False accusations of rape are very rare you know

Brooker’s former partner Paul Fensome, a railway signalman, was held behind bars for 37 days after she accused him of a string of rapes and assaults. While in custody, Fensome was held in a secure wing after rumours went around that he was a paedophile. He has since received £38,000 compensation.

Alibis, evidence from Fensome’s phone and his work shift patterns undermined Brooker’s accounts. Injuries were judged to have been self-inflicted and the police dropped their investigations into Fensome and turned their attention on Brooker.

Brooker initially told police she had made false accusations. But when she was charged with perverting the course of justice she retracted her confession. She was found guilty of 12 offences relating to false allegations of five rapes, six assaults and one false imprisonment.

That’s not a disagreement over consent or not is it? That’s a number of attempts to get an innocent man jailed. And quite rightly she’s going to serve some time for having tried that.

But there’s always some:

The support and campaign group Women Against Rape (WAR) was among more than a dozen organisations and lawyers who wrote to the judge arguing that a harsh sentence would put women off coming forward to report rapes for fear they would not be believed.

They wrote: “The prosecution was not in the public interest. A prison sentence will put even more women off reporting, enabling even more attacks from violent men. The resources spent on prosecuting Ms Brooker should have been put into prosecuting rapists and other violent men.”

She tried to get an innocent jailed! Of course she should have been prosecuted.

44 comments on “False accusations of rape are very rare you know

  1. These people do normal women a disservice. I can’t understand how they get webtime. Clickbait? Hence I won’t click the link.

  2. She tried to get an innocent jailed! Of course she should have been prosecuted.

    Yeah but there are feminists who want all innocent men jailed. So naturally they don’t want a prosecution. Or at least the latter strongly implies the former.

  3. Note that she intended to become a barrister.

    She tried to get an innocent jailed! Of course she should have been prosecuted.

    Yeah but there are feminists who want all innocent men jailed. So naturally they don’t want a prosecution. Or at least the latter strongly implies the former.

    There is no other kind. People need to get their heads around the fact that the feminist movement is not an equality movement, it is not a womens’ movement, it is not a rights movement. It is a hate movement powered by a conspiracy theory and, like all other hate movements, its only interest (whatever it may claim for goals and policies) is to harm the class it hates.

    That is its only purpose and only core policy. There is nothing else.

  4. Erm, trainee barrister? I thought you had to be clever? The odds of her victim not having an alibi for any of the twelve separate false allegations is miniscule. So, no wig for her, then.

  5. Bugger, cross threaded.

    I expect her new boyfriend is delighted to find he’s just had a baby with a deranged woman. What’s the betting he legs it while she safely inside?

  6. I expected to smell the usual ordure emanating from Harman, with her usual grime of higher rates of convictions for rape, etc.

    But she’s gone very quiet since the Dromey, Hodge and Harman publicity.

    It may be the one thing for which we have to thank Sir Jimmy.

  7. To these single- issue loons, only women are ever true victims. Men just have to lie there & enjoy it. I loathe these ghastly harpies with a passion.

  8. RouelJour, it did take plod a whole 37 days to check those alibis & get him out of chokey, mind.

    She’s clearly not the only dim one!

  9. IanB: you’re mad. The feminists I know are against assaults on women, they’re against unfair discrimination in the workplace, they’re against lads mags being on display in supermarkets. And they have husbands, boyfriends, sons, brothers, and fathers, none of whom they want locked up.

