And presumably all feminists will agree:

A British woman who repeatedly claimed of being sexually assaulted and raped by 15 different men – leading one to be wrongly imprisoned – is now facing jail time of her own after she was convicted Thursday of lying about her claims.

Precisely because rape is indeed a serious crime those who falsely claim should be punished severely.

Ms. Valenti will be telling us this, won’t she?

34 thoughts on “Good”

  1. Don’t be daft, she’ll be telling us that its all the fault of some man somewhere, because it always is, isn’t it? No woman is ever responsible for her actions, she has always been manipulated by a man somehow.

    Which is not really a very ’empowering’ message when you think about it.

  2. One of those wrongly accused got what politicians and lawyers like to call ‘seven years’ inside, IIRC. So she can’t reasonably get less than that. Add on the other false allegations and she is looking at a decent stretch.

  3. Change is needed at another level tho’.

    The more harsh the punishment in prospect the more the liar will stick to her bogus tale.

    What is needed is the restoration of innocent until proven guilty so she once again has to prove you did it not you having to prove you didn’t. Which with he said–she said is next to impossible.

    By all means harsh punishment for Bliar who changed the ancient law.

  4. Is this situation covered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, or by liability insurance if the men sue the bitch and she had any relevant policy?

  5. Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe anybody would rape THAT hideous nightmare.

  6. BraveFart: Don’t forget, whatever pittance of compensation he gets, he will have to pay the prison for his room and board. That is a bigger disgrace that that lying bitch getting him put away. Presumably she is either a nutter or had something personal against him – the government banging him up and charging him room and board is ‘policy’. Like the Chinese policy of charging the family of executed prisoners for the cost of the bullet.

  7. I wonder how many allegations it took for Plod to think “hmmm, something not quite right here”. Fourteen?

  8. The ‘Indy’ has it now, though it only went up two hours ago. Nothing in the ‘Guardian’ yet.

    “Detective Sergeant Kevin Lynott, who led the investigation into Beale’s false allegations, said: “Cases such as this are exceptional and very rare but it does show how seriously we take allegations of rape and sexual assault and that we will carry out a thorough investigation in order to get to the truth.”

    That’s some breathtaking chutzpah, isn’t it?

  9. From the girlfriend’s account in ‘The Sun’:

    “…Sam got a letter from police in 2012 warning her that if she did not stop ‘harassing’ Beale and Beale’s mother she would be arrested.

    Sam said: “Looking back I don’t know why the police didn’t even bother to ring me to ask me why I’d sent the texts, they just took Jemma’s word for why I’d done it – just like they took her word about the rapes.”

    “If they had properly investigated it might have meant Cassim would have been freed earlier and no other man would have had to suffer the trauma of being accused by Jemma of attacking her.”

    In fact Sam’s texts and her evidence during Beale’s trial for perjury were to prove crucial – but when police finally turned up on her door in 2014 to ask her about them she feared she was about to get arrested.”

    It’s not just Jemma who ought to be in the dock for this, is it?

  10. The Meissen Bison

    Crikey – plod’s boilerplate statement needed a bit of subtle editing before being trotted out for this occasion.

  11. BiI: it’s like a few days ago I saw something pushing a baby in a pram and couldn’t stop myself thinking: who the hell shagged that?

  12. “Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe anybody would rape THAT hideous nightmare.”

    Is this another PC plod action against whatever on the pretext that all reported crimes of this nature should be investigated regardless, once maybe ? fourteen later and no eyebrows raised, what a sorry state, and I am talking about the Police !

  13. @BIL – Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe anybody would rape THAT hideous nightmare. – i believe the guide dogs were traumatized

  14. Again, he doesn’t get charged room and board. His compensation (and this only ever applies if the govt pay him compo) is reduced by what he would have had to spend for basic room and food if he wasn’t in prison.

  15. BiI:

    “Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe anybody would rape THAT hideous nightmare.”

    To be fair even consensual sex with that should be a crime, or at least worthy of being sectioned.

  16. What sort of compo is someone who spent 7 years inside for a rape he didn’t do going to get?

    It should be in the millions. Obviously it won’t be.

  17. Valenti will claim that the men deserved it because of manspreading or something – in a piece where comments are firmly off.

  18. @ Dongguan John
    Yes, it should, but the Home Office will only pay half a £million – unless you are rich/well-paid enough to be able to afford to fight the lies, in which case the poor guy would have been acquitted in the first place.
    Any offer less than their £560,000 standard should be met with a demand that the civil servant be sacked for gross misconduct.
    The libel suit for tens of £millions will be indefensible but the payment will be sod all.

  19. “His compensation (and this only ever applies if the govt pay him compo) is reduced by what he would have had to spend for basic room and food if he wasn’t in prison.”

    Which is a weasel way of charging for food and lodging, but pretending not to.

  20. I remember reading stories about in the US (not uk to be fair) where some prosecutor has been done for fabricating evidence where some poor fucker has spent 20 years in jail and the prosecutor gets a fine and something like 5 years inside.

    IMO police and lawyers should be held to a higher standard and be looking at life for fabricating evidence that sees innocent people jailed.

    Seems that many of the ‘professionals’ have their salaries protected by the government and their liabilities limited.

  21. Mr John, in this country, as a general rule, being a police officer or an officer of the court would certainly seriously aggravate the sentence for perverting the course of justice.

  22. Bloke in Costa Rica

    A condign punishment for some of the prosecutorial corruption in the US would be a televised garrotting. There can be no adequate restitutive justice for being wrongly locked up, because time cannot be returned to you. As for this disgusting munter, the sum of all the time her victims have spent incarcerated, plus 50%, would be a good start.

    I don’t give a shit if stiff sentences for rape fantasists will lead to genuine victims being scared to come forward. That’s a weaselly means/ends confusion that has no place in jurisprudence.

  23. @ Edward Lud
    Unless the officer is female – in the Ebrahimi case the two women police/PCSOs were just dismissed while the men went to jail.
    A naive crippled refugee is tortured to death after years of vicious attacks, hundreds of which werte reported to the police, – the females who chose to ignore his pleas are dismissed from the force (presumably for gross misconduct) while the males are jailed.

  24. john77, I don’t recall the case you mean, but it sounds like you’re describing negligence and anti-make chauvinism rather than perverting the course of justice.

  25. So how come the evidence the jury were just shown (walking home unharmed) wasn’t considered at the time? How come nobody thought, hmm sexual assault by a stranger, 7% probability, sexual assault by a group of strangers, make that 1%. Sexual assault by a group of strangers multiple times? Zero. Or did they think need to get the rape stats up to please the feminazis ?

  26. @ Edward Lud
    I don’t know – the BBC is very selective in its reporting. Try Googling Ebrahimi and you’ll get *their* version of events. I just don’t see why the men are guilty and jailed while the women are dismissed from the force – because they are guilty – but not jailed.

  27. There’s undoubtedly a profound pro-woman bias in criminal courts. It’s so deeply ingrained that most practitioners scarcely notice it, like wallpaper, unless with a wry comment they observe that wallpaper is still there.

    The bias starts with primal assumptions on a sugar-and-spice theme and likes to think itself informed by the default belief that man are mind- and will-bending gurus whilst women lack moral agency.

    Helena Kennedy wrote a book on the subject about 25 years ago. Getting it all wrong, of course. as if she lived somewhere else. The routine bargains that row women out of prison make me want to puke. It’s that patriarchy, too many male judges with white knight assumptions.

    That said, for whatever definition of criminal you care to choose, most are men. Since I won’t deny them moral agency, the role played by female incentives must be irrelevant …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *