lisieux wrote:

[...]
'The report commissioned by the Home Office, the government department responsible for policing, suggests that the chance of a rapist being convicted in England and Wales is less than 1 percent.'

And what is the chance of a woman who makes a false accusation being
punished in any way? It's say it's exactly zero percent.

Since false rape accusations are in fact legal (and they are not a
crime, the folks in talk rape don't think it *should* be a crime),
she can make as many as she wants in complete safety. Some women
do just this. Not one is in jail.

If justice is one-sided, it does not exist. And I suggest that were
the false rape accusations punished, they rate of accusations would
go down.

Like it or not, admit it or not, this is a part of the problem,
perhaps a very large part of the problem.
http://www.feminist.com/news/news39.html

Rich

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:36:58 GMT, Rich
<payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote:
lisieux wrote:[...] 'The report commissioned by the Home Office, the government department responsible for policing, suggests that the chance of a rapist being convicted in England and Wales is less than 1 percent.'And what is the chance of a woman who makes a false accusation beingpunished in any way? It's say it's exactly zero percent.

Well that's odd seeing as the woman who falsely accused the Hamiltons
of rape has just gone to jail.
Since false rape accusations are in fact legal (and they are not acrime, the folks in talk rape don't think it *should* be a crime),she can make as many as she wants in complete safety. Some womendo just this. Not one is in jail.

Except the one who falsely accused the Hamiltons of rape... did I
mention that before?

You haven't done your homework have you Rich?

Ann
If justice is one-sided, it does not exist. And I suggest that werethe false rape accusations punished, they rate of accusations wouldgo down.Like it or not, admit it or not, this is a part of the problem,perhaps a very large part of the problem. http://www.feminist.com/news/news39.htmlRich

"Rich" <payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote in message
news:3F495A26.7040609@sbcglobal.removeme.net... lisieux wrote: [...] 'The report commissioned by the Home Office, the government department responsible for policing, suggests that the chance of a rapist being convicted in England and Wales is less than 1 percent.' And what is the chance of a woman who makes a false accusation being punished in any way? It's say it's exactly zero percent.
By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent, Daily Telegraph

(Filed: 02/08/2003)



"A woman who falsely accused her lawyer of raping her was jailed for nine
months yesterday.

Jacqueline Barkley, 38, was found guilty of wasting police time and breach
of the peace after claiming that Steven Anderson, 45, had raped her on the
floor of his office."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/02/nrape02.xml

I believe Ann has recently informed you of the jail sentence of the
Hamiltons' false accuser. I think 'zero percent' is starting to look like a
fairly suspect 'estimate', don't you, Richard?
Since false rape accusations are in fact legal (and they are not a crime, the folks in talk rape don't think it *should* be a crime), she can make as many as she wants in complete safety. Some women do just this. Not one is in jail.

Apart from the ones that *are*, of course (as above for example). Who *are*
these people in t.r. who believe FRA should not be a crime? Would you like
me to drag up my previous posts where I've clearly stated the opposite? I
can if you like you know.
If justice is one-sided, it does not exist. And I suggest that were the false rape accusations punished, they rate of accusations would go down. Like it or not, admit it or not, this is a part of the problem, perhaps a very large part of the problem. http://www.feminist.com/news/news39.html Rich

You've excelled yourself this time, Richard. Even for you this post is a
tour-de-force in fantasy, misrepresentation and sheer unadulterated
falsehood ;-).

John James (JJ)

Daran wrote: is that false accusations should be penalty-free if they are *made in good faith*, that is, where the complainant reasonably believes that the accusation is true. This is also a fundamental principle of law.

Your "consensus" is typical feminist rape-hate. There are no false rape
accusations made in "good faith." If they don't have damn good evidence
they have no business accusing anyone. If the accusation is not proved
the accuser deserves the penalty that the accused would have received.

False accusations made intentionally or maliciously are a quite different matter. The consensus view in t.r is that these should be subject to severe penalties.

If the accusation is not proved the accuser deserves the penalty that
the accused would have received.

Rich doesn't distinguish between these two cases. That is his prerogative. However his opponents do. For him to portray *their* views without making this distinction clear is to obfuscate to the point of misrepresentation.

Neither does Bob. A false accusation is every accusation that has
insufficient evidence to prove guilt. The accused ought never be
charged or tried without damn good evidence. If the accusation is not
proved the accuser deserves the penalty that the accused would have
received.
Even if we were to allow the cases to be conflated in this way, Rich's representation is still false. The folk in t.r think it should *sometimes* be a crime.

If the accusation is not proved the accuser deserves the penalty that
the accused would have received.