  10. I have always believed that a custodial sentence was part punishment for the criminal for the crime committed, and part warning to others to think twice before committing a similar crime. So the argument ‘This kind of case may prevent the real victims of rape from coming forward and reporting the crime because they may not be believed’ holds no water really. Regardless of whether a women is believed or not (very rare, these days, I should imagine, the world is no longer full of misogynistic men, regardless of what the average feminazi would have you believe), or if the case ever gets to court – rape cases are notoriously hard to prove as it normally comes down to He said/She said (rape/regretful sex aren’t really spectator sports so witnesses are often non-existent). If a woman has been raped and reports it She is committing no crime, so therefore has no need to worry that She will be punished. However, if a woman claims She has been raped and it is either proven She is lying, or admits that She is, well, punishment should be swift and harsh. By claiming that punishing those women that falsely accuse boyfriends/friends/ex-partners or random strangers of rape will prevent real victims from coming forward not only fails to adress the very real and life changing damage these accusations can cause the victim, their family, friends etc (as you like to say, Timmy, the punishment has already been ministered, long before the case even, if ever, gets to court), it also perpetuates, time and again the myth that women that really have been raped won’t be believed, which simply isn’t the case,these days. These cases actually proves this. The ones actually preventing more victims of rape coming forward are the ones constantly bleating that if you do you won’t be believed by the police. courts, etc. Perhaps if these women, charities etc (for they almost always are women, and it’s pretty much a safe bet they work for some kind of government funded charity) stopped saying, after every case like this (they aren’t rare at all, JuliaM has many, many posts about it) that they will stop the real victims from coming forward, and instead said that whilst false rape claims are deplorable, and they feel very bad for the victims of false allegations, it proves, with out a doubt, that no matter how dodgy the allegation, or how flakey the accuser is, every case will be treated as serious and investigated fully.

  11. @Roue le Jour ‘Erm, trainee barrister? I thought you had to be clever?’

    There’s no money in it for most new entrants, literally none. The fees they earn are not covering their travel expenses. So you’d actually have to be qute thick to want to become a barrister in 2014.

    @PaulB

    I agree with you that not all feminists are quite as mad as IanB suggests, but then not all leftists are as smug and self-satisfied as you. It’s a continuum thing.

    At the one end, your wealthy friends (assuming they actually exist – we know you have form for inventing friends wink wink) with their NUTS and ZOO obsession. At the other, the kill-all-men crowd, who do exist.

    Outside all of them is a large cadre of perfectly normal women, who know that when middle class ladies were hurling themselves in front of horses working class men were ploughing fields, cleaning sewers, or dying down the pit in a variety of interesting ways; that life is never going to be ‘fair’ for a toddler’s definition of the word; and that this insanity is one of the things which is going to take down the western world.

  12. “a harsh sentence would put women off coming forward to report rapes for fear they would not be believed.”

    The feminists don’t have much respect for women, do they? They think they’re all pathetic, frightened little mice. Unless they’re butch dykes, like the girls at WAR.

  13. @Sarah

    Mark my words, they will change the burden of proof to get more convictions.

    A strange and often counterproductive madness has taken over the English legal system in respect of sex cases.

    As an example, you can no longer put it to a child that s/he is lying about a sexual assault (recent practice directions).

    Because we must ‘believe the victim’.

    Ironically, that has stripped prosecution counsel of one of their strongest jury weapons – the sight of a mystified nine year old saying ‘But what do you mean? Of course he touched me.’

    But, as ever, it’s about intentions with the left. Who gives a shit about the outcomes.

  14. PaulB, I’ve read lots of false defences like that one, and yours brings nothing new to the table. I’ve said this before; I’m not interested in your personal friends of whom, of course, I have no knowledge and cannot comment. I’m discussing a movement- a hate movement- and your testimony is as worthless as “my friend’s a Nazi and he’s just in favour of a better Germany, I don’t know where you get all this stuff about Jew hating from, you’re mad”.

    The expressed opinions, activities and goals both sought and achieved by the Feminist Movement are those compatible with a classic class-conspiracy hate movement, and that is all we need to know. A class-conspiracy movement being one of the form that some particular class group of persons act knowingly and universally to the severe detriment of non-class members; the classic example again being the Nazi characterisation of the Jews. And this really is the simple rule of thumb test. Take the theory of the (whatever) movement, swap in “Jews” for their avowed class enemy, swap in “Germans” for themselves, and see if it comes out as a statement of Nazi anti-semitism. If it does, you’ve got a class-conspiracy hate movement. Feminism passes that test. It’s all we need to know. I hope that’s not all too Godwin for you.

