Fair enough and for God's sale let us indeed lock up more rapists but why does nobody in the debate, anywhere, put the equally important opinion across that we must stop false allegations and the ease of turning an acceptable, consented, drunken session of lust into a rape accusation just to salve a conscience in the cold light of day.

Don't make victims of false claims into rapists just to raise the conviction rates.

Especially when the main reason for it is to supply the media with good and gory stories.

...and BBC news seem unwilling to present a two dimensional reportage on this subject...their news reports coming down firmly on the side of the accusers,
be they genuine accusers or otherwise.

Another sexist and hefty kick in the bowlocks for men from a disturbingly and increasingly biased BBC.

And let's face it...most victims of false accusers are men!

Breakfast News become really dumb of late. A lack of in depth reporting, silly questions by Turnbull and co' and wall to wall Strictly Come Dancing.

Exactly FC - I find the bias offensive; not even the possibility that some claims may be false has been touched upon.

Perhaps we should start a campaign for women to make complaints against all male executives and presenters on TV - and how about a few tabloid editors too whilst they are about it?

The best approach would be to put more effort into establishing the actual facts and then, if the evidence shows the need for a prosecution, proceed with the case. It is a major mistake to make an increase in convictions a priority without looking at each case on it's own individual merit.

On the news, Harriet Harman came across as extremely ignorant.

Emma Bee wrote:
The best approach would be to put more effort into establishing the actual facts and then, if the evidence shows the need for a prosecution, proceed with the case. It is a major mistake to make an increase in convictions a priority without looking at each case on it's own individual merit.

On the news, Harriet Harman came across as extremely ignorant.

The CPS charged me without even checking out the past history of my false accuser.The mere word of a person is nearly always enough,even if that person is not of good character.

Past history shouldn't really come into it. There's no reason why someone with a dodgy past cannot be victim of a crime themselves. That said, if their history involves being a habitual liar then that might have a bearing. Cases should be decided on evidence and facts relating to whatever the charge may be. If there is no evidence of an actual crime, other than someone's word, then there should be no case to answer. That's what the law says. Unfortunately, the law is no longer properly practiced or upheld in this country.

JC wrote:
Past history shouldn't really come into it. There's no reason why someone with a dodgy past cannot be victim of a crime themselves. That said, if their history involves being a habitual liar then that might have a bearing. Cases should be decided on evidence and facts relating to whatever the charge may be. If there is no evidence of an actual crime, other than someone's word, then there should be no case to answer. That's what the law says. Unfortunately, the law is no longer properly practiced or upheld in this country.

Sometimes the only evidence we have of character is their past dealings with the law.If you remove past history all you're left with is who impresses the jury the most.
I'm told that about half of all sex cases brought to trial end up in convictions.But how many of them are based on 'one word against another?' This basically boils down to who is the best actor,not facts
My false accuser had been involved in a sexual incident at school a few years before my arrival in the house.She had encouraged boys with some reckless behavior first.Also she had a history of bad behavior.This was witnessed by relevant school/social services/police records both before,and after my stay.
If you check,I think some/all of JKs accusers had a history of behavior problems too.
Sometimes a person's past is the only clue we have.If you make an accusation of such a serious nature then surely the jury has a right to know? But unfortunately in many cases they do not,the law changed in 2003 to limit the facts you could divulge.

The other problem is - when it is revealed your accusers are drug addict alcoholics with criminal records who are compulsive liars, the prosecution says it was your abuse that made them that way.

You can't win.

JK2006 wrote:
The other problem is - when it is revealed your accusers are drug addict alcoholics with criminal records who are compulsive liars, the prosecution says it was your abuse that made them that way.

You can't win.

Well you can win,but only if you can show from records their bad behavior started from before your 'alleged' meeting/incident with them.
I believe the Criminal Justice act 2003 severely limits what documents you can present in court to the jury.All about keeping the pantomime rolling on,got to keep those pedo headlines alive,don't ever let the public know the truth.