuous.
> 
> and beneath you tbh.


if it was beneath him he wouldn't have done it


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> But they're not 'getting away' with them, are they, if they're not being prosecuted? Someone makes a spurious accusation, the CPS examines it, the case is dropped.



no it aint the case. Serial false accusers still manage to repeatedly get their victims into the dock . And whether or not it goes to trial isnt the issue . Theres a lot of nasty shit in between . And a dirty smell afterwards .


> AFAIK, the rate of false accusations of rape is no higher than it it is for any other crime



that could well be the case, but how would you know when nobody else does.


----------



## toggle (Nov 6, 2013)

it is the result every credible study gives


----------



## trashpony (Nov 6, 2013)

LiamO said:


> He would not have had to make 90% of them if some posters did not insist on (either through malicious intent or being blinded by ideology - the very point he was making) _choosing_ to read his early ones in a particular way.
> 
> Tbf, CR could help himself immeasurably if he used a little more punctuation and white space. Sometimes I have to re-read his posts myself to discern their meaning.


I took from his post the meaning I posted above. He didn't edit it - he could have but he chose not to or even to elucidate in a clear way.

The meaning of the words he wrote was very clear - I didn't choose to read them in the wrong way. He chose to write them in the wrong way. When you're writing about a very sensitive topic, you need to think very carefully about your words.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> AFAIK, the rate of false accusations of rape is no higher than it it is for any other crime


taking this as a starting point, do you know of any statistics on false accusations for other crimes?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2013)

toggle said:


> it is the result every credible study gives


such as...


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

existentialist said:


> You, Crusader After Truth?? It's an interesting notion, I'll give you that.



no, someone who takes a fair bit of umbrage at being blackened as pro rapist and  who believes rape victims are all liars . Would you like that said about you ? I imagine youd be well fucked off  and wouldnt let that shit go .



> I haven't been following this thread nearly closely enough to be able to contribute any more than vague broad-brush impressions, but the vague broad-brush impression I have is that, with the amount of thundering and crashing around you've done on it - whatever the justification - it's no wonder you've made a few opponents. And watching you doing the shrinking lily bit because someone _might_ have hinted that the place would be nicer without you...well, personally, I think that's about as incongruous as the crusader after truth thing.
> 
> Big man like you, being upset by a...*gurl*? Tsk.



actually a few of them are men, and again bear in mind what the subject matter is and what is being alleged.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 6, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> golly, nice to check back in and see the mysogynist gang still in full flow and still pretending to be concerned liberals.



Who is this misogynist gang?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> I took from his post the meaning I posted above. He didn't edit it - he could have but he chose not to or even to elucidate in a clear way.
> 
> The meaning of the words he wrote was very clear - I didn't choose to read them in the wrong way. He chose to write them in the wrong way. When you're writing about a very sensitive topic, you need to think very carefully about your words.



did you fuck you lying sack of ..lies


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

LiamO said:


> and beneath you tbh.


It was a bit, to be fair.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

LiamO said:


> How about it means what he said?... and has repeated _ad nauseum?_...
> 
> 1. A lot of women who make false accusations *are not prosecuted* for making the false accusations.
> 
> ...



jaysus , youve gone and done it now . Wait till you see what they call you .


----------



## trashpony (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> did you fuck you lying sack of ..lies


How exactly am I a liar? I'm just reposting exactly what you wrote.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> How exactly am I a liar? I'm just reposting exactly what you wrote.


 We need revol to back in the shitter to sort this out.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> How exactly am I a liar? I'm just reposting exactly what you wrote.




more lies


----------



## weepiper (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> more lies


are you unwell? Or drunk?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

sick of lying bastards

eta

sorry, lying, snitching, misrepresenting, pronoun averse, snitching, ban mongering, lying bastards .


----------



## trashpony (Nov 6, 2013)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf

Sorry forgot to write something! This is a report (which has probably been posted earlier) which talks about the issue of false reporting.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> I took from his post the meaning I posted above. He didn't edit it - he could have but he chose not to or even to elucidate in a clear way.



No. He could NOT have edited it. Given the immediate barrage of abuse he got after posting it, he would have been doubly open to accusations of backtracking had he done what you suggest. 

You know this is the case if you stop to think about it, even for a moment.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

LiamO said:


> No. He could NOT have edited it. Given the immediate barrage of abuse he got after posting it, he would have been doubly open to accusations of backtracking had he done what you suggest.
> 
> You know this is the case if you stop to think about it, even for a moment.



do you seriously think this bunch of fuckos will ever even remotely back down from what theyve said after the massive shit storm they went into, and the seriousness of their lies  ? Not a chance . That would require both humility and character . And theyve simply not got it .
Appreciate your bringing logic and clarity into this but its a waste of time apart from showing them up .


----------



## trashpony (Nov 6, 2013)

LiamO said:


> No. He could NOT have edited it. Given the immediate barrage of abuse he got after posting it, he would have been doubly open to accusations of backtracking had he done what you suggest.
> 
> You know this is the case if you stop to think about it, even for a moment.


You're right. I never should have given him that as an option. It was a shit thing to write and proves he is a totally misogynistic shit of the highest order. Because no right minded person would ever write those words, much less continue to defend them. 

I see all the good hearted stuff you're doing on facebook and I'm astounded you're defending him too tbh.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> The meaning of the words he wrote was very clear - I didn't choose to read them in the wrong way. He chose to write them in the wrong way. When you're writing about a very sensitive topic, you need to think very carefully about your words.



This is so hilarious I may print it out and stick it to my PC.

1. If the meaning was so 'clear', why did you and many others miss it so completely and comprehensively?

2. I every communication the onus is first on the communicator to get their point across. But then there is an equal onus on the listener to either make an effort to understand what was being said or else seek clarification. It is a dialogue, not a one-way communication.

3. Please direct me to where you immediately sought such clarification.

4. Please direct me to where the other posters sought such clarification.



trashpony said:


> When you're writing about a very sensitive topic, you need to think very carefully about your words.



Please direct me to where you said the same to those who posted abusive messages immediately after his post (and thus removed any chance of a reasonable discussion).


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf
> 
> Sorry forgot to write something! This is a report (which has probably been posted earlier) which talks about the issue of false reporting.




AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH !!!!!

THATS THE VERY FUCKING THING YOU CALLED ME A DESPICABLE PIECE OF SHIT AND A HORRIBLE BIGOT OVER FOR SAYING WAS MISLEADING AS DATA ..AND YOUR ONLY POSTING IT NOW . YOU NEVER EVEN READ THE FUCKING THING

YOU FUCKER . YOU DESPICABLE LYING SWINE YOU.  YOU DIDNT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FUCKING ARGUMENT WAS EVEN ABOUT !!

BASTARD


----------



## toggle (Nov 6, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I would also like to say that the reasons why people might make false allegations are varied and complex.



which the CPS report does highlight rather well.



> a significant number of these cases involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one which he or she had reported.



i'm sure there are  cases where the stereotype of regret or vindictiveness does fit. but there are portions of our society seems to want to turn that into the dominant narrative about rape. not just known false allegation but all discussions of rape.


read into that quote that there is a significant percentage of cases that is a young woman lying because someone else thinks they should be in charge of her sexuality? the 'i'm her father and i own a shotgun' thing?

eta:

a bit more:



> In 38% of all decisions, the initial complaint of rape or domestic violence had been made by someone other than the suspect:
> 
> 92% of these related to rape


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 6, 2013)

Film 2013 is back on tonight


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> You're right. I never should have given him that as an option. It was a shit thing to write and proves he is a totally misogynistic shit of the highest order. Because *no right minded person* would ever write those words, much less continue to defend them.



Sorry. Too Daily Mail.



trashpony said:


> I see all the good hearted stuff you're doing on facebook and I'm astounded you're defending him too tbh.



Sorry. Pure Daily Mail.

I have 'defended' many posters on here when I see them being being misrepresented and attacked mob-handed - not because of what they have said, but because of what the way some people have chosen to decide that they have said. 

To my shame, I have also taken part in a few roastings myself (of detective-boy and a few others).

I have a different opinion than you on this thread. I can live with that.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 6, 2013)

No, I said you were a despicable piece of shit for writing:


> And while I dont for a minute believe theres an exceedingly high rate of false accusations I do believe its a particulrly despicable and heinous crime that *a lot more people get away with than many would like to admit *. Mainly due to ideological reasons .



I'm not entirely sure why you and your mate are jumping up and down. It's a very clear statement. It's an erroneous one but you've made your beliefs pretty clear. I've not heard any apologies or climb downs, so I assume you're still defending this position?


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> This thread is another fine example...of you and Liam giving each other reach-arounds.



Said the Knight in shining armour.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 6, 2013)

Are we really doing this all again.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> that could well be the case, but how would you know when nobody else does.



That would be including yourself then ? why the immediate jump to "if no one knows the true figures they MUST be higher than we all think".....this is the crux of this for me..........there seems to be an underlying attitude that because the official figures on actual rape are wildy unrepresentative then therefore this must mean that the figures on false allegations are also wrong and there are therefore far more .
Why the seeming need to believe that there are 'more' ?
I can see no where on this thread where anyone has denied that false allegations happen or that they aren't a serious matter to be dealt with accordingly by the law.....but given the disparity between the rates of actual rape/sexual assault and numbers of false allegations that go as far as involving the authorities etc can not the posters getting heated about being 'bullied' (how i am sick of hearing this on these boards whenever someone's views are contradicted by more than one person) see why others might find the outrage a bit out of proportion ?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

toggle said:


> which the CPS report does highlight rather well.



and again the cps report is only talking in that instance about those 35 cases it has prosecuted . Two women alone made 16 false allegations between them, only 2 of which resulted in prosecutions for perverting the course of justice . The data therein is misleading


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> How exactly am I a liar? I'm just *reposting exactly what you wrote*.






trashpony said:


> What the fuck did you mean then? *I'm paraphrasing but* you said:


----------



## toggle (Nov 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> and again the cps report is only talking in that instance about those 35 cases it has prosecuted . Two women alone made 16 false allegations between them, only 2 of which resulted in prosecutions for perverting the course of justice . The data therein is misleading



you haven't actually read the report have you.


get back to me when you have.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> AFAIK, the rate of false accusations of rape is no higher than it it is for any other crime



With many crimes though it's a lot easier to prove. Rape and false accusations of rape are harder to do so. 

If you complain that your neighbour nicked your car and it's still sat on the drive the next morning it's a bit more clear cut.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

[quote="mentalchik, post: 12685356, 





> That would be including yourself then ? why the immediate jump to "if no one knows the true figures they MUST be higher than we all think".....this is the crux of this for me..........there seems to be an underlying attitude that because the official figures on actual rape are wildy unrepresentative then therefore this must mean that the figures on false allegations are also wrong and there are therefore far more .



for fucks sake..because, as ive had to explain yet again, 2 women alone made 16 false allegations, only 2 of which resulted in prosecutions. 14 acknowleged false accusations by 2 women werent prosecuted. Therefore the difference between prosecuted false allegations and actual false allegations is demonstrably higher .


> Why the seeming need to believe that there are 'more' ?



because there plainly and demonstrably are


> I can see no where on this thread where anyone has denied that false allegations happen or that they aren't a serious matter to be dealt with accordingly by the law.....but given the disparity between the rates of actual rape/sexual assault and numbers of false allegations that go as far as involving the authorities etc can not the posters getting heated about being 'bullied' (how i am sick of hearing this on these boards whenever someone's views are contradicted by more than one person) see why others might find the outrage a bit out of proportion ?



righto, im annoyed about an interpretation of statistics . Thats all thats been going on here . Very good.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

toggle said:


> you haven't actually read the report have you.
> 
> 
> get back to me when you have.




yes i have and the specific bit you quoted referred solely to cases which were prosecuted


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 6, 2013)

> righto, im annoyed about an interpretation of statistics . Thats all thats been going on here . Very good.



well it really hasn't been _all_ that's been going on here really has it but

i give up......ho hum


----------



## LiamO (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm off.

I shall look forward to meeting you all at the end of December... when you are all full of the joys of festive spirit.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 6, 2013)

trashpony said:


> No, I said you were a despicable piece of shit for writing:



that was my reply to the cps report being posted. Youd never even bloody read it . You had no idea even what it was I was saying wasnt reliable as data . You simply attacked on sight without even knowing what it was you were attacking .


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Who is this misogynist gang?


a flag of convenience for the cunts collective


----------



## trashpony (Nov 7, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> that was my reply to the cps report being posted. Youd never even bloody read it . You had no idea even what it was I was saying wasnt reliable as data . You simply attacked on sight without even knowing what it was you were attacking .


I've read it. I still have no idea how you came to the conclusion that you did. 

However, we're going round in circles here so it's probably best for all of us if I put you on ignore and you do likewise


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

trashpony said:


> I've read it. I still have no idea how you came to the conclusion that you did.
> 
> However, we're going round in circles here so it's probably best for all of us if I put you on ignore and you do likewise


it's ok by me if you don't ignore each other - in fact, i've quite enjoyed your little exchange.


----------



## rover07 (Nov 7, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Who is this misogynist gang?



That would be you, CasuallyRed and LiamO.

In any thread about violence against women, there is a gang of men appear claiming that women are just as bad as men, if not worse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> That would be you, CasuallyRed and LiamO.
> 
> In any thread about violence against women, there is a gang of men appear claiming that women are just as bad as men, if not worse.


sorry, where do you get this claim from?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> That would be you, CasuallyRed and LiamO.
> 
> In any thread about violence against women, there is a gang of men appear claiming that women are just as bad as men, if not worse.


 For all that has been said on this thread, I don't think that's fair about CR (or Liam).  Moreover, for all revol's, ahem, sparky interventions (some of them against me, goodness, whatever next!) he's made some excellent posts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

Wilf said:


> For all that has been said on this thread, I don't think that's fair about CR (or Liam).  Moreover, for all revol's, ahem, sparky interventions (some of them against me, goodness, whatever next!) he's made some excellent posts.


this is urban. fairness, context and indeed comprehension fly out the window when blood's scented.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> this is urban. fairness, context and indeed comprehension fly out the window when blood's scented.


 I sometimes despise my wiberal search for fairness, must try harder.  Right, dexter, _he's_ a cunt!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I sometimes despise my wiberal search for fairness, must try harder.  Right, dexter, _he's_ a cunt!


this would be the dexter who years back posted a thread about shagging his (female) boss across a desk?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> this would be the dexter who years back posted a thread about shagging his (female) boss across a desk?


 I so nearly went to 'Search term' desk, 'Posted by member' dexter.  _Nearly_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I so nearly went to 'Search term' desk, 'Posted by member' dexter.  _Nearly_.


thread was deleted


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> thread was deleted


 In the interests of desks everywhere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

Wilf said:


> In the interests of desks everywhere.


more because i showed dexter was full of shit and he was less than happy about this


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when its to a bunch of tedious whiny touting cunts im not really that bothered



Ah, I see you're attempting to label people touts.

Name names, big man.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> prove what, when did i accuse you . Dipshit .
> 
> your only openly calling for me to be banned, i never said you were *secretly* trying to get me banned.



No she didn't, fuckwit, she said she couldn't see why you hadn't been banned.  
No wonder you chunter such shit. Your reading comprehension is obviously fucked even without your paranoia.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> nah, dont think so .



Because you've all the self-awareness of a leper's recently-departed foreskin.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> TBF, this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's *one* interpretation.

Another could be "given some of the utter shite he's come out with, why is CR still here".

I'd hazard that my interpretation is a bit more accurate than yours.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's *one* interpretation.
> 
> Another could be "given some of the utter shite he's come out with, why is CR still here".
> 
> I'd hazard that my interpretation is a bit more accurate than yours.


which one's yours?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> And TruXta; behave yourself, ffs.



Who got ultra-stoned and elected *you* as a moderator?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Exactly what does Casually Red add to this community and why is he still here?


if we're going to start judging people on what they add to the community then there'll be something of a cull.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> which one's yours?



The one I posited to Spymaster, you donkey's arse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who got ultra-stoned and elected *you* as a moderator?


i think spy would do a good job


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if we're going to start judging people on what they add to the community then there'll be something of a cull.



...And we'd be sorry to lose you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i think spy would do a good job



Have you been eating Yog-Sothoth's toe cheese again?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The one I posited to Spymaster, you donkey's arse.


more like supposited. you're up your own arse this morning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...And we'd be sorry to lose you.


don't worry, you'd still be able to find me here when you reregister under a different monicker.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you been eating Yog-Sothoth's toe cheese again?


spy's not everyone's cup of tea, but give him a bit of responsibility and i think he'd grow up


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's *one* interpretation.



It's the correct one, and she knows it.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> spy's not everyone's cup of tea, but give him a bit of responsibility and i think he'd grow up



I was milk monitor for a whole week at school.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I was milk monitor for a whole week at school.


And took the next week off with lactose poisoning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

toggle said:


> I think the rarity makes them more interesting to the press. there's more of a novelty factor there.



I'm not sure the "novelty factor" is the primary driver.
*If* media outlets were editorially-neutral, it might be the case that novelty would drive the reporting of such stories, but as it is, there's so much influence on media outlets from their own hierarchies, and such willingness to conform to a narrative that keeps those outlets in place, that IMO it's *politics*, of the old-fashioned gender kind, that drive the reporting.  Sometimes it's even pretty naked, with the "evil woman"/"wronged man" theme to the fore.



> I could comment a lot about patriarchal society wanting to discourage keep women in their place, but I'll try for a more generous interpretation as to why this sells papers. One thought I had was are there people who want to believe women make this stuff up, because that is a lesser 'evil' to them than the thought that thousands of men are getting away with rape? IDk it's probably a complex mix of a lot of stuff.



Absolutely, but w/r/t the print media at least, it often boils down to promoting either institutional prejudices, or the prejudices of the owner.  Noty all owners are _schmucks_ of the magnitude of Richard desmond, but plenty are as reactionary as he is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Ah, I wondered what all the oversensitivity about "touts" was all about...



Makes you wonder if the old saw about "those who shout loudest..." is in play.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And took the next week off with lactose poisoning.



I was sacked for punching loads of holes through the foil tops with a straw.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Said the Knight in shining armour.



I'm no knight.
Interesting that that's your fallback, though. You can't argue that you and CR don't often "have each others' backs", so you try to shift the narrative to me being a "knight".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I was sacked for punching loads of holes through the foil tops with a straw.



You forgot to mention the piss you syringed into Big Dave the Bully's milk.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> That would be you, CasuallyRed and LiamO.
> 
> In any thread about violence against women, there is a gang of men appear claiming that women are just as bad as men, if not worse.



Please show me where I have made a claim that women are as guilty of violence as men, let alone worse?

Where are these other threads where I have argued this, nevermind alongside Liam O or Casually Red?

It might also have escaped your attention but this thread isn't about male violence towards women, it is about a false rape claim, and no one here has claimed false rape claims are anywhere near as frequent as rape. You might want to go back and read my posts on this thread, then you can apologise.

P.s. is it a coincidence that this apparent misogynist gang is all Irish? Might you need to check your imperial privilege?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> more like supposited. you're up your own arse this morning.



Some days you're witty, others you're quotidian. The comment above indicates that today is of the latter persuasion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> don't worry, you'd still be able to find me here when you reregister under a different monicker.



Not my cup of tea.  Both times I've been banned, I've not done so.

How about you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> It's the correct one, and she knows it.



Nope, you assume it's the correct one, because you're predisposed to assume so, being a reactionary young (in relative terms) fart like you are.  If you weren't predisposed to do so, you wouldn't be quite so insistent on being right.  You'd exercise your little grey cells and realise that there are more than a few plausible interpretations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And took the next week off with lactose poisoning.



More like "took the next week off to spend the proceeds of flogging his class's milk to the local cafe".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

revol68 said:


> P.s. is it a coincidence that this apparent misogynist gang is all Irish? Might you need to check your imperial privilege?



Ouch!


----------



## TruXta (Nov 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> That would be you, CasuallyRed and LiamO.
> 
> In any thread about violence against women, there is a gang of men appear claiming that women are just as bad as men, if not worse.


revol's not been misogynist on this or any other thread you idiot.

/leaves thread for the last/nth time


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some days you're witty, others you're quotidian. The comment above indicates that today is of the latter persuasion.


at least some days i'm witty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Please show me where I have made a claim that women are as guilty of violence as men, let alone worse?
> 
> Where are these other threads where I have argued this, nevermind alongside Liam O or Casually Red?
> 
> ...


perhaps not post of the year, nor maybe even post of the month but imo post of the thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2013)

TruXta said:


> revol's not been misogynist on this or any other thread you idiot.



Neither has anyone else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Neither has anyone else.


the voice of reason 

spymaster for mod


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You'd exercise your little grey cells and realise that there are more than a few plausible interpretations.



No there aren't. I'm right and you're wrong.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2013)

CR has said a load of stuff on this thread, and some of it has been very silly, not least the goosestepping feminists with their enigmatic misogynist bombs. But imo he's been misinterpreted by some. Even the feminazi post is not attacking women. It is attacking feminism and feminists. Given that feminism is a political position, it ought to be open to attack, however much one might disagree with the attack.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> spymaster for mod



My first act would be to declare persistent and unfounded accusations of misogyny/racism/homophobia/whatever, to be a banning offence. 

It's getting silly.


----------



## bamalama (Nov 7, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> My first act would be to declare persistent and unfounded accusations of misogyny/racism/homophobia/whatever, to be a banning offence.
> 
> It's getting silly.


It's political correctness gorn maaad


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> My first act would be to declare persistent and unfounded accusations of misogyny/racism/homophobia/whatever, to be a banning offence.
> 
> It's getting silly.



You remind me of an ex's nephew who, when allowed to sit in the big swivelly chair, spun round and declared to everyone present, one by one, that we were fired. (this was long before The Apprentice, btw)

He was only eight, but the seeds of megalomania had been sown.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> CR has said a load of stuff on this thread, and some of it has been very silly, not least the goosestepping feminists with their enigmatic misogynist bombs. But imo he's been misinterpreted by some. Even the feminazi post is not attacking women. It is attacking feminism and feminists. Given that feminism is a political position, it ought to be open to attack, however much one might disagree with the attack.


 Can't disagree with that, I've said similar things.  Same time, if you make an attack on feminism, no, if you make a _personal-political attack on feminists on urban_ ('idiotic', 'extreme interpretations'), you do open the way for a response that is both personal and political.  Anyway, we've been round this way already, I'm not really adding anything.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2013)

Wilf said:


> if you make an attack on feminism, no, if you make a _personal-political attack on feminists on urban_ ('idiotic', 'extreme interpretations'), you do open the way for a response that is both personal and political.


Yep, you certainly do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Can't disagree with that, I've said similar things.  Same time, if you make an attack on feminism, no, if you make a _personal-political attack on feminists on urban_ ('idiotic', 'extreme interpretations'), you do open the way for a response that is both personal and political.  Anyway, we've been round this way already, I'm not really adding anything.








the personal is political


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> My first act would be to declare persistent and unfounded accusations of misogyny/racism/homophobia/whatever, to be a banning offence.
> 
> It's getting silly.



