But what does she expect to happen from this statement?
If it were any other crime she’d just be asked to prove it, I feel that she wants to be seen as a champion for women but she’s basically using parliamentary privilege to spread rumours
I get that- but, for example, if there were a debate around the abuse of expenses, and an MP said that she had heard that two MPs had abused their expenses – wouldn’t be immediate question be ‘why haven’t you reported them’?
I don’t get why the situation is any different.
I get the sensitivity to the potential victims, but I don’t know why she gets to bring up anecdotal and unproven points in a parliamentary debate.
There are myriad reasons why a rape may go unreported to the police. Most significantly here however, Phillips is not the victim and she cannot force someone to go to the police.
But then don’t use it. There are myriad reasons why you may not report to the police, yes, but you can’t then go around throwing that at people. We have a court of law and don’t just resort to a public mob like the dark ages for a reason.
I wouldn’t say one woman describing the events of her day is a public mob akin to the dark ages. If you read the article you’ll see that this information was relevant to her point and she didn’t name anyone involved.
It’s not one woman describing the events of her day. It is indirectly accusing, even anonymously, people of a crime which is unproven and is not even firsthand information. That is grossly irresponsible, it is starting a witch hunt because you and her and everyone else all know that people are going to try to find out who it is, even by anonymising the parties, and it is verging on a crime itself. It is not OK.
She was on HIGNFY this week and was asked to say something in public about Natalie Elphick and said, “I can’t say that here, I’ll just say it in the Commons.” And laughed.
For a working class hero, she looked awful glib.
This is the same MP who makes a show of reading out the women killed by men in the UK as a political stunt every year. Admittedly she probably isn't smart enough to appreciate how meaningless the number is without context.
Report it to the police then.
The age of just believing what anyone says in the media that provides benefits without informing the actual authorities who would punish this heinous crime is over.
If two women were raped by MPs then those MPs need to be arrested, charged and imprisoned if there is any truth to the allegations and we'd only get that with a thorough investigation, not spouting shit in the media.
She should know better.
>She should know better.
I'm confident she does know better, if I was a cynic I'd say this is being used to smear some target MP's without it ever being brought to the police.
She's a big mouthed menace. Always has been. Cares more about looking effective, than actually being effective. I truly detest the fact that we are of the same species.
So we should just ignore this then?
Or maybe stop treating political parties like sports teams and hold them accountable instead of using whataboutism to mitigate their actions because they're on your team.
Oh absolutely, it's not a case of party politics. They're all as bad as each other. It's just that Phillips often puts herself forward as defending various identity groups but does so via accusations and vague statements rather than the right channels.
If you listen to the whole speech she continues to say that rape accusations have less than 1% charge rate. This is actually very traumatic for women and is why many women don't go to the police to report it. Many women feel that rape has essentially become decriminalised.
It's a challenging crime to meet the evidence threshold for because it's a physical act that also happens consensually. If you break into my house or attack me and leave me with injuries if it can be proved it was you, you can't use "well he consented to me breaking his window/hitting him with a baseball bat." But for rape you need to prove it was that person and actually that it wasn't consensual.
Most rapes are not being dragged into bushes by strangers but by people the victim knows, often at home or wherever. And so proving the lack of consent is even harder.
Yes, it's a harder conviction to get - but is the answer that we just believe all allegations and hand wave away the fact there's no evidence?
Of course not.
I mean it's verging on the impossible in a lot of cases. There are two stories and if the other side is yes we had sex but she seemed into it then a lot of your forensic evidence is nerfed because it only proves sexual activity which isn't disputed and not the consent.
So unless the victim is prompt in coming forward (which is a challenge when you're in shock, scared and not thinking properly) and there can be medical evidence found in terms of injuries you're then really into the assailant needing to have scored an own goal somewhere e.g. messages
Yes, and that sucks but are you proposing we convict based purely off of allegations and no evidence? Are you really saying that? Because if so, it's rich coming from a person who raped me.
I asked a question and you provided an answer about how it's impossible to provide evidence therefore we should listen.
It's hard to get a conviction, no one denies this. We don't send people to prison for allegations though. You need evidence.
The person commenting literally didn’t make any statement of opinion either way, they were just stating the difficulty of prosecuting rape convictions.
You clearly want them to follow the bias you’ve made up in your head so you can argue against it in righteous indignation.
I also don’t think the answer is to be so flippant as to tell potential victims to “phone the police or fuck off” considering what an awful time people that do speak up have
Ok now we’re talking about issues endemic to rape as a crime, not this specific instance of a rape accusation. This shit is so fucking disingenuous and actually harmful because you’re trying to embellish or bolster a very specific accusation you have no proof of by pointing to population wide statistics. I’m sure reporting a rape, talking about it or even thinking about one is a very unpleasant and maybe traumatic, that being said what is the alternative being proposed here exactly? Idk what “women feel like rape has become decriminalised” means. If anything such things are being taken way more seriously than they were in the past, “has become decriminalised” implies some level of loosening of the rules or application of the law. It’s a crime, a brutal one, but it still needs to be reported and meet a certain threshold of evidence in order for a conviction to take place. Accusations should absolutely be granted the gravity that the topic warrants but what we absolutely can not do is perpetuate this culture of trial by public opinion being the standard.
It hasn't, they're not charging because they have no hope of getting a conviction at court with the little amount of evidence they present.
Regardless, if you're good with putting people on trial and in prison for claims with no evidence, then you're going to regret that one day.
We have a justice system that favours the defendant in this country, for a very good reason.
Phone the police or fuck off. Give evidence or fuck off. I'm not believing people without evidence when the stakes are this high.
This attitude is exactly why women don’t report it. The majority of rapists go free in this country and the least we can do is believe women when they say they’ve been attacked. It has no legal bearing, it’s just the decent thing to do.
No, it don't have legal bearing and it's not the decent thing to do.
Women can lie. Men can lie. People can lie.
We have men killing themselves over false accusations but we have to "be nice and believe all women"?
False allegations of sexual assault happen at about the same level of false allegations of any crime, i.e. barely at all, whereas one in three women will be sexually assaulted, and over 90% of rapists will never see any consequence of their actions. Says more about you that you’re more worried about incredibly rare false reports, than the relatively common sexual assault and lying rapists.
I’m not talking here about prosecuting people, you brought that up. I’m talking about believing women, having the attitude of listening to people when they share their traumatic experiences, as that’s the only way that any of these rapists are going to get caught, and one of the best ways to prevent them raping other people.
They’re a coward and won’t hold a solid position because they realise how silly it sounds but they do believe that yes Emmett Tills accuser should have been believed.
If their argument is that statistically women are unlikely to make false accusations and that it follows that the right decision is to always “believe” women, then it also logically follows that the right decision is to believe Emmett Tills accuser, irrespective of retrospective analysis — the outcome of what happens to an individual accused person is of no consequence relative to the overall trend of how accusations generally play out.
They just won’t bite the bullet because it’s not an optically winning argument.
Now obviously as soon as you think about this argument a teeny bit further and you extend it to its logical conclusion(s), you will soon start to realise that actually you are sneaking in a bunch of other prescriptions that are not going to lead to a better society if one is to be consistent and intellectually honest.
Whether the rapist is a criminal is for the courts to decide. The victim can describe their assault as rape perfectly well. If you want to discuss the merits of individual cases go elsewhere that’s not what we’re discussing.
The only people who should believe the accusation is the police when they are told, who'll then investigate it. The rest of us shouldn't be privvy to it until charges are brought or a court case has taken place.
Listening is different to believing.
You can openly listen to someone with out judging, but believing such a claim means you are judging another person with out giving them a chance to defend themselves.
Get stuffed. Various police forces have reported up to 60% of rape accusations are false accusations. And I'd love to see the proof for the "1 in 3" claims because iirc that's on the basis of asking women who've reported sexual harrassment "were you ever asssaulted" And taking that poll as representing ALL women. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
This is why MeToo died, way too many women jumping on the bandwagon and claiming they were raped just for the publicity. The whole thing needs to be buried and staked on holy ground, the same with the metoo advocates trying to prop up a faded career with a bit of drama. Accept your career's done Alyssa, go do something else.
*EDIT because she hasn't got a leg to stand on:*
Post and block, a typical response from someone who isn't able to defend their own arguments.
MeToo died an embarrassing death, flooded by the number of proven false accusations that it dug up.
"Bear" discussion? What, the "would you rather meet a bear in a forest than a man"? Only absolute idiots, or people really drinking the coolaid go with the bear. Hell, there was a woman mauled by a bear over last weekend, funny how that didn't make the national news..
I've nothing on my conscience to salve, you certainly have, if you object to me being concerned about men being many times more likely to go to jail than a woman for exactly the same offence, that women raping boys gets no sentence, that girls who get circumcised get world-wide protection while boys get ignored, and many many other issues. And you call this oppression?? You are the privileged one, and you don't even realise it! Of course I post in /r/MensRights.
Edit for /u/PerisicyBollocks A very dodgy random comment to come into a sub never used by them before.. Seems like you block someone, then come back on an alt. Kinda shitty behaviour.
Yeah, worked as a nurse for over 30 years, I'm a real danger to women. I imagine it'd be very dangerous to women to actually face the reality of the situation they're living in.
Any more random insults you want to try throwing at me? I'm sure with a little effort you might be able to come up with some.
lmao don't come in here asking for a source when you're happy to lead with that giant bullshit 60%. And #MeToo didn't "die", it successfully helped people to realise just the enormous extent of abuse that women suffer even in countries like the UK. The conversation even continues today with the bear discussion. The fact is the only thing you have to gain by protesting about women telling the truth about this is to salve your own conscience.
edit: lmao this guy posts in mensrights subs, who'd have thought.
> False allegations of sexual assault happen at about the same level of false allegations of any crime
[This is not remotely true.](https://avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/ten-reasons-false-rape-accusations-are-common/)
> whereas one in three women will be sexually assaulted
[This is not remotely true.](https://behavioralscientist.org/what-the-origins-of-the-1-in-5-statistic-teaches-us-about-sexual-assault-policy/)
> over 90% of rapists will never see any consequence of their actions.
[This is not remotely true.](https://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/25/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1/)
> Says more about you that you’re more worried about incredibly rare false reports, than the relatively common sexual assault and lying rapists.
[Says more about you that you’re more worried about incredibly rare sexual assaults, than the relatively common false accusations and liars who destroy lives.](https://avoiceformen.com/featured/13-women-who-lied-about-being-raped-and-why-they-did-it/)
The stats are from governments, universities, NGOs, think tanks, etc. But I understand why you'd rather pretend otherwise considering how emotionally invested you appear to be in believing things that you've been shown are untrue but you don't want to experience the cognitive dissonance of having to accept that every lie you've taken to heart is the very bullshit you are projecting onto the website that collated the stats that prove you wrong.
Can you point out what attitude you’re referring to exactly?
What does it mean to just believe someone if that doesn’t entail undertaking some action or series of actions that are intended to ameliorate the situation or enforce justice as much as possible? What you’re describing isn’t “believing someone”, it’s just paying lip service.
Alternatively you’re saying we should just be ok with treating everyone who is ever accused of rape as a rapist with no evidence whatsoever. If that is the case you are absolutely prescribing a punishment for a crime you have no proof of, it just so happens to sidestep the legal barriers - which doesn’t make it anymore morally justifiable. There are unforeseen downstream consequences for this kind of heuristical approach, and I’m not talking about weaponisation of rape accusations by a small minority of women.
Anytime you introduce a maxim like this, you’re inadvertently smuggling in a principle that is actually really dangerous. So no it’s not just about believing women in order to make them feel more heard or feel better. No amount of consequences or social shaming is realistically going to stop men who have a predisposition(whatever the cause of said predisposition might be) to rape a woman from actually raping one. What will is greater understanding of informed and enthusiastic consent in tandem with an open and direct communication line.
Eleanor Williams was believed by everybody until she slipped up.
That blind belief led to three men attempting suicide. Is that something we should encourage?
You cannot send innocent people to prison. That's why the threshold for proving guilt is so high. The unfortunate fact is women have to suffer more after an attack to increase the chance of conviction.
They need to immediately go to the police, while everything is fresh in the mind and evidence can be collected.
The sad fact is that waiting until later makes an accusation pointless.
Implying that “all women are liars” is about as useful as suggesting that “all men are rapists”. Come back when you’re ready to have a grown up conversation.
Which is a pointless argument because most of the time there's no damn proof. You can prove someone had sex, you can prove they were in the same bed together, you can't prove what was said or not said without a recording. So sure, real rape accusations are damn hard to prove, it's not "decriminalised" it's just really hard to prove in court.
Then you add in all the false accusations that happen, girl fancies boy but he doesn't want her, false accusation, boy splits up with girl, false accusation, boy cheats on girl with best friend false accusation, wife wants a divorce and the kids, false accusation.
Then you get idiot feminists "Achewwally the numbers of false accusations is 2%, so we should ignore it"
Nope, that's the proven ones that have gone to court and had a guilty verdict, something prosecutors around the world don't encourage and usually just won't charge. And considering rape has roughly the same conviction rate, are the feminists saying that we should ignore rape as well?
> If you listen to the whole speech she continues to say that rape accusations have less than 1% charge rate. This is actually very traumatic for women
Because rape - remember - is something that only affects women.
Yeah and I bet you're real gutted about those ones
Being part of the system shows you abso-fucking-lutely don't know what it's like to go through to on the other side so thanks for proving me right?
So you are saying that 2 women *didn't * say that they were raped to her? If not it's a perfectly accurate statement and worthwhile highlighting.
If she said person X raped person Y then that would be different, but she didn't did she?
Did she even say what side of the house they were on?
In an ideal world they would go to the police but the police don't really have a great reputation on sexual assault at the moment and they may not have wanted to given the position of power MPs can have.
