Greedy for rape
May 24, 2011 3 Comments
Robert Whiston FRSA May 23rd 2011
Ken Clarke stumbled into a minefield the other day (18th May 2011), when attempting to answer general policy questions on sentencing during a radio programme.
Was he set up or was he just clumsy with the wording of his answers ?
A bit of both is probably the answer. But it did reveal that today no man can speak about rape and survive unscathed.
Rape now is a topic only women can talk about and only they have the right to choose the terms on which it is discussed. And since women’s knowledge of the subject is never allowed to gets above knee high, all discussion is undertaken at an anecdotal level or under a blanket of ignorance and prejudice.
What cannot be permitted to be discussed is the very harsh reality that ‘modern women’ are as greedy for sex as the stereotypical man has always been portrayed as being throughout history. Women’s preference for sex is no longer confined to the bedchamber; they now make the first overtures and set the time and scene. Sex is on their terms – but it comes with a veto, and thus any unsatisfactory sexual encounter is now fairgame to be called rape.
The gross misrepresentation of Ken Clarke was appalling. He was seriously attempting to address the problems facing prisons and the bloated population caused by the creation of a hundreds of new crimes created under New Labour. One example of these new crimes are the offences of sodomy and indecent assault which are now, since the 2003 Act, called rape.
The topic of rape somehow gives the media instant free licence to intimidate, distorts, denigrate and twist meanings. Sadly, this is not an entirely new phenomenon. It has been a creeping cancer first identified some years ago in published reports and studies. Some of these were under the control of Liz Kelly and others fell under the thrall of like minded women insideWhitehall.
Faced with the sort of blackmail last seen reserved for homosexuals in the 1950s, the intimidation of being outed as anti-women and threatened with being unsympathetic to women has worked a treat. Working under these conditions have combined to restrict discussion to an unhealthy low intellectual level.
“Without Consent” (2007) was a study prepared by the HMIC (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary) and was a review to assess progress of an earlier joint review (2002) undertaken by HMIC and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI).
The reason why some trouble is taken to identify this paper is because it has been quoted and mis-used by women MPs extensively – misquoting, one suspects, in order to badger ministers and intimidate policy makers into doing the wrong things.
Take for instance the antics and statements of MPs such as Meg Munn, Caroline Flint, Glenda Jackson, Yvette Cooper and Maria Eagle to block reform of rape anonymity reformss (July 2010). The latter, Maria Eagle, objected to anonymity for rape defendants because, she said:
- “ . . .95% of rapes are not reported to the police-these are figures taken from the joint inspection of the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.”
HMIC (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary) may very well have put this assertion in their publication but they gave no source or citation. They merely repeated the hearsay they had picked up on their travels. They have no idea if the alleged 95% is a true figure or if the 75% is more likely or if it is one made up on the back of an envelope.
The quote can be found on pages 8 and 34 of “Without Consent”  and the paragraph read:
- “Estimates from research suggest thatbetween 75 and 95 per cent of rape crimes are never reported to the police. Studies show thatthe decision not to report is often based on a combination of factors and thatmany of these are connected to the notion of ‘real rape’ – thatis, committed by a stranger, in a public place or in the context of a break-in, and involving force and injury.
So Maria Eagle was maybe over-egging the pudding by citing 95% when a more conservative figure of 75% might have added gravitas to an otherwise juvenile exchange.
Yvette Cooper’s objection to anonymity for rape defendants was based, bizarrely, on the premise thatit was wrong to “think that rape defendants should be treated differently from every other kind of defendant”, little realising that all (not just some) rape accusers are all treated differently from all other accusers (Hansard, 8 July 2010, Column 561).
Lesbian relationships are noted for being more violent, physically and sexually, than heterosexual ones. Yet Maria Eagle went on to assert using, she claimed, “some figures derived from official statistics” that:
- “Every week, up to 2,000 women are raped; up to 10,000 are sexually assaulted.”