Rascist!!!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rascist!!!



Post reported!


----------



## LiamO (Nov 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> That would be you, CasuallyRed and LiamO.
> 
> In any thread about violence against women, there is a gang of men appear claiming that women are just as bad as men, if not worse.





Pickman's model said:


> sorry, where do you get this claim from?





revol68 said:


> Please show me where I have made a claim that women are as guilty of violence as men, let alone worse?
> 
> Where are these other threads where I have argued this, nevermind alongside Liam O or Casually Red?



and while you are at it rover07 ... please show *me* a single post where _I _have argued anything even remotely akin to your accusation... 'In any thread about violence against women, there is a gang of men appear claiming that women are just as bad as men, if not worse'. Not me chief. Not once. Ever.

And please remember that your post specifically says 'men' and 'women' (as in in general). Please don't come back with some more disingenuous pish.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> That would be you, CasuallyRed and LiamO. blah...





TruXta said:


> revol's not been misogynist on this or any other thread you idiot.
> 
> /leaves thread for the last/nth time



Erm... excuse fuckin me... TruXta

Does your selective choosing of one poster from three named above mean that you believe I _have_ posted up misogynist stuff?

Please show me where (here or on any other thread, ever) or apologise, there's a good chap.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 7, 2013)

Is it Christmas already? Enough ding-dongs merrily on high I suppose.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 7, 2013)

Just couldn't let that one go unchallenged. Merry Christmas to you and yoursxx


----------



## framed (Nov 7, 2013)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not my cup of tea.  Both times I've been banned, I've not done so.
> 
> How about you?


not really worth it when you've only had a couple of one day bans


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> this would be the dexter who years back posted a thread about shagging his (female) boss across a desk?


Never happened.  

I'm sure the mods can tell if any threads have been deleted...feel free to back it up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Never happened.
> 
> I'm sure the mods can tell if any threads have been deleted...feel free to back it up.


it did happen.


----------



## rover07 (Nov 7, 2013)

LiamO said:


> and while you are at it rover07 ... please show *me* a single post where _I _have argued anything even remotely akin to your accusation... 'In any thread about violence against women, there is a gang of men appear claiming that women are just as bad as men, if not worse'. Not me chief. Not once. Ever.
> 
> And please remember that your post specifically says 'men' and 'women' (as in in general). Please don't come back with some more disingenuous pish.



In brief: You jump straight in on post 2 with a veiled hint about you couldn't stay calm... if any woman dared to accuse you or one of your mates of rape.

CasuallyRed and Revol68 pile on with how false allegations are just the same as attempted rape.

You then rejoin the thread to defend them

Finally descending to the allcap rant ALL FEMINISTS ARE NAZIS.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> In brief: You jump straight in on post 2 with a veiled hint about you couldn't stay calm... if any woman dared to accuse you or one of your mates of rape.
> 
> CasuallyRed and Revol68 pile on with how false allegations are just the same as attempted rape.
> 
> ...



CasuallyLiam68, a new poster?

Weird how someone can come away from a thread with such distorted nonsense. Poor old revol. I've agreed with pretty much every word he's said on this thread. He's adopting a new persona as the voice of reason, and still gets it.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> In brief: You jump straight in on post 2 with a veiled hint about you couldn't stay calm... if any woman dared to accuse you or one of your mates of rape.
> 
> CasuallyRed and Revol68 pile on with how false allegations are just the same as attempted rape.
> 
> ...



I'll think you'll find I correct the idea that this woman's false allegation is the same as rape by pointing out it is surely more akin to attempted rape if anything, as she'd didn't get away with it.

I have no desire to get into a pissing contest over what is worse "an attempted rape or an attempted false rape allegation", I don't have a hierarchy of injustice chart, nor do I want one. It's not like it should be a competition between the two, that kind of thinking reinforces the notion that there is some sort of correlation between false rape allegations and the non prosecution of rape. It brings to mind a perverse logic of somehow a false prosecution making up for one never prosecuted rape and correspondingly one never prosecuted rape making up for one a false prosecution.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 7, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I'll think you'll find I correct the idea that this woman's false allegation is the same as rape by pointing out it is surely more akin to attempted rape if anything, as she'd didn't get away with it.
> 
> I have no desire to get into a pissing contest over what is worse "an attempted rape or an attempted false rape allegation", I don't have a hierarchy of injustice chart, nor do I want one. It's not like it should be a competition between the two, that kind of thinking reinforces the notion that there is some sort of correlation between false rape allegations and the non prosecution of rape. It brings to mind a perverse logic of somehow a falsely prosecution making up for one never prosecuted rape and correspondingly one never prosecuted rape making up for one a false prosecution.



who are you and what have you done with revol?


----------



## existentialist (Nov 8, 2013)

weepiper said:


> who are you and what have you done with revol?


We all have our reasonable side, you know.

Well, when I say "all"...


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2013)

existentialist said:


> We all have our reasonable side, you know.
> 
> Well, when I say "all"...


 To be fair, nobody's been sent to bed tonight.


----------



## xenon (Nov 8, 2013)

rover07 said:


> In brief: You jump straight in on post 2 with a veiled hint about you couldn't stay calm... if any woman dared to accuse you or one of your mates of rape.
> 
> CasuallyRed and Revol68 pile on with how false allegations are just the same as attempted rape.
> 
> ...



This thread is a fucking farce but your reading comprehension skills are noteably woful.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> CR has said a load of stuff on this thread, and some of it has been very silly, not least the goosestepping feminists with their enigmatic misogynist bombs. But imo he's been misinterpreted by some. Even the feminazi post is not attacking women. It is attacking feminism and feminists. Given that feminism is a political position, it ought to be open to attack, however much one might disagree with the attack.



While I appreciate your highlighting the misrepresentation , on the issue of feminism thats completely wrong in that regard Im afraid. I was insulting a bunch of mixed gender loudmouth assholes on here .I never even remotely criticised feminism as a position at any time , feel free to show me were i did .In fact on the only post were i gave an opinion on feminism as an ideology I praised it and differentiated between the ideology itself and the handful of shitheads on here ,male and female, who mouth off about it . These gits  arent the collective conscience of feminism by any means, theyre just thick and ignorant. 

I was going out with a very nice and extremely intelligent feminist lady for 2 years and she  found some stuff that had been posted here to be so stupid she was embarassed.
Just because i insult a few shitheads on here doesnt make me anti feminist . No more than when I insult leftie shitheads for being shitheads that somehow makes me anti socialist .
its just theres some here that are so precious they should never be contradicted. And while they can call you any name under the sun respond in kind and theyre looking you banned

they are not _feminism_, theyre just a bunch of tools.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> No she didn't, fuckwit, she said she couldn't see why you hadn't been banned.
> No wonder you chunter such shit. Your reading comprehension is obviously fucked even without your paranoia.



you can go and fuck yourself and all. She was ban mongering along with her wee gang and no amount of self righteous shit from you on her behalf makes a difference .


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> It's the correct one, and she knows it.



and so does he, hes just pretending to be stupid.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's *one* interpretation.
> 
> Another could be "given some of the utter shite he's come out with, why is CR still here".
> 
> I'd hazard that my interpretation is a bit more accurate than yours.



whats the difference.... why has he not been banned/he should be banned...its ban mongering and well you know it, as does she. Disingenious shit from the 2 of you .


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 8, 2013)

................uh.....................







Odysseus resists the call of the Sirens.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Odysseus resists the call of the Sirens.


 Wow.  Why didn't you go all the way and say 'harpies'.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> whats the difference.... why has he not been banned/he should be banned...its ban mongering and well you know it, as does she. Disingenious shit from the 2 of you .