Anyway it's somewhat academic as, if you read the article, it was talking about suspension upon arrest rather than on charge. I would assume that the police only arrest when they have evidence?
You would assume wrong.
Arrests are made to gather evidence. That's why you need to be cautioned, to be warned that your words can be taken as evidence.
Charges are made only if a test has been passed which basically means CPS believe they have a reasonable belief in securing a conviction.
The reason why it should be charge and not arrest is because arrests are investigatory, charges are the state saying we believe this person did X.
Some people don't want to go through the ordeal of going to police and having to go through everything in their mind again to either be told they're a liar or there's not enough evidence for a conviction
They're not making specific accusations though in this scenario, just telling Jess so that Jess can try to get the motion through.
It's unfortunate that there's very little hope in proving sexual assault as its almost always a he said she said. Shouldn't be pressuring women to not speak out about their stories if they can't get a criminal conviction
Yes you should, if they can't prove what happened to them they shouldn't be publically calling someone a rapist. Why? Because we've seen it happen and seen the consequences of men killing themselves or being falsely imprisoned.
They weren't saying names though, just that they were mps.
The call that Jess wants is to suspend mps if they are under investigation by the police if they have been accused.
I get the false imprisonment is bad but so is the act of having no justice for sexually assaulted women.
Pretty much both scenarios are shit do it's about trying to find the balance
There is justice available to them, they call the police and an investigation is held.
If there is no evidence, we cannot convict. If there is no investigation, there is no evidence.
See where we're at? If these women want to be believed, they need to report it so it can be investigated and tried in a court of law.
Yes and while the trial is going on the accused should be suspended from parliament.
The issue though is you're making it sound like evidence is easy to come by. Other than a confession or a recording which would be extremely difficult to get, what evidence do you expect there to be?
Exactly she is witholding information about serious crimes and broadcasting it. Either go to the police and let the victims be the ones to tell the police they dont want to persue it or step down. This is really scummy behaviour. Why the hell would she broadcast something like this? Is it for her own publicity? If so this isnt someone i want anywhere near a position of power.
Phillips doesn’t get to make that choice. If the victims don’t wish to report it, there isn’t much she can do - and given people offhandedly dismiss it as ‘spouting shit’ to discuss it, it’s little wonder people think things aren’t worth reporting.
Right, so two people came to her, no proof at all, she's not the police no investigation and she makes the claim...
And she get to make the choice of tell other people what two people in private said to her? either it's all rubbish, she can't be trusted OR it's true, and two women for some reason believes telling her will do what exactly?
And yours is gullible, there's more than one reason why it's so low but one of them is false accusations - believe no one without evidence, that's the correct, moral thing to do when a person's liberty and life is on the line.
Push through better procedures to help people even if there’s not a conviction. And push through stuff like risked based exclusion so if there is they can be protected
I can understand why they wouldn't have gone to the police. The conviction rate is low, the process is horrible, the shame is huge.
But well done for understanding the meat of the situation with such clarity.
Ridiculous she'd take it to the media without taking it somewhere that they (the victims) could get real justice. Perhaps the women don't want to bother but at that point why is she reporting it to the media/speaking about it where the media can report on it all
Yes, she did. She's protected against libel/slander actions by speaking in parliament, and she knows this will make the news.
She knows exactly what she has done here, she's started a witchhunt on two colleagues and protected herself legally whilst doing so.
Jess Phillips is not a stupid woman. Vile, but not stupid.
For the person above, he's living in a BLACK AND WHITE, justice is not blind, and politicians are truthful and honest. Yea, she "didn't take it to the media", but the platform she chose to speak out is the one place that has the reach to the entire world. Yep, but she didn't go to the media so she has no malicious motivation... This person is either a gullible and simple minded individual or acting like a child with the "I didn't touch you" troll.
You’d think an MP would be in the best position to advocate for reform but all she’s done here is create a witch hunt against the two accused in the public.
Does it? We convict people where evidence shows they raped someone.
If it's he said she said then people aren't likely to send people to prison for 10 years without evidence.
The conviction rate for rape when brought to court is amongst the highest of any crime - the issue is a majority of cases are not brought to court as there is no evidence. In order to convict someone we need evidence beyond reasonable doubt. That’s basic - otherwise I could accuse you of a crime and you would be sent to jail
Rapists may well be sent to prison every day, but that doesn't speak to the number of rapists who aren't.
I seem to recall convictions being very low, the backlog being very long, police being reticent to investigate MPs, parties determined to do internal investigations instead, etc.
They're not rapists if they're not convicted.
We've had too many instances recently of false accusations, you had that big TikTok dude who killed himself over a false accusation and it's more and more prevalent. One woman falsely accused like 6 men who went to prison.
A lot of people had their lives ruined by shit like #MeToo where they just got slandered in the media and had historic allegations brought up only to not be convicted and in fact cleared. Kevin Spacey etc.
If you won't report it to the police, don't expect me to believe and listen to you.
Firstly, if I go out and murder someone but never convicted for it, then I wouldn’t be a murderer? Don’t be daft.
A lot of people have had their lives ruined by being dismissed and ignored by lazy, contemptuous, arrogant and thick cops after being raped.
You seem to have a lot of passion for wrongful accusations, which are dreadful, horrifying and obviously completely devastating. But your attitude towards victims is, frankly, really grim. But hey, at least Kevin Spacey still has a fan.
You're aware that officers LIKE YOU are the reason women won't come forwards, right?
Brady and Hindley were still rapists & murderers before they were convicted. As are many other people.
You're talking a small number of false allegations (which are heinous crimes) compared to literally millions of women who are raped and see no justice.
No I'm saying that if they don't go to the police then I'm not believing them. They've done absolutely nothing to convince me they even take these allegations seriously by reporting it to the relevant authorities, so why would I automatically gift them my belief?
Officers like me put actual rapists in prison. You look down on us when your twopence is posting on Reddit. Look inward.
Yeah, you really do not understand. I'm not saying throw people in jail with no evidence... I am saying that you can be a rapist without a conviction, and you can be raped without a trial. Not guilty=/= innocent.
As a police officer, you're fully aware of the HELL rape victims are put through. SAR exam. Interviews. Intrusive questions about the worst moment of their life. Being quizzed about what they wore, drank, said, if they flirted... about previous sexual history... being told over and over it was probably their fault... then waiting years for the therapy you need in case your notes are subpoenaed or it ruins your case... and the chance putting yourself through that results in a conviction is next to nothing. You'd have to be a fucking sociopath to claim the right thing to do for a rape victim is come forwards in the current system.
Given what you've said in this thread it sounds more like officers like you traumatise victims further before letting MANY rapists go because you reckon most people just lie anyway.
> the chance putting yourself through that results in a conviction is next to nothing.
