Several posters and e-mailers ask me why I refer to these claims as false without knowing any details. Simply comment on the situation in society.
In my opinion the vast majority of sex claims are false. Most exaggerations (someone was kissed and time, memory, social media coverage and desire for revenge of compensation affect details and assisted by helpful cops, lawyers and friends get coloured into more suitable claims).

Recent numerous revelations (including my debacle from 2015-2018) have shown decent police, intelligent observers, honest judges that the tip of the crime iceberg is False Allegations, not sex abuse.

This case looks really like a trivial event, originally complained about as a mild attempt when it happened, has been inflated by imagination, encouraged by media coverage of other cases, and now fits the category of a false or exaggerated claim which must be investigated (why always "extremely" serious? Isn't "serious" enough???) but which will probably, like the majority, now be dismissed as NFA (No Further Action) as the rapidly growing majority are.

It's not as good a story, and media hates it, but the truth is starting to come through (again, I'm happy to say, partly due to myself).

I haven't followed this story but for one Tory MP to be accused only for another Tory MP to be accused seems suspicious, rather like Jimmy Savile being accused and then other entertainers being accused, or one football coach being accused, then other football coaches being accused. It suggests to me that subsequent accusers may have been inspired by the first case to make a false allegation against someone in the same profession, thinking that it's a good bet because of the first case, rather than be recalling actual crime.

What a shame you weren't on here 20 years ago Jo, when I first got caught up in the False Allegations Industry. But I think more and more intelligent observers are starting to see the truth. When no evidence is required and one person's word in considered proof, the availability of successful crime is hugely increased. I called it the Crime Growth Industry. When assisted by the enablers (media - great story; police - increased budget & promotion; judges and juries - stamp out perverts; lawyers - massive profits representing "victims") it is the Crime of the Century. How can it fail? With MeToo and other parasite media hypes (many based on real, genuine crimes) no wonder the expected avalanche has happened. The good news is - thanks to the mental defectives like Carl Beech, Danny Day and others (you should see some of the rubbish claims against Cliff, Gambo, Savile, Coronation Street etc) I truly believe the tide is turning.

Jo wrote:
I haven't followed this story but for one Tory MP to be accused only for another Tory MP to be accused seems suspicious, rather like Jimmy Savile being accused and then other entertainers being accused, or one football coach being accused, then other football coaches being accused. It suggests to me that subsequent accusers may have been inspired by the first case to make a false allegation against someone in the same profession, thinking that it's a good bet because of the first case, rather than be recalling actual crime.

If they stopped compensation it would stop a lot of the false claims.
How can money ever compensate for being raped anyway?

Yes, pay for counselling and other health needs, but cash in the hand? It has to stop.

I agree that cash in hand must stop. But I'm not sure if compensation for counselling would solve the problem. As far as I know, counsellors are not regulated. You could have merry-go-round of unscrupulous or just incompetent counsellors convincing people they've been abused or rubber-stamping false accusers or even ethical counsellors being exploited by false accusers. For example, one of Rolf Harris's accusers apparently obtained a PTSD diagnosis in that magical year of 2012. How could an authority issuing compensation money for counselling ensure that it wasn't being misused or was being used solely for proper counselling?

Honey wrote:
[/quote]

If they stopped compensation it would stop a lot of the false claims.
How can money ever compensate for being raped anyway?

Yes, pay for counselling and other health needs, but cash in the hand? It has to stop.[/quote]

Really interesting point Honey. On what philosophical or moral basis is compensation justified as reparation for non-financial crimes?

And I agree that it being available as an outcome for alleged sex offences will inevitably distort the whole system for genuine victims and chancers.

Hadn't really seen it that way before, so thanks.

Honey wrote:
If they stopped compensation it would stop a lot of the false claims.

How can money ever compensate for being raped anyway?


You're right, it can't.

But if someone breaks into your property, steals your possessions, and causes damage - you can claim compensation through the courts.

Are you suggesting that this avenue/course of action should not be available to the victims of rape? Or to anyone else - who was the victim of serious crime?

Barney wrote:
Honey wrote:
If they stopped compensation it would stop a lot of the false claims.

How can money ever compensate for being raped anyway?


You're right, it can't.

But if someone breaks into your property, steals your possessions, and causes damage - you can claim compensation through the courts.

Are you suggesting that this avenue/course of action should not be available to the victims of rape? Or to anyone else - who was the victim of serious crime?





Yes.

To receive monetary compensation for being the victim of a sexual crime:

- produces an unnecessary incentive to fabricate
- places the wealthy at risk of injustice as a group
- to the genuine victim can offer no reparation for the harm
- monetarises and cheapens human relationships

To liken it to property crime highlights the dehumanising reality of it; our bodies and emotions are not "things" to be weighed up on a grocer's scales.

Genuinely guilty perpetrators of such appalling crimes can be dealt with through sentencing.

Removing the incentive to lie will protect the innocent and make genuine victims more likely to come forward, witbout fear of cynicism or opprobrium.

Why should money always be the answer to everything....

Honey wrote:
Yes.


A simply perverse logic and view.

Which, thankfully, isn't supported by UK case law.


So many successful civil cases (when necessary) have been won by victims of rape and abuse.


Leading to financial and many other penalties - even divorce, bankruptcy and outing as violent thugs.

Some were thrown out of regiments, churches and Westminster- disowned and disenfranchised - for being nothing less than animals...