    Just to add before posting, the general defence is that the purported detrimental behaviour by Class A to Class B is genunine, therefore the cc-theory is valid. E.g. “men rape therefore men are a rape conspiracy”. To see the error in this consider; some Jews are indeed capitalist swindlers. This does not validate the theory that Jews as a class are a capitalist swindler conspiracy.

  15. Interested-

    At the one end, your wealthy friends with their NUTS and ZOO obsession. At the other, the kill-all-men crowd, who do exist.

    That’s not a continuum. They’re the same people. Differing degrees maybe, but no qualitative difference. They are all predicated on the male as a predator on females conspiracy theory. Looking at tits is a form of rape. Rape is why we must kill all men. Etc.

  16. @IanB, the problem with your analysis is that it does not apply to all women who would describe themselves as feminists. Some women really do just want what they think of (often erroneously or loosely in my view) as ‘equality’. Very few literally hate men. Sadly, some of the loudest voices do, but in a way that’s a clue – they’re controversial.

    Whereas all people who would have described themselves as Nazis, at least those who knew what they were saying, hated jews.

  17. @IanB ‘That’s not a continuum. They’re the same people. Differing degrees maybe, but no qualitative difference.’

    How is that not basically the dictionary definition of a continuum?

    My Oxford has it as: ‘A continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, but the extremes are quite distinct.’

  18. IanB: you wrote “There is no other kind”. That’s obvious rubbish. And yes, Godwin.

    Interested: the problem with the things that you know is that you’ve made them up. But we digress.

  19. “Women against men” would be a fairer description of this group.

    But in the modern world, the crazier you are the louder your voice in the media.

  20. @Sarah

    The comment system allows you to press RETURN for new paragraphs without submitting the post until the button is pressed.

    A long, rambling stream of unbroken text is really hard to read and your excellent points and asides become lost within it. Which is a pity as they they seem quite insightful.

  21. Rob – they’re against rape, but for alleged rapist Julian Assange.

    Anyhoo, false rape allegations are not – contrary to the feminists – extremely rare. Crying rape is the nuclear option for every emotionally damaged, spurned or just plain malicious woman out there.

    False allegations of rape are fairly common, as are false stories of being raped or “almost raped” that are concoted for attention rather than to criminalise any specific man.

    Andrea Dworkin, the chief cave troll of feminism, was famous for her Tales of The Unexpected about being raped by random men in hotels. If a super-sized super-feminist isn’t immune to rape fantasies, what hope for the minor elves and sprites of WAR?

  22. Of course, and hijacking this back to the OP, the existence of one or more examples of false-x does not mean that false-x is not “very rare” if the number of not-false-x is quite large.

    I personally believe that false rape allegations are not nearly as rare as the public-media-feminists claim, and therefore their requirement that all women claiming rape must be automatically believed is unjustified. However, I also believe that false rape allegations are not (yet?) as common as many on the other side of the fence insist.

    I would note that every acquittal for rape does not mean that the allegation was false and especially not maliciously so.

    This whole (lack-of) debate, and I’m not talking about chez Timmy, more about the MSM and wider society, is yet another example of the ever-ratcheting polarisation of the limits of permitted expression and, even, opinion.

    Anyway, finished the cup of tea. Back to work!

  23. Surreptitious Evil – “However, I also believe that false rape allegations are not (yet?) as common as many on the other side of the fence insist.”

    Well care to put a number on it? A guestimate?

    “I would note that every acquittal for rape does not mean that the allegation was false and especially not maliciously so.”

    Indeed. Nor does every conviction for rape mean that the allegation was true. Rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove once you’re into he-said-she-said territory.

