A good sign; watching Liam Allan (my lunch guest last Friday with Fry and Gambaccini) fighting the good fight; it seems perhaps, at last, the Establishment is starting to realise the truth; there are FAR MORE false accusers than genuine victims. If you include allegations against dead people - I reckon 90% of all sex claims are exaggerated and a hefty amount of those totally false. Might this be the sea change at last we've fought for, over 20 years?

JK2006 wrote:
A good sign; watching Liam Allan (my lunch guest last Friday with Fry and Gambaccini) fighting the good fight; it seems perhaps, at last, the Establishment is starting to realise the truth; there are FAR MORE false accusers than genuine victims. If you include allegations against dead people - I reckon 90% of all sex claims are exaggerated and a hefty amount of those totally false. Might this be the sea change at last we've fought for, over 20 years?

I dont think it is fair to say there are MORE false accusations than true, (except in cases where they advertise for people to come and get compo, where you wouldn't expect anything else) because we have no way of knowing.
I try my best to assume all parties are innocent, but its not easy.

Outrageous reports on the BBC, Sky etc about "victims" having to hand over their phones when rape is alleged.

they aren't victims..complainants until an offense is proved in court.

It's not too different to referring someone charged with murder as the "murderer" in media reports.

Highly prejudicial as idiots hyperventilate..including the so-called "Victim's Commissioner" claiming it will stop "victims" reporting crimes..why?

Those alleging rape will probably just clear their phones now..yet again anyone foolish enough to have sex these days should get an agreement in writing..or perhaps on their phone.
Record the entire event !!

hedda wrote:
It's not too different to referring someone charged with murder as the "murderer" in media reports.
How true!

Those alleging rape will probably just clear their phones now..
What I was thinking too. But wouldn't there be a means to retrieve deleted content?

hedda, I share your distaste at the use of the word victim. It's original meaning as 'a creature killed as a religious sacrifice' perhaps indicates why it is so popular in certain circles now.

But if it is to mean 'person harmed as a result of a crime', then that person is a victim when the crime is committed, and not only when that person is found guilty. The 'victim' of a murderer is surely a victim long before the perpetrator is convicted.

Of course, our problem here is that there may be little evidence of harm from rape, indeed little evidence that any illegal activity has occurred. Prior to convincing evidence being located, it would seem quite wrong for the police and members of the legal profession to describe the accuser as a victim.

But referring in general terms to how 'victims' may be affected by changes in law or police guidelines is quite appropriate. Of course, victims may only be a proportion (some would say 'small proportion') of that larger group known as 'accusers'.

On the broader point, am I alone in being concerned that we had a bad siuation: police were able to raid homes and confiscate electronic equipment owned by someone accused of a sexual crime. And to make things 'better' we are now going to expect both accuser and accused to give up their electronic devices.

Jo wrote:
hedda wrote:
It's not too different to referring someone charged with murder as the "murderer" in media reports.
How true!

Those alleging rape will probably just clear their phones now..
What I was thinking too. But wouldn't there be a means to retrieve deleted content?

Maybe it has changed now, but when the McCann's deleted phone calls from the night of the disappearance were checked they could tell which area they were from and what time, but not the content of the texts.

I suppose you could just chuck your phone in the nearest river, though?

The most pertinent question is: why should those who allege a rape have their phone records perused? What has that to do with anything? I understand the drive after high profile and other recent trial collapses. Does anyone really think tjough that our digital histories will allow a clarifying light to shine on a moments question of consent, either to convict the guilty or to "out" the malevalent cliamant?

Where this proposal chills me is to level an equivalence between online and "real" mental intent....Where does that stop?

wyot wrote:
The most pertinent question is: why should those who allege a rape have their phone records perused? What has that to do with anything? I understand the drive after high profile and other recent trial collapses. Does anyone really think tjough that our digital histories will allow a clarifying light to shine on a moments question of consent, either to convict the guilty or to "out" the malevalent cliamant?

Where this proposal chills me is to level an equivalence between online and "real" mental intent....Where does that stop?

There have been cases where the text conversations indicate that both parties are happy until one of them is dumped, or when some sort of bondage thing has been planned in advance, but then the marks on the wrist are used as evidence of force etc.

Yes Wyot the point is that examining seized phones belonging to false accusers often sheds light on the motives for the claim; one of my recent ones had information about needing funds for a house extension and discussed faking the dates of the claims with his wife and friends. Many times the only proof of intended exaggeration or invention is on social media or in e-mails or texts. The Savile posts on Friends Reunited in the last century proves the plot to get compensation. There are frequent times when the internet can be the only source of proof of dishonesty or malicious motives.

Yes Honey but this still doesn't amount to rape or malfeance; it recounts a "conversation". No more, no less. Can a man now feel encouraged to rape a woman who has traded sexual messages about"restraint", can a false accuser feel emboldened having a few texts from a man that are sexually "aggressive"?