Bob

Could you guys please take alt.true-crime off your ng list, since none of
the replies to these threads are coming from here anyway? Thank you,

sg



"John James" <not@all.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f49ec46$0$23274$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m... "Rich" <payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote in message news:3F495A26.7040609@sbcglobal.removeme.net... lisieux wrote: [...] 'The report commissioned by the Home Office, the government department responsible for policing, suggests that the chance of a rapist being convicted in England and Wales is less than 1 percent.' And what is the chance of a woman who makes a false accusation being punished in any way? It's say it's exactly zero percent. By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent, Daily Telegraph (Filed: 02/08/2003) "A woman who falsely accused her lawyer of raping her was jailed for nine months yesterday. Jacqueline Barkley, 38, was found guilty of wasting police time and breach of the peace after claiming that Steven Anderson, 45, had raped her on the floor of his office."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/02/nrape02.xml I believe Ann has recently informed you of the jail sentence of the Hamiltons' false accuser. I think 'zero percent' is starting to look like
a fairly suspect 'estimate', don't you, Richard? Since false rape accusations are in fact legal (and they are not a crime, the folks in talk rape don't think it *should* be a crime), she can make as many as she wants in complete safety. Some women do just this. Not one is in jail. Apart from the ones that *are*, of course (as above for example). Who
*are* these people in t.r. who believe FRA should not be a crime? Would you like me to drag up my previous posts where I've clearly stated the opposite? I can if you like you know. If justice is one-sided, it does not exist. And I suggest that were the false rape accusations punished, they rate of accusations would go down. Like it or not, admit it or not, this is a part of the problem, perhaps a very large part of the problem. http://www.feminist.com/news/news39.html Rich You've excelled yourself this time, Richard. Even for you this post is a tour-de-force in fantasy, misrepresentation and sheer unadulterated falsehood ;-). John James (JJ)

Daran wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:36:58 GMT in talk.rape Rich <payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote in message <3F495A26.7040609@sbcglobal.removeme.net>...And what is the chance of a woman who makes a false accusation beingpunished in any way? It's say it's exactly zero percent. Tell that to Milroy-Sloan.

OK, due to some very recent changes (not yet a trend) I'll change
that to "perilously close to zero". Happy?
Since false rape accusations are in fact legal (and they are not a crime,the folks in talk rape don't think it *should* be a crime), she can makeas many as she wants in complete safety. Some women do just this. Not oneis in jail. This is a quite typical example of how Rich routinely misrepresents those he disagrees with.

Name whomever you claim I misrepresented.
Interested readers (if there are any) unfamiliar with him should pay close attention to his mod op.

That should pay close attention to your agendas as well.
The consensus view in t.r (in my opinion, of course. Anyone who disagrees that this is the consensus, or that this is their view, is free to speak up) is that false accusations should be penalty-free if they are *made in good faith*, that is, where the complainant reasonably believes that the accusation is true. This is also a fundamental principle of law.

So if you accidentally run over and kill your neighbors children, the
laws says "no worries" and sets you free in the UK? I think that the
difference between murder and manslaughter is lost on you.

The law, oddly enough disagrees with you. They *will* try you for
negligent manslaughter, and jail you for some number of years.
False accusations made intentionally or maliciously are a quite different matter.

Not to the accused Daran. The damages are identical, as are loss of
liberty and costs of defense.
The consensus view in t.r is that these should be subject to severe penalties.

The consensus view is that only proven malicious FRAs should be
punished, and all she need do is say it was an accident as it's
near impossible to prove what you demand. You'll give any woman
a get-out-of-jail-free card, she need only claim it was a mistake.

And even then if she recants (rarer than hen's teeth recantations
are, but Avedon would rather give her 10 years to recant than reason
to not make the FRA to begin with) you'd give her no meaningful
sentence at all.
Rich doesn't distinguish between these two cases.

Rather you don't see that to the accused there is no difference.
That is his prerogative.

As is your willful blindness.
However his opponents do.

Use specious reasons to excuse abhorrent actions by women, yes you
do.
For him to portray *their* views without making this distinction clear is to obfuscate to the point of misrepresentation.

You misrepresent your own views, the circumstances under which you'd
punish a woman are simply impossible to prove, mush more difficult
than rape.
Even if we were to allow the cases to be conflated in this way, Rich's representation is still false. The folk in t.r think it should *sometimes* be a crime.

Under impossible to prove conditions. Tell me why it is not necessary
to prove intent in a rape trial Daran. I'll tell you, cause it does
not matter at all, except for sentencing. The same is true for FRAs.
Rich has been misrepresenting us in this way (using more or less the same form of words) for years, and we've been rebutting it for years.

You've been defending FRAs for years you mean, your favorite excuse
is "mistaken identity". You still style her as "innocent".
He knows what our position is.

Yes, I do.
His decision to misrepresent us is quite intentional.

Since I am not representing you, how can I misrepresent you?

And I am accurately describing your stance.
In short, Rich is here making an intentional false accusation of his own.

Who do you claim I'm accusing of what Daran?

Rich

Rich Followups set. Reject them, or add a group you read to taste.

"Rich" <payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote in message
news:3F4ABD1C.8090100@sbcglobal.removeme.net... Daran wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:36:58 GMT in talk.rape Rich <payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote in message <3F495A26.7040609@sbcglobal.removeme.net>...And what is the chance of a woman who makes a false accusation beingpunished in any way? It's say it's exactly zero percent. Tell that to Milroy-Sloan. OK, due to some very recent changes (not yet a trend) I'll change that to "perilously close to zero". Happy?