    “This whole (lack-of) debate, and I’m not talking about chez Timmy, more about the MSM and wider society, is yet another example of the ever-ratcheting polarisation of the limits of permitted expression and, even, opinion.”

    As we have seen with George Will who was fired from at least one of his newspaper gigs for pointing out there is no epidemic of rape on America’s universities. Which there isn’t. And to a lesser extent Gary Oldman who has probably destroyed his career this week by pointing out what many a person of Jewish origin is happy to boast about – that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood.

  24. I used to know a female police officer from Essex who claimed that she dealt with about one false allegation of rape a week. Most of the false allegations were withdrawn once the ‘victim’ had sobered up.

  25. Some 4-6% of all claims according to one report. A proper report too, done by a female peer and all that, not some NGO.

    Which, amusingly, makes false claims around and about the same as the percentage of all claims that result in a conviction for rape.

  26. Femminism is a word whose meaning has been twisted.

    Many normal, decent women (and no PaulB that does not cover your anti-lads mags hags) self apply the word to themselves thinking that it means equal treatment for women. To such women it does. But it does not mean that to the Radical feminist bitch. These hate filled female freaks are happy to have a “reasonable” definition of feminism floating around as the default meaning as it allows them to cover their hate-filled activities as under a cloak.

  27. @PaulB

    “IanB: you’re mad. The feminists I know”

    “Interested: the problem with the things that you know is that you’ve made them up.”

    Sort of my point.

  28. @SMFS “Indeed. Nor does every conviction for rape mean that the allegation was true. Rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove once you’re into he-said-she-said territory.”

    Rape remains one of the areas that really does (insofar as we can ever know guilt) show the worth of the jury system.

    Juries do not like to convict on the basis of he said-she said, in the absence of much else, and so they don’t.

    (Hence the low conviction rates, rape generally not being, as Sarah put it, a spectator sport.)

    For this reason, I am pretty confident that there are fewer unsafe convictions for rape than for most other offences, though there are clearly some. I’m also confident that there are probably more bad acquittals. But that’s the nature of the beast.

    As SE says, it’s all getting very fraught, thanks largely to the pernicious leftists at the Guardian and the BBC. I predict increased jury polarisation between mad women and normal women/men leading ironically to more hung juries and acquittals in the future.

    Until they bring in the equivalent of Diplock Courts and allow only female radfem judges to sit in them.

  29. The downside to harsh punishment of false accusers is that said accusers have nothing to gain by coming clean. If they’ve started down the road them the only rational thing to do is to keep on going and insisting that the lie is true.

    So I agree with Tim but: consequences.

  30. Interested – “Rape remains one of the areas that really does (insofar as we can ever know guilt) show the worth of the jury system. Juries do not like to convict on the basis of he said-she said, in the absence of much else, and so they don’t.”

    I am not so sure about that. Juries tend to vote according to the degree to which they like a defendant. In most cases of rape that means some poor loser like Barry George who isn’t going to get a lot of sympathy. But if you’re young, handsome, have a career ahead of you, family that loves you, there is no way you’re going down. So it basically comes down to a popularity contest.

    “For this reason, I am pretty confident that there are fewer unsafe convictions for rape than for most other offences, though there are clearly some. I’m also confident that there are probably more bad acquittals. But that’s the nature of the beast.”

    I agree there are probably more bad acquittals. But I would think that rape is one of those where you might almost be better off tossing a coin.

    “Until they bring in the equivalent of Diplock Courts and allow only female radfem judges to sit in them.”

    The problem is not the type of court but the political influence over the whole process. It is foolish to expect fair treatment from the Plod much less the Bench these days. The juries may be more resistant to that, but the choice is still between bad and worse.

  31. I’m also confident that there are probably more bad acquittals.

    Bad acquittals? Or acquittals where you / they were fairly sure that the accused was guilty but there wasn’t sufficient evidence* for a safe conviction?