Suggest you read about Danny Day and the David Bryant case before you continue digging yourself into the stupidity hole Barney.

wyot wrote:
monetarises and cheapens human relationships


Rape cheapens relationships!!


Take the Coxen/St Andrews University case - the civil case of rape got a guilty verdict, after the first was not proven.

But it wasn't brought really for money - as the victim knew the rapist would declare bankruptcy, to escape any payment.

He did - but the world, including his family, potential employers and possible future victims - are now aware of what he did.


Hopefully this avenue will deter some from committing this cowardly crime.

Do you really think there is anybody who does not abhore rape, sexual violence, abuse Barney? And are you supporting false allegations or do you think people don't make fake claims in order to get cash, revenge, attention, sympathy, custody of children, publicity?

Barney wrote:
wyot wrote:
monetarises and cheapens human relationships


Rape cheapens relationships!



Barney please take more care in quoting me. This is a gross misrepresentarion of what I clearly wrote; which is that monetary compensation cheapens relationships.

My views are reflected in the Coxen case - where a rape victim went the civil route to get a conviction against her assailant.

Not for money - as she was also aware the the rapist would declare bankruptcy to escape any monetary penalty.

This civil avenue should remain open to all assault victims - even just as a deterrent to would-be rapists. That's what I think.


It's worth bearing in mind that the onus, in a civil case, is on the alleged victim to prove that the crime happened.

And the accused has the right to deny/defend it - and say that the accusation is false, and he was somewhere else with witnesses or whatever.

Coxen/St Andrews University case is more an issue of drink, dangerous behaviour and a lack in education, laws and managing human stupity. I presume some been under the influence have sex encouraged by the woman that under the same rules might be called rape by the woman (Used to be called seduction).

Coxen/St Andrews University personally I think drinking excessively in an environment where human standard of conduct lean towards destructiveness is taking a risk with one's life thus if convicted of rape is always a risk, that may well border on a known false allegation in thet the accuser knows full well he/she was party to the action.

Problem is the law of consent is confusing. Maybe a legal limit for sex. I don't know. But the situations that keep arising are very unclear. I gather most people who contribute to the situation accept their part in the foolishness and upnsetting as it is put their lives back together and learn.

I would think the Coxen case is confusing, as these ones all are. It really lacks clarity as the jury decision in this case illustrates. (A Scottish jury where there is a stronger leaning towards facts).

As to the woman sueing she may be justified in reality. But who's to know. As to winning or losing in a civil action is often a lottery. Sometimes judgments are just and fair well reasoned and set down on paper. The object often is for the judge to decide the outcome between two parties, the facts and truth can have little to do with it from all sides.

Honey wrote:
Jo wrote:
I haven't followed this story but for one Tory MP to be accused only for another Tory MP to be accused seems suspicious, rather like Jimmy Savile being accused and then other entertainers being accused, or one football coach being accused, then other football coaches being accused. It suggests to me that subsequent accusers may have been inspired by the first case to make a false allegation against someone in the same profession, thinking that it's a good bet because of the first case, rather than be recalling actual crime.

If they stopped compensation it would stop a lot of the false claims.
How can money ever compensate for being raped anyway?

Yes, pay for counselling and other health needs, but cash in the hand? It has to stop.

they did in Germany and offered free therapy..sex attack claims dropped by over 30% and have remained steady.

In France only about 25% of sex accusations make it to court. I put that down to investigating magistrates who have no fear of ripping police evidence to pieces.

We are supposed to have the best legal system on the planet and much of the time it is excellent.
But the flaws have been exposed and it only takes one ambitious c*nt to upset the apple cart and innocents suffer.
Won't mention any names. (although Keir & Starmer come to mind as well as Saunders & Allison )

Barney wrote:
Honey wrote:
Yes.


A simply perverse logic and view.

Which, thankfully, isn't supported by UK case law.


So many successful civil cases (when necessary) have been won by victims of rape and abuse.


Leading to financial and many other penalties - even divorce, bankruptcy and outing as violent thugs.

Some were thrown out of regiments, churches and Westminster- disowned and disenfranchised - for being nothing less than animals...

In my opinion civil cases after a trial are an outrageous abuse of justice.

A verdict decided after months of careful argument by experts and an impartial jury is "overturned" by a few clueless knobs sitting round a table for an afternoon, and people think this is ok????

Your description of the civil trial process is meaningless - and inaccurate in every respect.

The British legal system allows such cases for a variety of reasons - where the original prosecution case was unsuccessful.

Often because a legal nicety has swayed the verdict, or an irrelevant factor. Civil actions though are dangerous, and expensive.

Honey wrote:
Barney wrote:
Honey wrote:
Yes.


A simply perverse logic and view.

Which, thankfully, isn't supported by UK case law.


So many successful civil cases (when necessary) have been won by victims of rape and abuse.


Leading to financial and many other penalties - even divorce, bankruptcy and outing as violent thugs.

Some were thrown out of regiments, churches and Westminster- disowned and disenfranchised - for being nothing less than animals...

In my opinion civil cases after a trial are an outrageous abuse of justice.

A verdict decided after months of careful argument by experts and an impartial jury is "overturned" by a few clueless knobs sitting round a table for an afternoon, and people think this is ok????

It's like kids asking mum if they can get an ice cream. She says no, so they ask dad and he says yeah ok. One of the oldest tricks in the book. Sneaky, deceitful, irresponsible and childish.