I know it's obviously pissed you off, but - especially as the only evidence for the cause of your outrage is a certain amount of conjecture from you as to whether someone meant this thing or that by a post they made on a website - there's an irony here: on a thread talking about the question of rape, and accusations thereof, you're getting into a state because someone _might_ have expressed themselves in a way that _at worst_ suggests they'd be quite pleased if you'd got a ban. I'd move on, if I were you. It's irrelevant, and totally out of proportion.

And, let's face it, you must have realised that the views you're putting out there were always going to be extremely provocative to quite a few people on Urban, so the strength (or direction) of the reaction can't really have come as _that_ much of a surprise, surely?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> not really worth it when you've only had a couple of one day bans



My first ban was a week.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> While I appreciate your highlighting the misrepresentation , on the issue of feminism thats completely wrong in that regard Im afraid. I was insulting a bunch of mixed gender loudmouth assholes on here .I never even remotely criticised feminism as a position at any time , feel free to show me were i did .In fact on the only post were i gave an opinion on feminism as an ideology I praised it and differentiated between the ideology itself and the handful of shitheads on here ,male and female, who mouth off about it . These gits  arent the collective conscience of feminism by any means, theyre just thick and ignorant.
> 
> I was going out with a very nice and extremely intelligent feminist lady for 2 years and she  found some stuff that had been posted here to be so stupid she was embarassed.
> Just because i insult a few shitheads on here doesnt make me anti feminist . No more than when I insult leftie shitheads for being shitheads that somehow makes me anti socialist .
> ...



So, one of your best friends was a feminist, then?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 8, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Wow.  Why didn't you go all the way and say 'harpies'.



I think he was alluding to his temptation to get involved in this massive bun fight, rather than criticising any particular posters.

Sirens and harpys are pretty different, one holds the truth but leads to your doom, the other is used to refer to an unpleasant woman.

Seriously can people think be a tad more thinking in their reading.


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2013)

I'm fairly close to bingo on this thread. just a little further


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> you can go and fuck yourself and all. She was ban mongering along with her wee gang and no amount of self righteous shit from you on her behalf makes a difference .



Blah blah fucking blah. Poor victim CR, always sinned against.
And you have the nerve to call *me* self-righteous!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> whats the difference.... why has he not been banned/he should be banned...its ban mongering and well you know it, as does she. Disingenious shit from the 2 of you .



The difference is that asking why someone hasn't been banned has only one meaning.  Asking why they're still here could mean either that or "why hasn't the person got enough of a sense of shame to do the decent thing and fall on their sword?".
So, not disingenuous.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I know it's obviously pissed you off, but - especially as the only evidence for the cause of your outrage is a certain amount of conjecture from you as to whether someone meant this thing or that by a post they made on a website - there's an irony here: on a thread talking about the question of rape, and accusations thereof, you're getting into a state because someone _might_ have expressed themselves in a way that _at worst_ suggests they'd be quite pleased if you'd got a ban. I'd move on, if I were you. It's irrelevant, and totally out of proportion.
> 
> And, let's face it, you must have realised that the views you're putting out there were always going to be extremely provocative to quite a few people on Urban, so the strength (or direction) of the reaction can't really have come as _that_ much of a surprise, surely?



Pah.
You're just a member of the "wee gang", you are!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> My first ban was a week.


i was talking about mine


----------



## weepiper (Nov 8, 2013)

ach leave it VP, he's never going to listen so we might as well move on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The difference is that asking why someone hasn't been banned has only one meaning.  Asking why they're still here could mean either that or "why hasn't the person got enough of a sense of shame to do the decent thing and fall on their sword?".
> So, not disingenuous.


such a facile interpretation


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I think he was alluding to his temptation to get involved in this massive bun fight, rather than criticising any particular posters.
> 
> Sirens and harpys are pretty different, one holds the truth but leads to your doom, the other is used to refer to an unpleasant woman.
> 
> Seriously can people think be a tad more thinking in their reading.


 On a thread about female 'deception' it seemed a bit off to me, that's all. However if your interpretation is what JC meant, then I apologise to him.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 8, 2013)

Wilf said:


> On a thread about female 'deception' it seemed a bit off to me, that's all. However if your interpretation is what JC meant, then I apologise to him.



But sirens don't deceive at all, they hold the truth.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2013)

Wilf said:


> On a thread about female 'deception' it seemed a bit off to me, that's all. However if your interpretation is what JC meant, then I apologise to him.


I saw it the same way as revol, fwiw.


----------



## cesare (Nov 8, 2013)

I read it as a pictorial way of saying that this was an epic thread, leaving it entirely up to us to decide in the context of this thread whether Odysseus was a hero; or sly and deceitful as the Romans would have it. Homer only states two sirens so this is probably the Roman version ie Odysseus is a cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

I read it as attention seeking. What he's doing all over the boards right now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> such a facile interpretation



Do one, you sententious windbag.


----------



## cesare (Nov 8, 2013)

It's certainly a very large and brightly coloured way of marking an entrance onto a thread.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 8, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Wow.  Why didn't you go all the way and say 'harpies'.


 
The image has nothing to do with the participants in the discussion; and everything to do with my desire - resisted - to participate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The difference is that asking why someone hasn't been banned has only one meaning.  Asking why they're still here could mean either that or "why hasn't the person got enough of a sense of shame to do the decent thing and fall on their sword?".
> So, not disingenuous.


asking why someone hasn't been banned has as its implication 'they should have been banned' and demands editor and the other mods defend their lack of action. you used to be someone who posted interesting well-argued posts. now you're just sweary


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2013)

...facile and dull


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do one, you sententious windbag.


your posts have suffered a catastrophick decline in quality recently


----------



## framed (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> While I appreciate your highlighting the misrepresentation , on the issue of feminism thats completely wrong in that regard Im afraid. I was insulting a bunch of mixed gender loudmouth assholes on here .I never even remotely criticised feminism as a position at any time , feel free to show me were i did .In fact on the only post were i gave an opinion on feminism as an ideology I praised it and differentiated between the ideology itself and the handful of shitheads on here ,male and female, who mouth off about it . These gits  arent the collective conscience of feminism by any means, theyre just thick and ignorant.
> 
> I was going out with a very nice and extremely intelligent feminist lady for 2 years and she  found some stuff that had been posted here to be so stupid she was embarassed.
> Just because i insult a few shitheads on here doesnt make me anti feminist . No more than when I insult leftie shitheads for being shitheads that somehow makes me anti socialist .
> ...



So, anyone and everyone on this thread who has taken an opposing view to yours are _"thick, ignorant, shitheads and tools..."  _

I've now read the entire thread in the last couple of days. One thing that does stand out from the discussion is your early reference to 'ideology' as a factor in the interpretation of the crime itself and the opposition to your views being ideologically motivated. You still haven't clearly identified what (_rather than who_) it is that you're opposing from an 'ideological' standpoint. If you're not attacking feminism _per se_, please explain which is the problematic ideology that you have taken issue with?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you used to be someone who posted interesting well-argued posts.



Extraordinary memory you have. Must be handy in your line of work.


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> While I appreciate your highlighting the misrepresentation , on the issue of feminism thats completely wrong in that regard Im afraid. I was insulting a bunch of mixed gender loudmouth assholes on here .I never even remotely criticised feminism as a position at any time , feel free to show me were i did .In fact on the only post were i gave an opinion on feminism as an ideology I praised it and differentiated between the ideology itself and the handful of shitheads on here ,male and female, who mouth off about it . These gits  arent the collective conscience of feminism by any means, theyre just thick and ignorant.



Cheers, so anyone who took an opposing stance to you is a "loudmouth asshole, shithead, thick and ignorant"..........stop acting the poor victim !