    I’m sure that there are also bad acquittals, but I’m not sure that those would be significantly more than for other sorts of crime. In fact, you could make a guess that as society’s attitude to rape has moved on quite significantly in the last couple of decades, a jury is likely to be more aggressive than the older, more conservative, legal system.

    * I have experience of this in a major fraud case. Told the CPS there wasn’t enough evidence, had the fraud conspirator sacked (lower standard of proof) and CPS still prosecuted. They, quite rightly, lost their case (for this and another ancillary defendant).

  32. PaulB – “The feminists I know are against assaults on women, they’re against unfair discrimination in the workplace, they’re against lads mags being on display in supermarkets. And they have husbands, boyfriends, sons, brothers, and fathers, none of whom they want locked up.”

    We all know Friday Muslims. It is not hard to point out how they share little in common with suicide bombers. But they do share something. They are on a spectrum. Or more accurately, people pick and mix. They like this bit, they ignore that bit. Feminists have taken the Marxist play book and they occupy the moral high ground – they have re-defined the terms of the debate so that if you’re not a feminist you are almost as bad as Hitler. So everyone claims to be a feminist. And everyone is to some extent.

    Do the weak feminists with husbands want men locked up? They would probably claim not to. But they are on the spectrum, the logical conclusion of which is that all men are dangerous rapists. When talking about other men I am willing to bet they have little sympathy.

    IanB’s point was strongly put, but I don’t think it is insane. You have people who think that all PiV sex is rape. That men are always abusive. And to some extent, pretty much all women are defined by that viewpoint, to a greater or lesser degree. Even if they could honestly put their hand on their heart and say they don’t believe in that specifically, they still don’t believe anything else, they don’t have an ideological alternative. It is what defines their world view.

  33. Isn’t the point that in any grouping where there is a radical element that is relatively small when compared the whole, but that makes the most noise and forms the public face of that particular group, then if the majority do not publicly oppose the minority and say ‘not in our name’ then the moderate majority are landed with being tarred with the same brush as the radical minority? If the majority of women are happy to call themselves ‘feminists’ and do not in any way oppose the radical feminists operating under the same name, then unfortunately the views of the radicals attach themselves to the rest.

    Its not enough for a woman to say ‘I’m a feminist and that means I believe in pure equality between the sexes’ and leave it there, if there are other women saying ‘I’m a feminist and think all men are rapists and should be locked up’. If the former does not denounce the latter then she is effectively agreeing with them.

    One cannot just keep quiet about the views and actions of those sharing an ideology with you if you disagree with them. It would be like someone joining the Nazi party in 1933 because they like Hitlers policy on autobahns, but never mentioning that they were in fact opposed to the treatment of the Jews, and claiming it was nothing to do with them.

  34. Interested, there are Nazis and Nazis.
    Try John Rabe when he was in Nanking.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe

    Claiming that everyone in a group must hate who the group is recommended to hate is a rather large assumption. Hitler may have looked down on certain groups (and not just the Jews) but doesn’t mean millions of others felts exactly the same.

  35. Even if they don’t hate–they usually don’t lift a hand to stop either. Rabe is a rare exception–his compassion came to the fore although he was (nominally at least) part of a group not at all noted for compassion.

  36. Martin, that is why I talk about the movement rather than individuals. We cannot know (in the Nazi example) what every individual Nazi thought. But rightly, nobody does try to do that. They look at the movement, its rhetoric, its goals and its actions and draw their conclusions about the movement from those.

    I did say, “there is no other kind [of Feminist]”. That is in one sense a statement about individuals, but it is basically saying that if you buy into this movement, this is what you are buying into whether or not you acknowledge it to be. And the basic point there is that rather than, as some try to portray, the “radicals” are just one faction in a broad church, I think that any proper analysis shows them to be the consistent core of the movement, and in thus “that is all there is” when discussing what that movement wants.

