UK Police to Drop Policy of Automatically Believing "Victims" of Rape or Sex Abuse?

Kilbarry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
3,189
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/22/major-police-review-recommends-dropping-policy-automatically/

An alleged fantasist known as Nick, gave five different accounts of VIP abuse to the police, but was still regarded as "credible and true", it has emerged, as a review recommends dropping the policy of automatically believing "victims". Under the current rules, police forces must believe a person who makes a complaint of rape or sexual assault, in order to give victims the confidence to come forward after an attack. But that policy is now expected to be dropped after a string of allegedly malicious complaints were made against high profile people including politicians and celebrities.....

The article highlights Scotland Yard's disastrous Operation Midland - which was launched when ‘Nick’ claimed a VIP paedophile ring had raped and murdered boys in the 1980s. Those "Nick" accused included former Prime Minister, Edward Heath, the former Home Secretary, Lord Brittan, war hero, Lord Bramall, former Tory MP, Harvey Proctor plus former heads of MI5 and MI6 etc

Actually the Telegraph article could also have mentioned "Operation Conifer" that included 6 people who made claims of Satanic Ritual Abuse against Ted Heath - which the Wiltshire police took seriously enough to investigate. (Dozens of other claims against Heath were deemed not credible but the Wiltshire police actually spent time and money on the Satanic allegations!)

There is also an Irish equivalent of the latter insanity here
Irish Salem: Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) in Ireland and the UK - The Role of the Police
Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) in Ireland and the UK - The Role of the Police
 


Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,592
Makes sense. It's fine for the initial discussion to be carried out on the basis of "We believe you, tell us what you know", but after that professional scepticism needs to be used. If you assume the claimant is truthful, then you're assuming guilt on the part of the accused. And when you do that, you find the pieces to put the jigsaw puzzle you're sure exists together.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
23,218
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/22/major-police-review-recommends-dropping-policy-automatically/

An alleged fantasist known as Nick, gave five different accounts of VIP abuse to the police, but was still regarded as ...]


So it should be. The Police are meant to be impartial and open minded, and to investigate the facts of each and every case with an open mind.

Starting from a standpoint of automatically assuming an allegation to be true meant in effect, that the police were in the dangerous position of finding facts to fit an already drawn conclusion.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Makes sense. It's fine for the initial discussion to be carried out on the basis of "We believe you, tell us what you know", but after that professional scepticism needs to be used. If you assume the claimant is truthful, then you're assuming guilt on the part of the accused. And when you do that, you find the pieces to put the jigsaw puzzle you're sure exists together.
So what? Its the hardest crime of violence against the person to prove, because of the three stage test:

(1) The act took place
(2) The allegant didnt consent
(3) The defendant did not have a reasonable belief that the allegant consented.

Rapists will always get off.
 

Kilbarry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
3,189
Makes sense. It's fine for the initial discussion to be carried out on the basis of "We believe you, tell us what you know", but after that professional scepticism needs to be used. If you assume the claimant is truthful, then you're assuming guilt on the part of the accused. And when you do that, you find the pieces to put the jigsaw puzzle you're sure exists together.
And Scotland Yard went to extreme lengths to put the jigsaw puzzle together - as per the Telegraph article:

"...But a report by the College of Policing has revealed that Scotland Yard believed Nick, even though he gave detectives five different accounts of his alleged ordeal in six months. [My emphasis]

The information was contained in a redacted report published by retired High Court judge, Sir Richard Henriques, but was revealed for the first time in the College of Policing review. Prosecutors are currently considering whether to bring charges against Nick for perverting the course of justice.

Assistant Commissioner Rob Beckley, who carried out the review, has now recommended that forces drop the policy of automatically believing complainants...."


My guess is that "Nick" will NOT be prosecuted because the police won't want their own folly subjected to further exposure. I predict they will say he is too mentally disturbed to bring to court - BUT why didn't they notice that before? According to the Telegraph article, "Operation Midland" cost £2.5 million.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,836
Makes sense. It's fine for the initial discussion to be carried out on the basis of "We believe you, tell us what you know", but after that professional scepticism needs to be used. If you assume the claimant is truthful, then you're assuming guilt on the part of the accused. And when you do that, you find the pieces to put the jigsaw puzzle you're sure exists together.
Exactly.

You've summarised the whole issue very well here.

It is true that "professional scepticism needs to be used", instead of blindly accepting the word of the alleged victim.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Exactly.

You've summarised the whole issue very well here.

It is true that "professional scepticism needs to be used", instead of blindly accepting the word of the alleged victim.
Fret you not, rapists are going to do just fine.
 

JimmyFoley

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
9,475
Well done, UK.

Ireland will no doubt follow suit in about 15 years time, making the same mistakes that you have in recent years, in the meantime.
 

Kilbarry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
3,189
So what? Its the hardest crime of violence against the person to prove, because of the three stage test:

(1) The act took place
(2) The allegant didnt consent
(3) The defendant did not have a reasonable belief that the allegant consented.

Rapists will always get off.
This comment on a SpikedOnLine article regarding the Ulster Rugby rape trial explains the difficulties with rape investigations - and there's no way around these REAL difficulties without perverting the entire justice system.