Yes but surely this is what is so troubling and interesting? You make a persuasive case about the phones of false accusers but this will apply to all accusers...The genuine and the otherwise motivated...

How to protect the genuine from a 19th century moral inquiry that has nothing to do with whether they consented or not?

The point is that, in claimed events that may never have happened, texts or online messages may indicate - no more than that - whether the claims are true or false for a jury. Examples - penitent and apologetic messages from the accused "I'm so sorry"... "You misunderstood my actions"... etc. Or "I'm going to get back at you for dropping me"... my ones were full of "we need to work out the best dates to claim" and such.

Take the compensation out and you will loose 80% of the false accusations the other 20% would be be doing it through the spite.
It's forgotten that the real victim in all this is the falsely accused and the real victims loose out.

Don't agree; I think the majority are genuine delusion encouraged by others (including media, police, lawyers) to exaggerate. Example; most young girls who claim Justin Bieber had sex with them really believe he did although they never met him.

wyot wrote:
Yes Honey but this still doesn't amount to rape or malfeance; it recounts a "conversation". No more, no less. Can a man now feel encouraged to rape a woman who has traded sexual messages about"restraint", can a false accuser feel emboldened having a few texts from a man that are sexually "aggressive"?

It is certainly not ideal, but when you can convict without any evidence other than someone's word, circumstantial evidence is even more important.

This would make it impossible for me to report a rape though.
Firstly, having been a victim of both physical assault and hacking of personal messages, it is the violation of the hacking that stays with me more, though it may be less important to others.

Secondly, my phone is a helpline for very vulnerable people with mental health challenges who are often suicidal.
The service is completely confidential, so how could I expose their personal details and conversations to some unknown drongo at the cop shop?

It would be my choice to not report, and accept that if you accuse someone you have to give them the chance to defend themselves.

As per usual in most issues that the various sides all have valid points but then discuss at cross purposes.

First up, there are many myths and many truths. Rapes "under reported" needs seriously to be divided into those recent with physical evidence and those less recent that could be true but are similar to holiday insurance claims for losses where it can be "word only" and/or collusion of witnesses. Now "under reported" is used more emotionally and not accessed as an issue rationally. Often an activist slogan, A politican's sound bite. Bit as presented meaningless!

The camp that wants more non recent rape reporting included with recent with evidence reporting ( where respect for people - equates to been correct thing to encourage - and the police to follow with immediate attention plus following all reasonable steps), that non recent reporting is wrong in most cases mainly as the evidence available for a fair trial does not exist thus meaning false allegations and such do happen with great frequency (promise of all sorts including money or simply blaming someone for current bad lifestyle).

To protect both sides the accused and the complainant (non recent / no evidence of a crime) need clear rules for obtaining evidence particularly search and electronic item collection. I see someone claims a two year wait (word only) to get her phone returned. Well the police should be able within a very short time collect and download all material and then return the item so the person can get on with their life (a few days to a week). Information pertinent to the case found only and used and so on. Like detaining without charge the police will always abuse their power (human nature) thus procedure and rules to ensure fairness for both sides including the police doing their jobs (Investigating which means reviewing all available and pertinent evidence in an immediate time frame and with due respect and care) It also strikes me this "thousands of pages" excuse, in general, been nonsense, an excuse. If a person reports a rape immediately and a phone has a video of possible rape then a slam dunk (does happen and excellent evidence). Or a rape claim yet a few texts recent, not covering many pages on both mobiles so should not be hard to locate on at least one mobile. And as has been the case in many reports indicate a more likely consensual relationship than reported. Speedy, concise action would deal with situations with well documented information and divide cases very qucikly into those to pursue and others.

Points made by the new CPS chief is a fair trial and investigation for all concerned. Thus well thought out rules that achieves that goal, then concerns of both sides can be meet.

Some reality checks like all people can and do lie. People tell the truth and people make false allegations. No jury is capable on testimony alone to tell who is truthful and who is not (Even the Israelis noted 3000 years ago their wisest and most capable person of all history king Solomon could not tell between the story of two women thus in that case suggested a sword to divide the baby in dispute). So also conflict of rules needs to be addressed as well. Like one person's word only cannot be accepted (conflict with fair trial and human rights law). When noting myths like that it can be true it takes a long time for someone to have the courage to come forward. Yes true in some cases. But in court it is given the "overtone" to the jury that now the person has found the courage to come forward "it must be the truth". Thus directions need to be balanced.

So it would be great (never going to happen!!!) if all parties put positive suggestions into how their valid points can be included with regard to others representing the other issues.

Misa wrote:
hedda, I share your distaste at the use of the word victim. It's original meaning as 'a creature killed as a religious sacrifice' perhaps indicates why it is so popular in certain circles now.

But if it is to mean 'person harmed as a result of a crime', then that person is a victim when the crime is committed, and not only when that person is found guilty. The 'victim' of a murderer is surely a victim long before the perpetrator is convicted.