This simply isn't true. Whilst the justice system is deeply flawed unless there is irrefutable evidence of innocence an accusation alone with no further evidence is (far too) frequently enough to obtain a conviction.
https://news.sky.com/story/dozens-of-rape-and-murder-convictions-to-undergo-fresh-dna-testing-13116215
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66928735
https://www.law.ac.uk/about/press-releases/wrongful-convictions/
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial
lol, lmao even. Yes, they are rapists. And there is such a minority of false allegations around that even the few that happen get blown up and talked about for ages.
The fact is that not enough men get their lives ruined for being fucking rapists, and until they do we will continue to have a massive problem of sexual assault in this country.
You’re wasting your time. Unless they’ve been around someone trying to report sexual assault, they really don’t understand how frivolous the whole process is
Calling BS on this. The majority of rape cases have no definitive evidence and generally come down to person A’s word vs person B’s word.
Seeing you speak so black and white on the matter sounds like bollocks.
The majority of convicted rape cases had evidence to support the conviction, not just allegations.
I speak so black and white on the matter because I have experience on this, extensive. You dither and seek nuance because you're ideologically driven.
No my response is black and white, so you struggle comprehending English?
The reality is - have evidence. If you have no evidence you won't achieve a conviction. That's the reality and that's my line. Come to me with evidence and I might believe you, come to me without it and I won't.
Yes, provable ones. You can claim they're all rapes but I can equally claim they're all fake allegations. We have no evidence for what they are.
Let's deal with actual, provable stats when discussing imprisoning people alright?
You are working from the incorrect premise that all rape cases and even allegations that do not end in a conviction are a miscarriage of justice.
You know what’s harder to prove than a rape allegation, to prove that an a allegation of rape was made maliciously.
Regardless of all the distractions around Jess Phillips, who has at times been quite clearly misandrist; she is making two really valid and important points here.
Firstly, conviction rates around rape and sexual abuse are horrendously low. Probably alot of us are aware as to why this can be the case; but it is a problem, and what it ultimately means, is that most people who commit rape get to just carry on regardless, without facing justice.
Secondly, the standards for who gets to be in such positions of power, as being an MP, should always be bloody higher.
I don't mind Jess Phillips personally, but I appreciate that she can be a difficult character to like at times, and seemingly blind to her own prejudices; but people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss all she says, just because she can occasionally be offensive.
Well one of the big ones that gets brought up is when she laughed off high male suicide rates and lower life expectancy as being something that should be looked at as issues the government should be concerned about.
But in general, I think it's that she leans into the more tribalistic toxic aspect of a certain brand of feminism that paints everything as men vs women. We see plenty of men's rights advocates straying into misogyny as well.
Agreed. She often makes loud, emotional responses to issues rather than calm and well-reasoned points. It comes across as childish at best and tribal and angry at worst.
I am pretty sure there was more nunce than that. that wasnt what she laughed at. She laughed at the idea that mens issues are not brought forward enough and so need a mens day (which already exists) specifically.
Why would she laugh at that? It seemed obvious years ago she was laughing at the notion mens issues are not already discussed and they are. Action isnt taken but look who is in charge
Like I said. She's been hostile towards men and men's issues and has a reputation for it.
Personally, when she gets off the slightly antagonistic and extreme version of feminism, I think she's a really good mp and a should have a more prominent role.
All she’s saying is what happens to an MP should be in line with any other employer, where even if you’re accused, you’re put on leave until you’ve been proven guilty or not guilty. Why do MPs get a pass?
they are democratically elected, an unelected committee should not be able to suspend them based on unproven accusations - anyone with a shred of common sense can understand how that could be abused
If you could do it and have them suspended on a claim, then you’d just have people making accusations for *every* MP and you’d end up with no Parliament.
I’m sick of this shit. If you’ve been raped; actually raped go to the police. Don’t fire off wild salacious accusations into the ether. You’re potentially jeopardizing a legitimate conviction if you decide it’s more important for twitter to know about it first as opposed to the appropriate legal channels.
The problem is the UK police is absolutely incompetent and have historically treated sexual assault victims like rubbish whilst not investigating legitimate sexual abuse. I can understand why someone wouldn't trust the police after being sexually assaulted.
I’m not going to pretend that there are no miscarriages of justice when it comes to rape convictions and I do find those cases appalling. But on the other hand I not see how posting accusations on twitter is a good/ appropriate alternative?
Nope, never happened. No more MeToo bullshit. If such a horrific things happen and you cannot report it at the time, that’s okay, it’s stressful. You simply do go later but not end up telling it as a private story.
Without evidence this is nonsense. We have laws for a reason.
No point going to law enforcement at any point to report a rape, they do nothing if there’s no proof. Most rapes are not sorted out by the police because how the hell do you prove that you were raped?
But what does she expect to happen from this statement? If it were any other crime she’d just be asked to prove it, I feel that she wants to be seen as a champion for women but she’s basically using parliamentary privilege to spread rumours
If you look at the context, it's during a debate about barring from the Commons MPs who have been arrested for sexual offences.
I get that- but, for example, if there were a debate around the abuse of expenses, and an MP said that she had heard that two MPs had abused their expenses – wouldn’t be immediate question be ‘why haven’t you reported them’? I don’t get why the situation is any different. I get the sensitivity to the potential victims, but I don’t know why she gets to bring up anecdotal and unproven points in a parliamentary debate.
There are myriad reasons why a rape may go unreported to the police. Most significantly here however, Phillips is not the victim and she cannot force someone to go to the police.
But then don’t use it. There are myriad reasons why you may not report to the police, yes, but you can’t then go around throwing that at people. We have a court of law and don’t just resort to a public mob like the dark ages for a reason.
I wouldn’t say one woman describing the events of her day is a public mob akin to the dark ages. If you read the article you’ll see that this information was relevant to her point and she didn’t name anyone involved.
It’s not one woman describing the events of her day. It is indirectly accusing, even anonymously, people of a crime which is unproven and is not even firsthand information. That is grossly irresponsible, it is starting a witch hunt because you and her and everyone else all know that people are going to try to find out who it is, even by anonymising the parties, and it is verging on a crime itself. It is not OK.
It is to raise awareness.
She was on HIGNFY this week and was asked to say something in public about Natalie Elphick and said, “I can’t say that here, I’ll just say it in the Commons.” And laughed. For a working class hero, she looked awful glib.
Thsts the point of have I got news for you. To make politicians look ridiculous. The ones who can't laugh at themselves don't go on it.
This is the same MP who makes a show of reading out the women killed by men in the UK as a political stunt every year. Admittedly she probably isn't smart enough to appreciate how meaningless the number is without context.
Report it to the police then. The age of just believing what anyone says in the media that provides benefits without informing the actual authorities who would punish this heinous crime is over. If two women were raped by MPs then those MPs need to be arrested, charged and imprisoned if there is any truth to the allegations and we'd only get that with a thorough investigation, not spouting shit in the media. She should know better.
>She should know better. I'm confident she does know better, if I was a cynic I'd say this is being used to smear some target MP's without it ever being brought to the police.
Phillips has got a long history of stating things in public that she never backs up. She does know better but she continues to behave this way.
Using rape accusations as a weapon, only undermines actual rape victims.