> I was going out with a very nice and extremely intelligent feminist lady for 2 years and she  found some stuff that had been posted here to be so stupid she was embarassed.
> Just because i insult a few shitheads on here doesnt make me anti feminist . No more than when I insult leftie shitheads for being shitheads that somehow makes me anti socialist .
> its just theres some here that are so precious they should never be contradicted. And while they can call you any name under the sun respond in kind and theyre looking you banned
> 
> they are not _feminism_, theyre just a bunch of tools.




you realise this reads like people that say " i'm not a racist some of my best friends are black"

I didn't call you any names and didn't say you should be banned.........and i am not in any 'gang'............there's nowt wrong with a bit of swearing whilst in the midst of a heated debate but this level of just name calling is infantile.....................i've often (and am) in a position of having the only viewpoint in total opposition to other people's opinions where i work  but have never resorted  to whining about 'gangs' and name calling.....grow up mate


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

[quote="mentalchik, post: 12689123, member:


> Cheers, so anyone who took an opposing stance to you is a "loudmouth asshole, shithead, thick and ignorant"..........stop acting the poor victim !



nope, yet again im facing total misrepresentation . I never said that so you have to make it up. Pathetic.





> you realise this reads like people that say " i'm not a racist some of my best friends are black"



im pretty sure my girlfreind was a female, in fact im almost positive all of them were . Not that that will even remotely prevent you from making up something i never said in the first place, again .


> I didn't call you any names and didn't say you should be banned.........and i am not in any 'gang'............there's nowt wrong with a bit of swearing whilst in the midst of a heated debate but this level of just name calling is infantile.....................i've often (and am) in a position of having the only viewpoint in total opposition to other people's opinions where i work  but have never resorted  to whining about 'gangs' and name calling.....grow up mate



i wasnt even remotely talking about you, its simply not at all about you. Why you think I was referring to you mystifies me .You may well be the centre of your own universe but not mine, missus .Please desist from this tomfoolery .


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 8, 2013)

i take it all back.....

you are in fact a knobhead of the hightest order !


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The image has nothing to do with the participants in the discussion; and everything to do with my desire - resisted - to participate.


 Fair enough - and a simple apology for getting it wrong.  I think I made my wild leap as your post followed several by CR and thought you were -  - portraying him as the tormented hero!  This suggests I may need a new brain, but most of all that I should get out more.


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2013)

there's also the undertone of : you're allowed to be a feminist, just have to stay the right kind of feminist, not the kind with any radical ideas, or the ability to stand up for themselves. That is the kind of attitude that got us feminism for middle managers in tailored skirts.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> nope, yet again im facing total misrepresentation . I never said that so you have to make it up. Pathetic.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im pretty sure my girlfreind was a female, in fact im almost positive all of them were .



That's not what I heard, tbs, tbs!


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

[quote="framed, post: 12689071, member: 


> So, anyone and everyone on this thread who has taken an opposing view to yours are _"thick, ignorant, shitheads and tools..."  _



no, i specified very clearly shitheads and tools were the people who were deliberately misrepresenting what i was saying , and then denouncing me as a mysognist and all sorts and calling for me to be banned on the basis of that deliberate misrepresentation . Wy youve felt the need to apply that to anyone who disagrees with me is your own affair . I certainly never .


> I've now read the entire thread in the last couple of days. One thing that does stand out from the discussion is your early reference to 'ideology' as a factor in the interpretation of the crime itself and the opposition to your views being ideologically motivated. You still haven't clearly identified what (_rather than who_) it is that you're opposing from an 'ideological' standpoint. If you're not attacking feminism _per se_, please explain which is the problematic ideology that you have taken issue with?



Ive explained this till im blue in the face . Ive made abundantly clear I have no issue at all with feminist ideology . I specified that very clearly from the very outset. Im not opposing an ideology in any manner, shape or form, and never have been at any time in this thread. Nor have i been advancing even remotely any type of alternative ideology .

I said the data within the CPS report was unreliable as an indicator of the extent of this particular crime, and posted examples which illustrated my basis for that belief . No ideology was ever challenged or criticised at any time . I clearly spoke out in favour of feminism on page 2 in an attempt to make that as clear as I could , and distinguished clearly between the ideology of feminism itself and the behaviour of a few individuals on here who espouse it .

My mistake in dealing with them  was in trying to be charitable, by suggesting that their belief in this ideology was so intense it could make them a bit unreasonable when it came to a minor difference in opinion over a set of statistics, which is all it was .The difference of opinion was never at any juncture ideologically based  . When what I should have just said from the outset was theres bunch of tools and shitheads on here wholl go ballistic at the even the slightest provocation, which I strongly suspected my questioning the datas reliability would prove to be . And it was .

Id suggest, with respect, youve completely gotten the wrong end of the proverbial stick .


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what I heard, tbs, tbs!


oh look, all men telling funnies about transwomen.

just fuck off with that kind of bullshit


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> i take it all back.....
> 
> you are in fact a knobhead of the hightest oreder !



well i can spell order


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

toggle said:


> there's also the undertone of : you're allowed to be a feminist, just have to stay the right kind of feminist, not the kind with any radical ideas, or the ability to stand up for themselves. That is the kind of attitude that got us feminism for middle managers in tailored skirts.



theres no such undertone . The only overtone is dont be a lying banmongering bastard because I had the temerity to question the overall reliability of a set of statistics from the CPS.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

[quote="existentialist, post: 12688156, member





> I know it's obviously pissed you off, but - especially as the only evidence for the cause of your outrage is a certain amount of conjecture from you as to whether someone meant this thing or that by a post they made on a website - there's an irony here: on a thread talking about the question of rape, and accusations thereof, you're getting into a state because someone _might_ have expressed themselves in a way that _at worst_ suggests they'd be quite pleased if you'd got a ban. I'd move on, if I were you. It's irrelevant, and totally out of proportion.


the reason for my banning would have been on the basis of misogny and a completely misrepresented position that I believed rape victims were malicious fantasists . Thats what Im fucked off about . Im not prepared to let that go . And with respect please dont try and tell me what it is Im annoyed about ever again . Especially when you get it so badly arse about face .


> And, let's face it, you must have realised that the views you're putting out there were always going to be extremely provocative to quite a few people on Urban, so the strength (or direction) of the reaction can't really have come as _that_ much of a surprise, surely?



what *views* were I putting out there ? That theres some headcases on urban that go doolally if you question a set of statistics relating to a certain subject ? Sure I was right .


----------



## weepiper (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> theres no such undertone . The only overtone is dont be a lying banmongering bastard because I had the temerity to question the overall reliability of a set of statistics from the CPS.



Jesus Christ, get over yourself already


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

give over


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2013)

toggle said:


> there's also the undertone of : you're allowed to be a feminist, just have to stay the right kind of feminist, not the kind with any radical ideas, or the ability to stand up for themselves.



That's not unreasonable though is it?

There are degrees of all "ideologies". At a convergent point you (and others) and CR would agree on things. Then things escalate and your idea of feminism becomes more alien to him (and me,tbf) in comparison to his life experience. And that's not experience in "misogyny".

Urban75 attracts people with well developed ... entrenched ... sometimes informed views, generated from a wide pool of life experience.		

What I think CR is getting at is that many of us blokes (most that I know), have a perfectly healthy relationship with the vast majority of women in our lives.

I got pissed off with that 'benevolent sexism' gig (which I'd still like to discuss, btw) and a few of you were on me like a shot. Same has happened to others. Since then there's been a definite polarisation of contributors on the subject. Which while inevitable, is a shame.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2013)

toggle said:


> oh look, all men telling funnies about transwomen.
> 
> just fuck off with that kind of bullshit



WTF? 

It's a private joke between me and Red, ffs, and you are waaaay off the mark.

Nothing to get excited about.