Of course, our problem here is that there may be little evidence of harm from rape, indeed little evidence that any illegal activity has occurred. Prior to convincing evidence being located, it would seem quite wrong for the police and members of the legal profession to describe the accuser as a victim.

But referring in general terms to how 'victims' may be affected by changes in law or police guidelines is quite appropriate. Of course, victims may only be a proportion (some would say 'small proportion') of that larger group known as 'accusers'.

On the broader point, am I alone in being concerned that we had a bad siuation: police were able to raid homes and confiscate electronic equipment owned by someone accused of a sexual crime. And to make things 'better' we are now going to expect both accuser and accused to give up their electronic devices.

Misa My Dear ( I mean the sincerely )

To claim someone is a victim before a trial infers that a crime has been committed.

Claims of rape or sexual assault are no different to other crimes except, it's a crime where often there is no "evidence" apart from the accusation.

Of course I am reversing the situation here but for a very good reason : words have meanings and can affect the way other's think (others who may end up on a jury)

If you say "victim" it means a crime has been committed.

Of course in a murder a crime obviously has happened....but if you label the accused a "murderer" it will color how the public (or a jury) thinks.

If you say "victim" it means a certainty that a crime has been committed when it may not have happened

It means there is a guilty party somewhere even if it 's not the accused.
In reality few people (perhaps on jury) think beyond that..they assume a crime has happened.

## I am a rape victim and a victim of an attempted murder. I got "over it" but it took about 18 months and fucked up my life during that time.

I did learn..apart from the BULLSHIT perpetuated about "victim behavior" from self -appointed "survivor" groups ( I hate them because they all tell my me life has been ruined..it wasn't) is what is only now talked about now: genuine victims can feel it's their fault for being in a situation... wearing the wrong clothes..being drunk ( I was drugged in perhaps one of the first "date rape" case..1970s)..genuine victims can feel guilt because they put themselves into a situation where they were raped.

It is another possibility that for some unwell attention-needers, the idea of police officers poring through all the details of their phone history would be heavenly, and it might spur them on to make false accusations.

Dearest hedda,

If we are to use the term victim to denote someone who has suffered harm as a result of a crime, then a victim is a victim the moment the crime is committed. A crime is committed, and harm is done, in the real world, irrespective of whether a court examines the matter. So it is perfectly reasonable to express the hope that victims will not be discouraged from coming forward because of whatever change in law or procedure. Of course, we might also hope that only victims come forward to report crimes. And, unfortunately, we seem to have a number of people who, having suffered no harm whatsoever, also wish to make allegations. Those people are, by definition, not victims, and if they can be discourged, without discouraging victims, that is a good thing.

In a murder trial where the deceased has not been proven to have died at the hands of another, presumably, it would be inappropriate for those involved in the case, or those reporting on it, to refer to the deceased as the victim, though I imagine there are rather more murder cases in which the matter of whether or not someone has been deliberately killed is uncontested.

Wherever the matter of whether the alleged victim has suffered harm as a result of a crime has yet to be resolved, it would seem inappropriate for those involved in, or reporting on, the case to refer to that person as a victim. Clearly someone campaigning on behalf of victims may reasonably refer publically to victims, but must avoid making any such pronouncement with regard to an ongoing case.

Are we not, by and large, in agreement?

wjlmarsh makes a number of interesing points, which I think are worthy of discussion, and I can't help but think these things would all be so much simpler if Randall were in charge.

What I still struggle to understand is why the police (apparently) automatically raid the home of someone accused of a sexual crime in search of potential evidence of something...anything, taking away phones, computers, diaries, photo albums, etc., sometimes not returning them for months, or years. This seems to be highly speculative, hugely inconvenient and upsetting, and has the potential to greatly handicap the accused's chances of mounting a decent defence.

Would it not make much more sense for all involved if police were able to demand whichever source of evidence they required, only where there was already evidence that the source contained pertinent information? And then, only withhold such devices or materials from their owner under very strict and frequently reviewed circumstances?

At the moment we seem to be addressing injustice by balancing it with further injusice (e.g. anonymity for accuser + anonymity for accused; accused to give up electronic devices + accuser to give up electronic devices) when the real problem is that people can be convicted of a crime for which there need be no 'real' evidence.

There can only be a victim if there has been a crime and if there are false allegations there may never have been a crime so the alleged perpetrator remains innocent unless or until proven guilty and the complainant is not a victim unless and until proven in court to have been one.

To use the word biases against one party.

For that reason I instructed my lawyers to refer to the complainant as a false accuser; equally unfair but balances up.

And proved, this time, correct.

I agree it seems odd to fight wrong with wrong Misa. Many sex cases should never get to court at all which would be unfair too, when there is no evidence a crime has been committed, but, certainly in historical cases, something that must, I think, now happen.