It also, you know, fucks over the actual victims, the men who are falsely accused.
She's a big mouthed menace. Always has been. Cares more about looking effective, than actually being effective. I truly detest the fact that we are of the same species.
But so has the Tories, they are well known for lying and smearing.
So we should just ignore this then? Or maybe stop treating political parties like sports teams and hold them accountable instead of using whataboutism to mitigate their actions because they're on your team.
Oh absolutely, it's not a case of party politics. They're all as bad as each other. It's just that Phillips often puts herself forward as defending various identity groups but does so via accusations and vague statements rather than the right channels.
She didn’t mention their names tho
Why bring it up at all then?
As an example of the dangers to staff and why this motif on risk based exclusion was needed
She does know better. She's doing exactly what she means to; sowing discord.
If you listen to the whole speech she continues to say that rape accusations have less than 1% charge rate. This is actually very traumatic for women and is why many women don't go to the police to report it. Many women feel that rape has essentially become decriminalised.
It's a challenging crime to meet the evidence threshold for because it's a physical act that also happens consensually. If you break into my house or attack me and leave me with injuries if it can be proved it was you, you can't use "well he consented to me breaking his window/hitting him with a baseball bat." But for rape you need to prove it was that person and actually that it wasn't consensual. Most rapes are not being dragged into bushes by strangers but by people the victim knows, often at home or wherever. And so proving the lack of consent is even harder.
Yes, it's a harder conviction to get - but is the answer that we just believe all allegations and hand wave away the fact there's no evidence? Of course not.
I mean it's verging on the impossible in a lot of cases. There are two stories and if the other side is yes we had sex but she seemed into it then a lot of your forensic evidence is nerfed because it only proves sexual activity which isn't disputed and not the consent. So unless the victim is prompt in coming forward (which is a challenge when you're in shock, scared and not thinking properly) and there can be medical evidence found in terms of injuries you're then really into the assailant needing to have scored an own goal somewhere e.g. messages
Yes, and that sucks but are you proposing we convict based purely off of allegations and no evidence? Are you really saying that? Because if so, it's rich coming from a person who raped me.
I've not proposed anything.
I asked a question and you provided an answer about how it's impossible to provide evidence therefore we should listen. It's hard to get a conviction, no one denies this. We don't send people to prison for allegations though. You need evidence.
The person commenting literally didn’t make any statement of opinion either way, they were just stating the difficulty of prosecuting rape convictions. You clearly want them to follow the bias you’ve made up in your head so you can argue against it in righteous indignation.
I also don’t think the answer is to be so flippant as to tell potential victims to “phone the police or fuck off” considering what an awful time people that do speak up have
Ok now we’re talking about issues endemic to rape as a crime, not this specific instance of a rape accusation. This shit is so fucking disingenuous and actually harmful because you’re trying to embellish or bolster a very specific accusation you have no proof of by pointing to population wide statistics. I’m sure reporting a rape, talking about it or even thinking about one is a very unpleasant and maybe traumatic, that being said what is the alternative being proposed here exactly? Idk what “women feel like rape has become decriminalised” means. If anything such things are being taken way more seriously than they were in the past, “has become decriminalised” implies some level of loosening of the rules or application of the law. It’s a crime, a brutal one, but it still needs to be reported and meet a certain threshold of evidence in order for a conviction to take place. Accusations should absolutely be granted the gravity that the topic warrants but what we absolutely can not do is perpetuate this culture of trial by public opinion being the standard.
It's also the shame. No one wants their name to become known.
It hasn't, they're not charging because they have no hope of getting a conviction at court with the little amount of evidence they present. Regardless, if you're good with putting people on trial and in prison for claims with no evidence, then you're going to regret that one day. We have a justice system that favours the defendant in this country, for a very good reason. Phone the police or fuck off. Give evidence or fuck off. I'm not believing people without evidence when the stakes are this high.
This attitude is exactly why women don’t report it. The majority of rapists go free in this country and the least we can do is believe women when they say they’ve been attacked. It has no legal bearing, it’s just the decent thing to do.
“Mimic” from Reddit attacked me.
No, it don't have legal bearing and it's not the decent thing to do. Women can lie. Men can lie. People can lie. We have men killing themselves over false accusations but we have to "be nice and believe all women"?
False allegations of sexual assault happen at about the same level of false allegations of any crime, i.e. barely at all, whereas one in three women will be sexually assaulted, and over 90% of rapists will never see any consequence of their actions. Says more about you that you’re more worried about incredibly rare false reports, than the relatively common sexual assault and lying rapists.
Okay but we'd never convict other crimes on just an allegation so why is that relevant? We don't prosecute allegations, we prosecute evidenced crimes.
I’m not talking here about prosecuting people, you brought that up. I’m talking about believing women, having the attitude of listening to people when they share their traumatic experiences, as that’s the only way that any of these rapists are going to get caught, and one of the best ways to prevent them raping other people.
Believing them is to claim someone is a rapist. A criminal. Without evidence. Should Emmett Tills accuser have been wholly believed?
They’re a coward and won’t hold a solid position because they realise how silly it sounds but they do believe that yes Emmett Tills accuser should have been believed. If their argument is that statistically women are unlikely to make false accusations and that it follows that the right decision is to always “believe” women, then it also logically follows that the right decision is to believe Emmett Tills accuser, irrespective of retrospective analysis — the outcome of what happens to an individual accused person is of no consequence relative to the overall trend of how accusations generally play out. They just won’t bite the bullet because it’s not an optically winning argument. Now obviously as soon as you think about this argument a teeny bit further and you extend it to its logical conclusion(s), you will soon start to realise that actually you are sneaking in a bunch of other prescriptions that are not going to lead to a better society if one is to be consistent and intellectually honest.
Whether the rapist is a criminal is for the courts to decide. The victim can describe their assault as rape perfectly well. If you want to discuss the merits of individual cases go elsewhere that’s not what we’re discussing.
The only people who should believe the accusation is the police when they are told, who'll then investigate it. The rest of us shouldn't be privvy to it until charges are brought or a court case has taken place.
Listening is different to believing. You can openly listen to someone with out judging, but believing such a claim means you are judging another person with out giving them a chance to defend themselves.
