Skip to content

Police barred from requesting rape victims’ medical and school records
Officers no longer permitted to obtain details unless ‘absolutely necessary’ under new rules to reverse falling conviction rates

So, this is not just an implication it’s a flat out statement. We wish to block off access to information that might prove innocence. So that we casn lock up more people who are not guilty.

Fuckers.

11 thoughts on “Grr”

  1. Have you seen that the Scotnaz government plans to abolish jury trials for rape and that the Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen lawyers have promised a boycott of such cases?

    Personally I recommend that all Scots lawyers boycott the SNP itself, just as all Scottish auditing firms seem to have done.

  2. Obviously it’s essential that men be provided with safe spaces that no woman can enter, to protect them from these accusations. The problem is, how many men would stay in them?

  3. “Police barred from requesting rape victims’ medical and school records”

    Well, if they are rape victims, the police wouldn’t need access to any records. It would only be needed if they were alleged rape victims.

  4. dearime, I’m surprised at that. I didn’t think lawyers would have the spine. My father hated juries with a passion, and he hadn’t even done any court work since the ’50s. Good luck to ’em.

  5. And then they wonder why a large percentage of men don’t want anything to do with women…

    Too high a risk. might as well stay home and play call of duty.
    Of course the subsequent plummeting of the birth rate will be hilarious to watch.

  6. The point of this sort of thing is to find:-

    “any material that might undermine the Crown’s case or may support the defence case”

    It doesn’t stop the defence going out and doing likewise. It’s much better to find it out, find you have some utter liar who told her counsellor that she was thinking of fitting up some bloke, than to have the defence pull it out in court.

    It’s my MP, Robert Buckland who seems very supportive of all of this, with fucking drivel like this:-

    “‘We need to move away from the fixation with the credibility or believing of the victim and be much more about the perpetrator. If someone’s house is burgled they do not expect to have a long trawl into their personal history and if they had a window unlocked or whether they had been drinking: it is about trying to find out who did it and who is responsible for the crime. It is that sort of approach that is needed in rape and serious sexual offending’”

    I mean, is it me? He’s a barrister and knighted, and he can’t figure out that burglary vs buying someone’s telly are generally pretty clear cut. How many people break a window and set off a burglar alarm when buying a telly? A woman attacked in the street by a stranger is pretty clear. But a woman goes home with a man she was drinking with? It’s one word against another.

    I personally think most of these cases just shouldn’t go to court. Our legal system is about proving beyond reasonable doubt and date rape just can’t be. It’s one word vs another.

  7. The Telegraph made up the claim about the new rules being to reverse falling conviction rates. The press release the story is based on is about treating victims fairly and with dignity.

  8. Strange, because the Guardian piece by La Sturgeon expressly mentions increasing conviction rates.

  9. Not really strange that there should be different reasons for quite different changes in two different judicial systems.

Leave a Reply

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