It needs saying - although, in this Internet world where superficiality rules and even a hint of depth is impossible, I fear it has not been noticed by the brain dead masses.

When the anti-rape apologists say "the lack of successful prosecutions proves that false allegations are rare" they ignore the facts that there is NO CRIME called "false allegations", that the vast majority would be impossible to prove (like rapes), that often police would not want the false accusers to be examined, as police routinely assist their statements, that most false accusations are through misunderstandings or use of drink or drugs and not maliciously intended or made through greed for compensation cash, revenge, a desire for attention or insanity, and that actually, if investigated, false allegations would be far more difficult to prosecute successfully than rape allegations.

With lower than 10% successful rape prosecutions, we can say that there are ten times more false accusers (for whatever reasons) than there are rapists.

4 year old rapist ?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2935042...aulted-children.html

andrew wrote:
4 year old rapist ?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2935042...aulted-children.html

And, surprise surprise, it's all down to him/her watching 'internet porn'. Most four year olds couldn't even get onto the internet and look for Dora the explorer without the help of someone older so how would they be able to access porn without the help of someone older, especially if the computer had a password? I thought four was way below the age of criminal responsibility anyway?