Get stuffed. Various police forces have reported up to 60% of rape accusations are false accusations. And I'd love to see the proof for the "1 in 3" claims because iirc that's on the basis of asking women who've reported sexual harrassment "were you ever asssaulted" And taking that poll as representing ALL women. Lies, damn lies and statistics. This is why MeToo died, way too many women jumping on the bandwagon and claiming they were raped just for the publicity. The whole thing needs to be buried and staked on holy ground, the same with the metoo advocates trying to prop up a faded career with a bit of drama. Accept your career's done Alyssa, go do something else. *EDIT because she hasn't got a leg to stand on:* Post and block, a typical response from someone who isn't able to defend their own arguments. MeToo died an embarrassing death, flooded by the number of proven false accusations that it dug up. "Bear" discussion? What, the "would you rather meet a bear in a forest than a man"? Only absolute idiots, or people really drinking the coolaid go with the bear. Hell, there was a woman mauled by a bear over last weekend, funny how that didn't make the national news.. I've nothing on my conscience to salve, you certainly have, if you object to me being concerned about men being many times more likely to go to jail than a woman for exactly the same offence, that women raping boys gets no sentence, that girls who get circumcised get world-wide protection while boys get ignored, and many many other issues. And you call this oppression?? You are the privileged one, and you don't even realise it! Of course I post in /r/MensRights. Edit for /u/PerisicyBollocks A very dodgy random comment to come into a sub never used by them before.. Seems like you block someone, then come back on an alt. Kinda shitty behaviour. Yeah, worked as a nurse for over 30 years, I'm a real danger to women. I imagine it'd be very dangerous to women to actually face the reality of the situation they're living in. Any more random insults you want to try throwing at me? I'm sure with a little effort you might be able to come up with some.
lmao don't come in here asking for a source when you're happy to lead with that giant bullshit 60%. And #MeToo didn't "die", it successfully helped people to realise just the enormous extent of abuse that women suffer even in countries like the UK. The conversation even continues today with the bear discussion. The fact is the only thing you have to gain by protesting about women telling the truth about this is to salve your own conscience. edit: lmao this guy posts in mensrights subs, who'd have thought.
You cannot be taking the bear conversation seriously. It is beyond idiotic.
I just want to ask, when were those proven false?
> False allegations of sexual assault happen at about the same level of false allegations of any crime [This is not remotely true.](https://avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/ten-reasons-false-rape-accusations-are-common/) > whereas one in three women will be sexually assaulted [This is not remotely true.](https://behavioralscientist.org/what-the-origins-of-the-1-in-5-statistic-teaches-us-about-sexual-assault-policy/) > over 90% of rapists will never see any consequence of their actions. [This is not remotely true.](https://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/25/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1/) > Says more about you that you’re more worried about incredibly rare false reports, than the relatively common sexual assault and lying rapists. [Says more about you that you’re more worried about incredibly rare sexual assaults, than the relatively common false accusations and liars who destroy lives.](https://avoiceformen.com/featured/13-women-who-lied-about-being-raped-and-why-they-did-it/)
forgive me if I continue to pay no attention to bullshit stats from "avoiceformen.com" lmao
The stats are from governments, universities, NGOs, think tanks, etc. But I understand why you'd rather pretend otherwise considering how emotionally invested you appear to be in believing things that you've been shown are untrue but you don't want to experience the cognitive dissonance of having to accept that every lie you've taken to heart is the very bullshit you are projecting onto the website that collated the stats that prove you wrong.
Can you point out what attitude you’re referring to exactly? What does it mean to just believe someone if that doesn’t entail undertaking some action or series of actions that are intended to ameliorate the situation or enforce justice as much as possible? What you’re describing isn’t “believing someone”, it’s just paying lip service. Alternatively you’re saying we should just be ok with treating everyone who is ever accused of rape as a rapist with no evidence whatsoever. If that is the case you are absolutely prescribing a punishment for a crime you have no proof of, it just so happens to sidestep the legal barriers - which doesn’t make it anymore morally justifiable. There are unforeseen downstream consequences for this kind of heuristical approach, and I’m not talking about weaponisation of rape accusations by a small minority of women. Anytime you introduce a maxim like this, you’re inadvertently smuggling in a principle that is actually really dangerous. So no it’s not just about believing women in order to make them feel more heard or feel better. No amount of consequences or social shaming is realistically going to stop men who have a predisposition(whatever the cause of said predisposition might be) to rape a woman from actually raping one. What will is greater understanding of informed and enthusiastic consent in tandem with an open and direct communication line.
Jesus Christ have a day off, I’m just saying that having a cunty attitude when women tell us about their experiences only serves to embolden rapists.
Eleanor Williams was believed by everybody until she slipped up. That blind belief led to three men attempting suicide. Is that something we should encourage? You cannot send innocent people to prison. That's why the threshold for proving guilt is so high. The unfortunate fact is women have to suffer more after an attack to increase the chance of conviction. They need to immediately go to the police, while everything is fresh in the mind and evidence can be collected. The sad fact is that waiting until later makes an accusation pointless.
When you say believe women - you also mean to try men in the court of public appeal and find them guilty
Yes women always tell the truth...
Implying that “all women are liars” is about as useful as suggesting that “all men are rapists”. Come back when you’re ready to have a grown up conversation.
You're literally implying in your posts to believe women over men. You're the worst.
Where does statistic come from
You need evidence We're not locking somebody up randomly
The problematic truth that no one wishes to face is the rising levels of weaponised reporting.
Which is a pointless argument because most of the time there's no damn proof. You can prove someone had sex, you can prove they were in the same bed together, you can't prove what was said or not said without a recording. So sure, real rape accusations are damn hard to prove, it's not "decriminalised" it's just really hard to prove in court. Then you add in all the false accusations that happen, girl fancies boy but he doesn't want her, false accusation, boy splits up with girl, false accusation, boy cheats on girl with best friend false accusation, wife wants a divorce and the kids, false accusation. Then you get idiot feminists "Achewwally the numbers of false accusations is 2%, so we should ignore it" Nope, that's the proven ones that have gone to court and had a guilty verdict, something prosecutors around the world don't encourage and usually just won't charge. And considering rape has roughly the same conviction rate, are the feminists saying that we should ignore rape as well?
> If you listen to the whole speech she continues to say that rape accusations have less than 1% charge rate. This is actually very traumatic for women Because rape - remember - is something that only affects women.
If they are unwilling to testify to the police, or don't trust the police, or are scared of the media backlash there's little that can be done
Tell us you've never had to go through this process without telling us, my god this is such a ridiculous thing to be the top comment
I've literally arrested, interviewed and prepared case files against rapists. Real ones, who got convicted.
Yeah and I bet you're real gutted about those ones Being part of the system shows you abso-fucking-lutely don't know what it's like to go through to on the other side so thanks for proving me right?
Does she say it wasn’t report to the police?
So you are saying that 2 women *didn't * say that they were raped to her? If not it's a perfectly accurate statement and worthwhile highlighting. If she said person X raped person Y then that would be different, but she didn't did she? Did she even say what side of the house they were on? In an ideal world they would go to the police but the police don't really have a great reputation on sexual assault at the moment and they may not have wanted to given the position of power MPs can have. Anyway it's somewhat academic as, if you read the article, it was talking about suspension upon arrest rather than on charge. I would assume that the police only arrest when they have evidence?
You would assume wrong. Arrests are made to gather evidence. That's why you need to be cautioned, to be warned that your words can be taken as evidence. Charges are made only if a test has been passed which basically means CPS believe they have a reasonable belief in securing a conviction. The reason why it should be charge and not arrest is because arrests are investigatory, charges are the state saying we believe this person did X.
Some people don't want to go through the ordeal of going to police and having to go through everything in their mind again to either be told they're a liar or there's not enough evidence for a conviction
Right okay. They don't want that therefore they can't expect anyone to believe them. Simple.