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> theres no such undertone . The only overtone is dont be a lying banmongering bastard because I had the temerity to question the overall reliability of a set of statistics from the CPS.



while completely and repeatedly missing the point.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

ive youve an alternative point im glad i missed it, i dont know what it is and really dont want to at this stage .


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> WTF?
> 
> It's a private joke between me and Red, ffs, and you are waaaay off the mark.
> 
> Nothing to get excited about.



you really are a shithead.

that isn't acceptable

it's not funny

and ti's definitely not private

you are the one who is way off the mark if you think that is acceptable


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2013)

Oh fuck off.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

it is private


toggle said:


> you really are a shithead.
> 
> that isn't acceptable
> 
> ...




actually it is private, its an _in_ joke between me and himself , and none of your business either

your right about it not being funny though


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2013)

&


Silas Loom said:


> Extraordinary memory you have. Must be handy in your line of work.


you're something of a newbie so i'll let you in on a little secret: you can search the internet


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Oh fuck off.



do you actually think transphobic funnies are appropriate here?

fucking seriously, you think that is acceptable enough that you're defending it?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> your right about it not being funny though



No she's not.


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it is private
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if it's private, you say it by PM. say it on the boards and it's no longer private.


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> No she's not.



i'm right about you being a bigoted arsehole


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2013)

toggle said:


> do you actually think transphobic funnies are appropriate here?
> 
> fucking seriously, you think that is acceptable enough that you're defending it?



STFU, FFS!

You don't have a _fucking clue_ what that referred to!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well i can spell order


but not, i note, highest


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm right about you being a bigoted arsehole


i'm pleased you've finally caught up with the rest of us.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

toggle said:


> if it's private, you say it by PM. say it on the boards and it's no longer private.



Fair enough , Ill mention it to him. 

Si, in future dont be flaunting your private stuff in public . You hear me ?? Dont do it again .


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm right about you being a bigoted arsehole



Welcome to the "posting whilst pissed" club! 

It's like the Masons but with women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Welcome to the "posting whilst pissed" club!


i didn't know toggle was a tosspot


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Fair enough , Ill mention it to him.
> 
> Si, in future dont be flaunting your private stuff in public . You hear me ?? Dont do it again .



I'll do my best, tbs, tbs.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2013)

toggle said:


> if it's private, you say it by PM. say it on the boards and it's no longer private.



Gertcha!

You're just trying to pick a fight.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 8, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> STFU, FFS!
> 
> You don't have a _fucking clue_ what that referred to!



Neither do any of the rest of us, and tbf it does look like you're making a gag about him accidentally going out with a bloke who looks like a woman, hoho. Maybe not the best choice of private joke for this thread


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I'll do my best, tbs, tbs.



not everybody needs to see it mate


----------



## framed (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> [quote="framed, post: 12689071, member:
> 
> 
> no, i specified very clearly shitheads and tools were the people who were deliberately misrepresenting what i was saying , and then denouncing me as a mysognist and all sorts and calling for me to be banned on the basis of that deliberate misrepresentation . Wy youve felt the need to apply that to anyone who disagrees with me is your own affair . I certainly never .
> ...




OK, so if I've got you right, you were arguing, in the extract I've reproduced below, that the data (or any interpretation of it other than your own) was in some way skewed _'mainly due to ideological reasons'_... which begs the same questions again, what 'ideological reasons' and which ideology?



> I do believe its a particulrly despicable and heinous crime that a lot more people get away with than many would like to admit . *Mainly due to ideological reasons *.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

framed said:


> OK, so if I've got you right, you were arguing, in the extract I've reproduced below, that the data (or any interpretation of it other than your own) was in some way skewed _'mainly due to ideological reasons'_... which begs the same questions again, what 'ideological reasons' and which ideology?



no youve got it completely and utterly wrong for the reasons ive already stated to you very clearly , and elsewhere repeatedly on this thread. Please read my previous post again . I dont mention data anywhere in that sentence youve quoted . Ideology has fuck all to do with the data. I mention only people on these boards who will refuse to accept there are more false accusations than the data provided references . And ive already stated I was being charitable to them as putting that down to a deeply held adherence to an ideology, as opposed to their sheer ignorance which is a character trait as opposed to an ideological trait .


----------



## framed (Nov 8, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no youve got it completely and utterly wrong for the reasons ive already stated to you very clearly , and elsewhere repeatedly on this thread. Please read my previous post again . I dont mention data anywhere in that sentence youve quoted . Ideology has fuck all to do with the data. I mention only people on these boards who will refuse to accept there are more false accusations than the data provided references . And ive already stated I was being charitable to them as putting that down to a deeply held adherence to an ideology, as opposed to their sheer ignorance which is a character trait as opposed to an ideological trait .




Ah right, so there's no ideology whatsoever involved in your arguments or theirs, it just boils down to which 'side' (for want of a better description) are the most ignorant, biggest shitheads, cunts, etc, etc?

Aye, I think I've got it now.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2013)

i dont think you have but im giving up any explaining any further . Im not on a side, i never picked a side .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> your posts have suffered a catastrophick decline in quality recently



Whereas yours have *always* been of poor quality.


----------



## toggle (Nov 9, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Gertcha!
> 
> You're just trying to pick a fight.



projecting again?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2013)




----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Neither do any of the rest of us, and tbf it does look like you're making a gag about him accidentally going out with a bloke who looks like a woman, hoho. Maybe not the best choice of private joke for this thread



I couldn't give a fuck what you think quite frankly.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 9, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I couldn't give a fuck what you think quite frankly.


that's nice dear


----------



## CRI (Nov 9, 2013)

Rarely venture into this zone and cant be arsed reading a whole thread that just seems to go in circles, but has anyone yet brought up the, "To be falsely accused of racism/homophobia/disability exclusion is as bad as if not worse than actual racism/homophobia/disability exclusion, etc.," comparison.  An absolute mega-fuck-ton of unacknowledged privilege is being spanked all over this thread.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 9, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Erm... excuse fuckin me... TruXta
> 
> Does your selective choosing of one poster from three named above mean that you believe I _have_ posted up misogynist stuff?
> 
> Please show me where (here or on any other thread, ever) or apologise, there's a good chap.


Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, saw the alert and promptly forgot to reply. 

Do I believe you have posted up misogynist stuff? No, not really. Highly questionable stuff yes. Over and out.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 9, 2013)

CRI said:


> Rarely venture into this zone* and cant be arsed reading a whole thread* that just seems to go in circles, but has anyone yet brought up the, "To be falsely accused of racism/homophobia/disability exclusion is as bad as if not worse than actual racism/homophobia/disability exclusion, etc.," comparison.  *An absolute mega-fuck-ton of unacknowledged privilege is being spanked all over this thread.*



How do you know if you couldn't be arsed reading it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Whereas yours have *always* been of poor quality.


weak, dull and derivative


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2013)

CRI said:


> Rarely venture into this zone and cant be arsed reading a whole thread that just seems to go in circles, but has anyone yet brought up the, "To be falsely accused of racism/homophobia/disability exclusion is as bad as if not worse than actual racism/homophobia/disability exclusion, etc.," comparison.  An absolute mega-fuck-ton of unacknowledged privilege is being spanked all over this thread.


do you mean SPANKED or SPUNKED?


----------



## existentialist (Nov 10, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> [quote="existentialist, post: 12688156, member
> the reason for my banning would have been on the basis of misogny and a completely misrepresented position that I believed rape victims were malicious fantasists .


Oh, come on, get real. If everyone whom anyone so much as hinted should be banned actually GOT banned, there'd be one poster putting pics of cats and guinea pigs up on the bandwidth thread, and the mods...and probably not all of them, either. The mods aren't in the habit of banning people just because person X or Y says they think they should.

I really think you're getting seriously





about absolutely nothing.