    Approaches and tactics change and the movement adapts itself to each age. It put on temporary “liberal” clothing in the 1960s for instance. But the basic theory- that women are morally and inherently superior to men, and thus that perceived male dominance must be due to a class conspiracy by men to oppress women, and that thus men- all men- must be brought low by any means possible, is entirely consistent for the whole Feminist period back to the 19th century.

    We can see this for instance in PaulB’s first supposedly mild feminist goal, that of opposing “violence against women”. The actual consistent policy is for only violence against women (and honorary women such as children and, latterly, homosexuals) to be punished. Violence by women, even when guilt is certain, including cold blooded murder, is not to be punished and indeed its perpetrators are applauded on the presumption that men- being the conspiracy members- deserve it. The intense bigotry of this policy is clear and undeniable.

    Let’s do our Nazi-translate again:

    “If a Jew harms a Gentile, however trivially, even in self defence, even merely restraining the Gentile, he must be ruthlessly punished. If a Gentile harms a Jew, even murder, the Gentile should not be punished. Jews deserve all they get”.

  37. Ian B – “We can see this for instance in PaulB’s first supposedly mild feminist goal, that of opposing “violence against women”. The actual consistent policy is for only violence against women (and honorary women such as children and, latterly, homosexuals) to be punished.”

    Actually we can see that even more simply using the same example. The best way to make sure that women are not abused is for them to be married. Married women living with the biological father of their children are vastly more safe than mothers not living with the father(s) of their children. Thus the best, simplest, cheapest, and most obvious anti-violence campaign is to encourage women to get and stay married. No doubt every feminist – every woman – in Britain will be supporting this campaign …..

    [crickets chirping]

    Even when the evidence all says something, if it does not agree with the inherent anti-male pro-lesbian agenda, it is ignored.

  38. Incidentally, not all false rape accusations these days are against men:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/06/26/69073.htm

    (Hat tip to Instapunidt)

    Boy, Julie Bindel must be conflicted about that one.

    Also, the evidence of marriage being good for women (as well as being good for daughters in terms of physical, sexual and emotional abuse):

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/10/the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married/

    “only 0.7 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused, compared to 12.1 per 1,000 children living with a single parent who had an unmarried partner.” …. A 2005 study published in Pediatrics found that “[c]hildren residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with 2 biological parents.”

    So single motherhood is only 17 times more likely to result in children being sexually abused? Can’t wait for the government to come out against divorce.

    Feminism: f**king over women and children since 1973

  39. Ah, the old “violence against women” bit. The sex of perpetrator and victim should be immaterial. You shouldn’t hit girls (generally) and you shouldn’t hit boys (generally). There’s no more sure-fire way to get one of these termagants mad than to play the equality angle, since as has been pointed out here, that’s not what they want. They say they want it, though, so it’s a handy ju-jitsu move to take them at their word. I remember a fun evening in a university bar 20-odd years ago disingenuously winding up a painfully earnest radfem who was organising one of those otiose Take Back the Night efforts. A mate and I affected not to understand what the fuss was about. She kept saying that women had the right to walk the streets unmolested and my mate and I said in our best condescending patrician tones* that indeed they did have that right, there were laws against assault etc. against both men and women so what, exactly, were they protesting? Was it the fact that men were the victims of street crime more often than women (which is true) and that was discrimination? Much fun was had by all.

    * think Stephen Fry on QI but less camp

  40. Feminism: f**king over women and children since 1973

    More like 1873. The origin of the anti-marriage ideology goes back to the first Progressive Era and the cohort of unmarried women who orchestrated it. It was they who invented the belief that marriage as an institution is a conspiracy by men to bind women into abuse (at that time, seen as the sexual obligations of the marriage bed).

    The idea that most (or indeed, any) women (a) actually want to pair bond and (b) that this may have specific benefits to them has been incompatible with feminist theory ever since. Hence the feminist assumption that any woman who does seek marriage has been brainwashed by the patriarchy, etc.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.