No where in the HMIC report are such numbers mentioned. Police records don’t how that number so what are these official statistics and where do they come from ? She says they come from the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary but given the above (and a Ministry of Justice that is unable to verify them) that claim has to be suspect (another typical feminist manoeuvre in hoping no one will look for the figures).
Over a 12 month period, using Ms. Eagle’s arithmetic, this would amount to 104,000 and 520,000 respectively.
There are – in board terms – 30 million women in Britain and 20 million of a sexually active age (say 15 – 60). A form of logic would dictate that within the space of 40 years each and every one of these women will, by Maria Eagle’s reckoning, have been raped or sexually assaulted (and the unlucky ones more than once). We are half way through that time preiod.
Even if the 12,000 rapes reported to police per annum represent only 25% of the said “problem” this totals only 48,000 rape incidents per annum.
Maria Eagle approach to numbers has not been thought through and this is whatthe Americans call Henhouse Arithmetic.
Mostly the Young
Maria Eagle made a far more valid point when she highlighted that“a third of all rapes recorded by the police are committed against children under the age of 16.” This is true, and since we know a lot more about underage sex (prevalence and frequency), does that mean we can extrapolates to other age groups ?
The danger Maria Eagle and her troupe pose is in their blanket approach which they adopts to all rape data.
As illustrated in the chart below (Fig 2.1), if one third, say 30%, of reported rapes occur among under 16 year olds, and two thirds (say 60%) of reported rapes occur among under 35 year olds, very few rapes are left to be distributed among the remaining age groups.
The result of these two inescapable facts is thatthe risk of being rape when aged 35 or 45 or older is numerically infinitesimal.
With Glenda Jackson now old enough to be drawing her State pension and the others far from being spring chickens, the likelihood of a rape befalling any of the female MPs cited above is very slender. This does, of course, raise the issue of how relevant are the concerns of these women MPS and how closely do they reflect the majority of women who are younger than they are and whose moral outlook would perhaps shock those of an older generation.
Two articles are already posted to this blog site which detail and analysis the numbers and ages of victims. They can be foundat:
- “Rape – morals and motives” (http://falseallegations.wordpress.com/2010/11 )
- “Precarious Rape Data – 16 to 25″ year olds” (http://falseallegations.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/6)
Looking at the photographs and graphics in those two articles underscores the possibility thatthe female MPs are now increasingly irrelevant to the debate
An American forensic journal has recently cast doubt on a sacred cow tenet of feminist rape lore. This is the lore thatstates that regardless of the delay in reporting the incident to the police the alleged rape claim is as valid as if it had occurred within the last hour.
The other most well known feminist rape lore – and there are many others not so well known – is thatthe woman must always be believed no matter how unlikely.
“Without Consent” looks at these cases which are allegedly not reported and lists them. It states that“A number of studies have explored the reasons for not reporting and a wide range has been documented.” They are probably well known to some but it might prove useful to go through the nine listed and question if not burst a few balloons along the way.
- not naming the event as rape (and/or a crime) oneself
It might seem curious thatif a person believes they have not been raped this is counted as a rape. The state, and the organs of state, have been given such tremendous powers that the opinion of the person involved appears to count for little. This is a mission creep first seen in domestic violence data collection and one suspects is another US import
- thinking that the police or others will not define the event as rape
Some of these ‘reasons’ verge on being little better than lame excuses. Why would the police not think it was something other than rape if it was rape ? The police are paid to do a job, not make value judgements.
- fear of being disbelieved
How can this happen if the event took place in the way described and thatway constituted a rape ? In more general terms it could be said that anyone reporting a robbery or a theft might fear not being believed by the police.
- fear of blame or judgement
Judgementalism is no longer in vogue and hasn’t been for 30 years. This appears to be yet another weak excuse for not reporting a bona fidi rape – if it is bona fidi
- distrust of the police, courts or the legal process
Of all the excuse so far this seems a more reasonable one for a class or classes of people.