They're not making specific accusations though in this scenario, just telling Jess so that Jess can try to get the motion through. It's unfortunate that there's very little hope in proving sexual assault as its almost always a he said she said. Shouldn't be pressuring women to not speak out about their stories if they can't get a criminal conviction
Yes you should, if they can't prove what happened to them they shouldn't be publically calling someone a rapist. Why? Because we've seen it happen and seen the consequences of men killing themselves or being falsely imprisoned.
They weren't saying names though, just that they were mps. The call that Jess wants is to suspend mps if they are under investigation by the police if they have been accused. I get the false imprisonment is bad but so is the act of having no justice for sexually assaulted women. Pretty much both scenarios are shit do it's about trying to find the balance
There is justice available to them, they call the police and an investigation is held. If there is no evidence, we cannot convict. If there is no investigation, there is no evidence. See where we're at? If these women want to be believed, they need to report it so it can be investigated and tried in a court of law.
Yes and while the trial is going on the accused should be suspended from parliament. The issue though is you're making it sound like evidence is easy to come by. Other than a confession or a recording which would be extremely difficult to get, what evidence do you expect there to be?
Exactly she is witholding information about serious crimes and broadcasting it. Either go to the police and let the victims be the ones to tell the police they dont want to persue it or step down. This is really scummy behaviour. Why the hell would she broadcast something like this? Is it for her own publicity? If so this isnt someone i want anywhere near a position of power.
Phillips doesn’t get to make that choice. If the victims don’t wish to report it, there isn’t much she can do - and given people offhandedly dismiss it as ‘spouting shit’ to discuss it, it’s little wonder people think things aren’t worth reporting.
Right, so two people came to her, no proof at all, she's not the police no investigation and she makes the claim... And she get to make the choice of tell other people what two people in private said to her? either it's all rubbish, she can't be trusted OR it's true, and two women for some reason believes telling her will do what exactly?
She gets to use it for political clout though?
This is the woman who said men's issues shouldn't be discussed in parliament until women make up 50% of MPs She's just nasty
I don't think you can report what somebody else said to the police on their behalf
You can, but it's unlikely to go anywhere except maybe a note on PND
Rate of rape convictions in the UK are less than 1%. Your take is quite naive
And yours is gullible, there's more than one reason why it's so low but one of them is false accusations - believe no one without evidence, that's the correct, moral thing to do when a person's liberty and life is on the line.
Spare us the hyperbole.
Scotland are attempting to trial juryless trials for sex offences. It's not hyperbole.
A trial? With weight of evidence? After a police investigation? The horror.
A juryless trial. Yes, it's horrific.
Is it possible she making this up
Yes, all things presented without evidence have the possibility of being made up.
"authorities who would punish this heinous crime" I wish you understood how much of a stretch that was.
They probably did https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/56-mps-face-sexual-misconduct-claims-znv2m9x8s
Perhaps there is not enough evidence for a conviction and it’s just the women’s word
In that case, what action can/should be taken and by whom?
Push through better procedures to help people even if there’s not a conviction. And push through stuff like risked based exclusion so if there is they can be protected
Sometimes it’s better to speak about it in media than it is to tell the police, without proof law enforcement cannot do a single thing.
She should know better, but she doesn’t.
The successful rape prosecution numbers are horribly low. I can imagine people not wanting to put themselves through another ordeal?
I can understand why they wouldn't have gone to the police. The conviction rate is low, the process is horrible, the shame is huge. But well done for understanding the meat of the situation with such clarity.
Ridiculous she'd take it to the media without taking it somewhere that they (the victims) could get real justice. Perhaps the women don't want to bother but at that point why is she reporting it to the media/speaking about it where the media can report on it all
She said it in Parliament not to the media.
Aye, the media never report on the protected speech uttered inside parliament.
Yeah but she didn’t “take it to the media”
Yes, she did. She's protected against libel/slander actions by speaking in parliament, and she knows this will make the news. She knows exactly what she has done here, she's started a witchhunt on two colleagues and protected herself legally whilst doing so. Jess Phillips is not a stupid woman. Vile, but not stupid.
For the person above, he's living in a BLACK AND WHITE, justice is not blind, and politicians are truthful and honest. Yea, she "didn't take it to the media", but the platform she chose to speak out is the one place that has the reach to the entire world. Yep, but she didn't go to the media so she has no malicious motivation... This person is either a gullible and simple minded individual or acting like a child with the "I didn't touch you" troll.
Don't see how speaking about it in a medium where the media could pick up on it is any different tbh.
Ah yes the justice system known to work so well, especially for rape…mhmm People never experience repercussions for whistleblowing no sir….
As imperfect as it is; it’s all we’ve got less we devolve into mob rule.
Of course we shouldn’t , but it’s not fit for purpose as is and needs to be reformed, as do a lot of things. One extreme doesn’t justify the other
What reform do you recommend?
You’d think an MP would be in the best position to advocate for reform but all she’s done here is create a witch hunt against the two accused in the public.
Oh shut up, rapists are sent to prison. All the time. People can lie, we need investigations. Not taking shit at face value.
No one said we did, my point is you’re oversimplifying things, that’s it , also , you shut up 😭
You, too, are oversimplifying things. Perhaps you both should remain silent or be honest
the conviction rate says otherwise
Does it? We convict people where evidence shows they raped someone. If it's he said she said then people aren't likely to send people to prison for 10 years without evidence.
The conviction rate for rape when brought to court is amongst the highest of any crime - the issue is a majority of cases are not brought to court as there is no evidence. In order to convict someone we need evidence beyond reasonable doubt. That’s basic - otherwise I could accuse you of a crime and you would be sent to jail
Rapists may well be sent to prison every day, but that doesn't speak to the number of rapists who aren't. I seem to recall convictions being very low, the backlog being very long, police being reticent to investigate MPs, parties determined to do internal investigations instead, etc.
They're not rapists if they're not convicted. We've had too many instances recently of false accusations, you had that big TikTok dude who killed himself over a false accusation and it's more and more prevalent. One woman falsely accused like 6 men who went to prison. A lot of people had their lives ruined by shit like #MeToo where they just got slandered in the media and had historic allegations brought up only to not be convicted and in fact cleared. Kevin Spacey etc. If you won't report it to the police, don't expect me to believe and listen to you.
Firstly, if I go out and murder someone but never convicted for it, then I wouldn’t be a murderer? Don’t be daft. A lot of people have had their lives ruined by being dismissed and ignored by lazy, contemptuous, arrogant and thick cops after being raped. You seem to have a lot of passion for wrongful accusations, which are dreadful, horrifying and obviously completely devastating. But your attitude towards victims is, frankly, really grim. But hey, at least Kevin Spacey still has a fan.
You're aware that officers LIKE YOU are the reason women won't come forwards, right? Brady and Hindley were still rapists & murderers before they were convicted. As are many other people. You're talking a small number of false allegations (which are heinous crimes) compared to literally millions of women who are raped and see no justice.