ETA: and I'm no longer sure about the cats-and-guinea-pigs's poster's chances, either


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 10, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> nope, the abuse..namely _despicable piece of shit_ and an accusation of _horrible bigotry_ started well before I referred to extremist interpretations of an ideology as the reason why i was receiving that particular unwarranted abuse. *I never once criticised or insulted feminism in the entire thread*.


You know that's not true. 

This retreat into victimhood because there's disagreement with your viewpoint is becoming tiresome.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 10, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> You know that's not true.
> 
> This retreat into victimhood because there's disagreement with your viewpoint is becoming tiresome.



if its not true then show me where i did . Or just fuck off .


----------



## cesare (Nov 10, 2013)

How the fucking fuck did we (women) get to the point where we deploy the term " misoginist" (spelling?) so easily? Is it just my age - I dunno. There's chauvinistic views, that sometimes get into sexist views. And in my mind I sometimes think someone's a male chauvinistic PIG. But reallŷ, misogyny. Why that strongest word as a catch all when they 're just a chauvinistic pig. 

Then they react to that strongest word, setting out why they're not a woman hater, and most of the time they're not a woman-hater so they can easily defend against "misogyny". Stop calling their male chauvinistic views misogyny, ffs.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 10, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> if its not true then show me where i did . Or just fuck off .


See the whole of the discussion on page 2 of this thread.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> How the fucking fuck did we (women) get to the point where we deploy the term " misoginist" (spelling?) so easily? Is it just my age - I dunno. There's chauvinistic views, that sometimes get into sexist views. And in my mind I sometimes think someone's a male chauvinistic PIG. But reallŷ, misogyny. Why that strongest word as a catch all when they 're just a chauvinistic pig.
> 
> Then they react to that strongest word, setting out why they're not a woman hater, and most of the time they're not a woman-hater so they can easily defend against "misogyny". Stop calling their male chauvinistic views misogyny, ffs.


Personally, I don't deploy it easily. I am an engineer working in a male-dominated environment and if I screamed 'misogynist' at every dissenting view no-one would work with me. I rarely hear actually misogynistic views in real life, in fact I rarely hear even sexist views in real life. That said, in my career as a whole there have been some I have had the misfortune to be in the same room as.

What I see on urban sometimes is a little different to my real life experience.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

Tbh if you called somebody a male chauvinist pig these days they would take it about as seriously as if you called them a capitalist running dog. It's quite a period term.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 10, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Tbh if you called somebody a male chauvinist pig these days they would take it about as seriously as if you called them a capitalist running dog. It's quite a period term.


It _is_ very 1970s...


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 10, 2013)

Is it a pronoun or an adjective


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

Perhaps "sexist" is the pre-"misogynist" term nowadays?


----------



## toggle (Nov 10, 2013)

IDK, I'm just fucking sick of being spoken to or about like i'm not a 'proper' person.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> How the fucking fuck did we (women) get to the point where we deploy the term " misoginist" (spelling?) so easily? Is it just my age - I dunno. There's chauvinistic views, that sometimes get into sexist views. And in my mind I sometimes think someone's a male chauvinistic PIG. But reallŷ, misogyny. Why that strongest word as a catch all when they 're just a chauvinistic pig.
> 
> Then they react to that strongest word, setting out why they're not a woman hater, and most of the time they're not a woman-hater so they can easily defend against "misogyny". Stop calling their male chauvinistic views misogyny, ffs.



Yeah it's like leftists calling everything they don't like fascism.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> IDK, I'm just fucking sick of being spoken to or about like i'm not a 'proper' person.



Oh come on no one has been like that to you on here. 

People are dismissive, rude and patronising online all the time, I see no evidence that it's your sex that is relevant on this thread.


----------



## toggle (Nov 10, 2013)

thank you for telling me what my experiences are. i love it when someone can tell me they know my experiences, thoughts and feelings better than I know them myself. I'll be sure to reconsider everything i believe in light of your greater understanding of my existance.

and how kind of you to provide me with such a compelling example of how people can be patronising, rude and dismissive, and all in one such short post.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)




----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> thank you for telling me what my experiences are. i love it when someone can tell me they know my experiences, thoughts and feelings better than I know them myself. I'll be sure to reconsider everything i believe in light of your greater understanding of my existance.
> 
> and how kind of you to provide me with such a compelling example of how people can be patronising, rude and dismissive, and all in one such short post.



Oh boo fucking hoo, "My experience" as if it's some magical epistemological short cut, instead of the most pathetic defence of anti rationalist bollocks. I wasn't previously patronising you, I was disagreeing with how people behaved on this thread and in urban in general, that was based on the fact that being a dismissive prick on these forums transcends sexes. Casually Red is one of the worst offenders for talking shite and not engaging with the other poster but instead some strawman he's built in his head but it's not sexed, infact he does it to me much of the time.

If you want to be treated as proper person and not patronised then that means not resorting to infantile arguments about "your experience" as if it is definitive truth and any doubting of it a denial of your oh so special subjectivity. 

And this post is patronising, just as your response to me was passive aggressive shite aimed at insinuating I was some chauvinist coming in and mansplaining, when your sex has absolutely fuck all to do with my response. My contempt for your response is because this ubiquitous shite about "my experience" is just the worst relativist crap and a complete betrayal of any emanicpatory politics.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


>



pathetic


----------



## cesare (Nov 10, 2013)

Gender relativism would be worth a thread in its own right, could be quite interesting if HOOH* could be avoided.


*Howls Of Outraged Hyperbole.


----------



## toggle (Nov 11, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Oh boo fucking hoo, "My experience" as if it's some magical epistemological short cut, instead of the most pathetic defence of anti rationalist bollocks. I wasn't previously patronising you, I was disagreeing with how people behaved on this thread and in urban in general, that was based on the fact that being a dismissive prick on these forums transcends sexes. Casually Red is one of the worst offenders for talking shite and not engaging with the other poster but instead some strawman he's built in his head but it's not sexed, infact he does it to me much of the time.
> 
> If you want to be treated as proper person and not patronised then that means not resorting to infantile arguments about "your experience" as if it is definitive truth and any doubting of it a denial of your oh so special subjectivity.
> 
> And this post is patronising, just as your response to me was passive aggressive shite aimed at insinuating I was some chauvinist coming in and mansplaining, when your sex has absolutely fuck all to do with my response. My contempt for your response is because this ubiquitous shite about "my experience" is just the worst relativist crap and a complete betrayal of any emanicpatory politics.



1. Do you know the difference between sex and gender? one would be the appropriate term to use in the above rant, one would not, guess which one you've used.....

2. I tend to find learning a little should come before trying to explain to others how it should be done. You might want to consider that option before continuing. 

3. Two can play at patronising. You just don't do it very well.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2013)

yes, I am well aware of the difference between sex and gender, infact the tendency for the media to mix them up is a bug bear of mine.

please explain how gender would be more appropriate? personally I used sex because of it's biological nature and the fact it has traditionally been used to police expected behaviours, that for me is a basic definition of sexism, treating people in a certain way based on arbitrary accidents of birth, the notion of essentialism. I was pointing out that your sex had nothing to do with it. 

Nor for that matter does your gender, though I guess the fact you resort to arguing like a parody of femininity dreamt up by a 17th century sexist might be of relevance, you know women being all about emotions, an intuition, direct experience vs masculine reason, reflection and abstraction. The fact some trends of feminism have moved from rejecting such sexist notions to actually embracing an inverted form of it as a positive identity is massively depressing. This preciousness about "my experience", not as a an engaged jumping off point for public discourse but as tool for shutting such discourse down is evident in the intersectionalists at the anarchist bookfair arguing to ban other feminists who disagree with their position on sex work and abortion etc for making the place "unsafe", surely feminism and anarchism is about engaging with the world, in all it's shitness, not providing bubbles for people to engage in a ever tightening little circle jerk of validation.


----------