- fear of family and friends knowing or of public disclosure
Public disclosure is never going to happen nor in the majority of counter claims for perverting the course of justice (such is the protection for complainants), so it is a weak even disingenuous excuse. Friends and family come in all shapes and sizes but it would be unfair to tar all friends in such a way and describe all families as emotionally sterility.
- fear of further attack or intimidation
This has more validity given the society we now live in and therefore has more traction as a real possibility than all the others so far mentioned.
- divided loyalty in cases involving current or ex-intimates
This arises only out of human stupidity and legislative meddling. Rape within a marriage was always going to be problematical as the one flesh tenet and procreation of children would inevitably clash with amended rape laws. NB. It is of interest to note that all the alleged spousal rapes have in fact (bar one or two) involved separated spouses so it is something of a myth.
- language or communication issues.
This is a barrier regardless of country or century but not insurmountable
Why Britain ?
Marie Eagle touched on the Achilles heel of the whole debate when she said in the same debate, “We can say that reports to the police have doubled in the last 10 years, which is a good thing,” but is it ?
There are, by their own admission, no reliable figures for rapes and they dismiss those recorded by police as only the tip of the iceberg. So how can this doubling have any meaning since we know not what the original base was ?
And how likely is it that reported rape (which no doubt reflect the number of rapes) should have doubled when DV in Britain (a useful rule of thumb guide) has fallen and rape offences across the Western world have slumped.
Why should Britainbe held up and accused as the only advanced country with a supposed higher year on year level of rape ?
From the recommendations found in Chp 2 of the Stern Review on rape (2010), we see that Association of Chief Police Officers (ACOP), Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), all found they were hindered in some way when dealing with rape crimes. 
She also discloses that the National Policing Improvement Agency has:
- “. . . . a small internal research programme looking atthe issue of achieving best evidence in rape investigations, and we recommend thatthis plays a part in finding a solution that preserves the benefits for the victim but is more effective in the courtroom.”
The Stern Review acknowledges (p 18) the controversy surrounding false allegations and the strong feelings (both ways) that the subject arouses. As a consequence it recommends that:
- “ . . . the Ministry of Justice commissions and publishes an independent research report to study the frequency of false allegations of rape compared with other offences and the nature of such allegations.”
- “ . . . . We recommend that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice should work with the National Statistician in order to find a way of presenting criminal justice data that enables comparisons to be made of the outcomes for various offences, and makes clear whatconclusions can and cannot be drawn from those data.”
Given the snail’s pace of reform and the resistance to entertain any change, this tiny concession represents a huge step forward.
Overall, the impression still being received by ministers and Whitehallis still thatthatthere were very few false allegations. One senior CPS source (p 13), confirmed this view to Stern but as a CPS employee she/he would have known that80% of cases are dropped and never reach court, so thatis a misguiding ‘steer’ given to Stern.
Stern reiterates research which suggests that, “a figure of 8% to 10% of reported rapes could well be false reports” –this is likely to be a gross underestimate. Other research she does not mention puts the figure at 50% to 80%. With the current lack of data either estimate range could prove to be correct.
Nevertheless, Stern agrees that the effect on those falsely accused is severe and long lasting “ . . . even when they have been cleared and the allegation has been established as false.”
Information about the prevalence of false allegations is so scanty, says Stern, thatthey have recommended thatresearch be undertaken to establish the frequency of false allegations because it comes up so often in discussions about rape
However, Stern is totally mislead when she states that anyone “making false allegations can be given a substantial prison sentence.” From published newspaper reports stretching back over the last 10 years, the longest sentence meted out for perverting the course of justice in a rape case was 3 years. Most that are brought to court are given a 12 month or 2 year sentence (invariably suspended), parole or community work. The vast majority – and the numbers are impossible to confirm – receive no prosecution but a warning from the police for wasting their time. She also wrongly claims that such cases “are well reported in the media” they are not. Those minority of cases that are reported are not fully reported (date, town, age etc) and requests to newspapers for more basis information fails to bring a reply.