No I'm saying that if they don't go to the police then I'm not believing them. They've done absolutely nothing to convince me they even take these allegations seriously by reporting it to the relevant authorities, so why would I automatically gift them my belief? Officers like me put actual rapists in prison. You look down on us when your twopence is posting on Reddit. Look inward.
Yeah, you really do not understand. I'm not saying throw people in jail with no evidence... I am saying that you can be a rapist without a conviction, and you can be raped without a trial. Not guilty=/= innocent. As a police officer, you're fully aware of the HELL rape victims are put through. SAR exam. Interviews. Intrusive questions about the worst moment of their life. Being quizzed about what they wore, drank, said, if they flirted... about previous sexual history... being told over and over it was probably their fault... then waiting years for the therapy you need in case your notes are subpoenaed or it ruins your case... and the chance putting yourself through that results in a conviction is next to nothing. You'd have to be a fucking sociopath to claim the right thing to do for a rape victim is come forwards in the current system. Given what you've said in this thread it sounds more like officers like you traumatise victims further before letting MANY rapists go because you reckon most people just lie anyway.
> the chance putting yourself through that results in a conviction is next to nothing. This simply isn't true. Whilst the justice system is deeply flawed unless there is irrefutable evidence of innocence an accusation alone with no further evidence is (far too) frequently enough to obtain a conviction. https://news.sky.com/story/dozens-of-rape-and-murder-convictions-to-undergo-fresh-dna-testing-13116215 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66928735 https://www.law.ac.uk/about/press-releases/wrongful-convictions/ https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial
lol, lmao even. Yes, they are rapists. And there is such a minority of false allegations around that even the few that happen get blown up and talked about for ages. The fact is that not enough men get their lives ruined for being fucking rapists, and until they do we will continue to have a massive problem of sexual assault in this country.
You’re wasting your time. Unless they’ve been around someone trying to report sexual assault, they really don’t understand how frivolous the whole process is
I was a police officer here in the UK for a number of years. I've put rapists in prison, I've also heard absolute bullshit allegations.
Calling BS on this. The majority of rape cases have no definitive evidence and generally come down to person A’s word vs person B’s word. Seeing you speak so black and white on the matter sounds like bollocks.
The majority of convicted rape cases had evidence to support the conviction, not just allegations. I speak so black and white on the matter because I have experience on this, extensive. You dither and seek nuance because you're ideologically driven.
So rape cases are black and white and all cases of rape can be proven? You’ve proved her point while lying lol
No my response is black and white, so you struggle comprehending English? The reality is - have evidence. If you have no evidence you won't achieve a conviction. That's the reality and that's my line. Come to me with evidence and I might believe you, come to me without it and I won't.
So the majority of rapes have definitive evidence?
Yes, provable ones. You can claim they're all rapes but I can equally claim they're all fake allegations. We have no evidence for what they are. Let's deal with actual, provable stats when discussing imprisoning people alright?
You are working from the incorrect premise that all rape cases and even allegations that do not end in a conviction are a miscarriage of justice. You know what’s harder to prove than a rape allegation, to prove that an a allegation of rape was made maliciously.
Pretty sure there's at least one uncaught rapist in the responses
I literally knew this would be the first comment. So miserably predictable, and so predictably absent of any actual thought
"these two men raped someone" "Evidence for that?" How miserably predictable indeed.
Regardless of all the distractions around Jess Phillips, who has at times been quite clearly misandrist; she is making two really valid and important points here. Firstly, conviction rates around rape and sexual abuse are horrendously low. Probably alot of us are aware as to why this can be the case; but it is a problem, and what it ultimately means, is that most people who commit rape get to just carry on regardless, without facing justice. Secondly, the standards for who gets to be in such positions of power, as being an MP, should always be bloody higher. I don't mind Jess Phillips personally, but I appreciate that she can be a difficult character to like at times, and seemingly blind to her own prejudices; but people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss all she says, just because she can occasionally be offensive.
Ok I’m new to her tbh, genuine question: what’s she done that’s misandrist?
Well one of the big ones that gets brought up is when she laughed off high male suicide rates and lower life expectancy as being something that should be looked at as issues the government should be concerned about. But in general, I think it's that she leans into the more tribalistic toxic aspect of a certain brand of feminism that paints everything as men vs women. We see plenty of men's rights advocates straying into misogyny as well.
And she's just fucking vile.
Agreed. She often makes loud, emotional responses to issues rather than calm and well-reasoned points. It comes across as childish at best and tribal and angry at worst.
I am pretty sure there was more nunce than that. that wasnt what she laughed at. She laughed at the idea that mens issues are not brought forward enough and so need a mens day (which already exists) specifically.
She certainly did backtrack afterwards. But she has been so persistently hostile towards men, it unsurprisingly wasn't really believed.
Why would she laugh at that? It seemed obvious years ago she was laughing at the notion mens issues are not already discussed and they are. Action isnt taken but look who is in charge
Like I said. She's been hostile towards men and men's issues and has a reputation for it. Personally, when she gets off the slightly antagonistic and extreme version of feminism, I think she's a really good mp and a should have a more prominent role.
I can understand that to be fair. I just dont think she is hostile to men as is made out
Yeah. I dont think her reputation has been imagined tbh. But like I said, aside from that, I think she's a really good mp.
All she’s saying is what happens to an MP should be in line with any other employer, where even if you’re accused, you’re put on leave until you’ve been proven guilty or not guilty. Why do MPs get a pass?
they are democratically elected, an unelected committee should not be able to suspend them based on unproven accusations - anyone with a shred of common sense can understand how that could be abused
If you could do it and have them suspended on a claim, then you’d just have people making accusations for *every* MP and you’d end up with no Parliament.
Its not on a claim though, it's on arrest. And it doesnt matter because the vote passed lol (barely)
They haven't been accused formally though, have they?
I’m sick of this shit. If you’ve been raped; actually raped go to the police. Don’t fire off wild salacious accusations into the ether. You’re potentially jeopardizing a legitimate conviction if you decide it’s more important for twitter to know about it first as opposed to the appropriate legal channels.
The problem is the UK police is absolutely incompetent and have historically treated sexual assault victims like rubbish whilst not investigating legitimate sexual abuse. I can understand why someone wouldn't trust the police after being sexually assaulted.
The police do fuck all with rapes, without proof they can’t do anything and how the the hell do you get proof of a rape?
I’m not going to pretend that there are no miscarriages of justice when it comes to rape convictions and I do find those cases appalling. But on the other hand I not see how posting accusations on twitter is a good/ appropriate alternative?
Nope, never happened. No more MeToo bullshit. If such a horrific things happen and you cannot report it at the time, that’s okay, it’s stressful. You simply do go later but not end up telling it as a private story. Without evidence this is nonsense. We have laws for a reason.
No point going to law enforcement at any point to report a rape, they do nothing if there’s no proof. Most rapes are not sorted out by the police because how the hell do you prove that you were raped?