The real scandal of the Ulster Rugby rape trial | Crime and the law | spiked
Punishing men who were found not guilty makes a mockery of justice

thammond •
"Why does it feel that in rape cases it is the alleged victim who is on trial?" [quoting IT journalist Una Mullally]

Because in many ways, she was. Many rape trials are about trying to decide if there was a crime, not who did it. That is why rape trials are totally different from most other serious criminal trials. We find a stabbed body we know there has been a murder, our car disappears, it has been stolen.

Sex is often messy and complicated, and this insistence by campaigners that it is in fact black and white is helping no-one, least of all real victims as the number of false accusations and miscarriages of justice pile up. ......


Note that "Operation Midland" - when Scotland Yard spent huge amounts of police time and money trying to prove that a deceased Tory PM was a child rapist and murderer - did not actually help any real victims of sex abuse. Neither did "Operation Conifer" when the Wiltshire police investigated Satanic Ritual Abuse claims against the same man. So even when the police disregard normal standards of evidence and believe every allegation, it doesn't actually help GENUINE rape victims!
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
A fine strategy that has worked so well in Rotheram and Telford.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
55,013

Kilbarry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
3,189
Fret you not, rapists are going to do just fine.
Fret you not indeed. On rereading the Sunday Telegraph article I see that the PROPOSED change of policy, even if carried through, is not quite as clear-cut as the headline would suggest:

...Assistant Commissioner Rob Beckley, who carried out the review, has now recommended that forces drop the policy of automatically believing complainants.

While the current policy reads: “The intention is that victims are believed”, he suggested it should be changed to state: "The intention is that victims can be confident they will be listened to and their crime taken seriously." ....


Note that even the REVISED wording speaks of "victims" and "crime" NOT "complainants" and "allegations". In order to ensure that police investigators do not misinterpret this, it would probably be necessary to give them specific instructions to watch out for false allegations. Will their superiors actually give them this type of training - or will they be too fearful of the feminist mob?
 
Last edited:

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,836
So what? Its the hardest crime of violence against the person to prove, because of the three stage test:

(1) The act took place
(2) The allegant didnt consent
(3) The defendant did not have a reasonable belief that the allegant consented.

Rapists will always get off.

Some will, some won't.

I agree that it's hard to get a conviction in cases where it's a matter of "he said v she said" and there is no other evidence.

But what are you proposing? An assumption of guilt?
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
Well done, UK.

Ireland will no doubt follow suit in about 15 years time, making the same mistakes that you have in recent years, in the meantime.
Some would like Ireland to go in the exact opposite way and effectively make the defendant prove that he/she is innocent. Plus we have the newly enacted dual judicial system. The police/court process and trial by social media. Each defendant needs a double result now. The court to stay out of jail, and social media to determine whether you keep your job/family etc.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Some will, some won't.

I agree that it's hard to get a conviction in cases where it's a matter of "he said v she said" and there is no other evidence.

But what are you proposing? An assumption of guilt?
The vast majority will get off, the legal test is that hard.

Sleep well, its only women after all.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,836
This comment on a SpikedOnLine article regarding the Ulster Rugby rape trial explains the difficulties with rape investigations - and there's no way around these REAL difficulties without perverting the entire justice system.

The real scandal of the Ulster Rugby rape trial | Crime and the law | spiked
Punishing men who were found not guilty makes a mockery of justice

thammond •
"Why does it feel that in rape cases it is the alleged victim who is on trial?" [quoting IT journalist Una Mullally]

Because in many ways, she was. Many rape trials are about trying to decide if there was a crime, not who did it. That is why rape trials are totally different from most other serious criminal trials. We find a stabbed body we know there has been a murder, our car disappears, it has been stolen.

Sex is often messy and complicated, and this insistence by campaigners that it is in fact black and white is helping no-one, least of all real victims as the number of false accusations and miscarriages of justice pile up. ......


Note that "Operation Midland" - when Scotland Yard spent huge amounts of police time and money trying to prove that a deceased Tory PM was a child rapist and murderer - did not actually help any real victims of sex abuse. Neither did "Operation Conifer" when the Wiltshire police investigated Satanic Ritual Abuse claims against the same man. So even when the police disregard normal standards of evidence and believe every allegation, it doesn't actually help GENUINE rape victims!

Exactly.

The problem often is to determine when the act involved - sexual penetration - moves from being legal (consent being given) to being illegal (consent wasn't given, or was withdrawn).

It is the same act - sexual penetration - as opposed to those other instances that were described - stabbing and stealing - that are both acts that are illegal in themselves.
 

Travis Bickle

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
1,294
The Police will investigate to see if someone is guilty or not, not investigate only if they think the accused is guilty. I should hope so. This isn't new.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Why do you keep on with your snarky accusations?

What are you actually proposing?
Nothing. Rapists are very well protected by the existing laws, I dont weep for them at all.

As we cant deter rapists by the threat of being convicted, that is so very unlikely,then the law cant really prevent rapists raping.

Maybe a society that doesnt assume complainants are liars and that tons of innocent men are falsely accused would go some way to making rape less likely. Lets face it, you only have to read Pie to see the massive outpouring of sympathy and support to accused rapists and the nasty character assassination of the complainants.

Its a rapists world.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top