No. How many cases do you want me to find before you accept it as reality?
Since false rape accusations are in fact legal (and they are not a
crime,the folks in talk rape don't think it *should* be a crime), she can makeas many as she wants in complete safety. Some women do just this. Not
oneis in jail. This is a quite typical example of how Rich routinely misrepresents
those he disagrees with. Name whomever you claim I misrepresented.

Well me, for starters - as I've posted in my previous reply.

[...]

John James (JJ)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lying ball-less Andre Lieven wrote:
"OK. The states on the British Isles are *all under one government*.
IE- The United Kingdom."

JJ wrote: http://www.know-britain.com/general/great_britain.html

The lying ball-less Andre Lieven wrote: <deafening silence...>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:36:58 GMT, Rich <payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote:lisieux wrote:[...]'The report commissioned by the Home Office, the government departmentresponsible for policing, suggests that the chance of a rapist beingconvicted in England and Wales is less than 1 percent.'And what is the chance of a woman who makes a false accusation beingpunished in any way? It's say it's exactly zero percent. Well that's odd seeing as the woman who falsely accused the Hamiltons of rape has just gone to jail.

It's odd indeed, especially in the UK.

Let's not project a trend from an exception, shall we?

Note, the new rape laws are for a reason, to increase rape
convictions, the goal does not seem to be to punish those
who harm others, not at all.
Since false rape accusations are in fact legal (and they are not acrime, the folks in talk rape don't think it *should* be a crime),she can make as many as she wants in complete safety. Some womendo just this. Not one is in jail. Except the one who falsely accused the Hamiltons of rape... did I mention that before?

That's pretty much all you got Ann, and you don't seem to
realize this.
You haven't done your homework have you Rich?

Rather, you make far to much about an isolated incident.

Things like this have happened around here in the past BTW.
Oddly, after that, they never happen again. I'd imagine that
the judges involved get talked to about it.

But you'll have to do much better than this. And you can't.

Rich
AnnIf justice is one-sided, it does not exist. And I suggest that werethe false rape accusations punished, they rate of accusations wouldgo down.Like it or not, admit it or not, this is a part of the problem,perhaps a very large part of the problem.http://www.feminist.com/news/news39.htmlRich

John James wrote: "Rich" <payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote in message news:3F495A26.7040609@sbcglobal.removeme.net...lis ieux wrote:[...]'The report commissioned by the Home Office, the government departmentresponsible for policing, suggests that the chance of a rapist beingconvicted in England and Wales is less than 1 percent.'And what is the chance of a woman who makes a false accusation beingpunished in any way? It's say it's exactly zero percent.

OK, make that "perilously near zero".

Or is one case all you got? Add the other case under discussion in,
nothing is changed, you don't even have a trend. What you have is
two anomalous data points, nothing more. No matter how you stack
em, you cannot even make a molehill, much less a mountain.

Rich
By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent, Daily Telegraph (Filed: 02/08/2003) "A woman who falsely accused her lawyer of raping her was jailed for nine months yesterday. Jacqueline Barkley, 38, was found guilty of wasting police time and breach of the peace after claiming that Steven Anderson, 45, had raped her on the floor of his office." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/02/nrape02.xml I believe Ann has recently informed you of the jail sentence of the Hamiltons' false accuser. I think 'zero percent' is starting to look like a fairly suspect 'estimate', don't you, Richard?Since false rape accusations are in fact legal (and they are not acrime, the folks in talk rape don't think it *should* be a crime),she can make as many as she wants in complete safety. Some womendo just this. Not one is in jail. Apart from the ones that *are*, of course (as above for example). Who *are* these people in t.r. who believe FRA should not be a crime? Would you like me to drag up my previous posts where I've clearly stated the opposite? I can if you like you know.If justice is one-sided, it does not exist. And I suggest that werethe false rape accusations punished, they rate of accusations wouldgo down.Like it or not, admit it or not, this is a part of the problem,perhaps a very large part of the problem.http://www.feminist.com/news/news39.htmlRich You've excelled yourself this time, Richard. Even for you this post is a tour-de-force in fantasy, misrepresentation and sheer unadulterated falsehood ;-). John James (JJ)

John James wrote: "Rich" <payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote in message news:3F4ABD1C.8090100@sbcglobal.removeme.net...Dar an wrote:On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:36:58 GMT in talk.rape Rich<payner802@sbcglobal.removeme.net> wrote in message<3F495A26.7040609@sbcglobal.removeme.net>...>And what is the chance of a woman who makes a false accusation being>punished in any way? It's say it's exactly zero percent.Tell that to Milroy-Sloan.OK, due to some very recent changes (not yet a trend) I'll changethat to "perilously close to zero". Happy? No. How many cases do you want me to find before you accept it as reality?

You mean as other than as an exception, anomalous data? When there is
enough of it that it is no longer anomalous. Or do you believe that
all other rape accusations are true? Or that the rest fall in your
catch-all excuse, mistaken identity, for which you'll excuse her
if the rape accusation results in the man's death and hold her
innocent of any wrong-doing
>Since false rape accusations are in fact legal (and they are not a crime,>the folks in talk rape don't think it *should* be a crime), she can make>as many as she wants in complete safety. Some women do just this. Not>one is in jail.This is a quite typical example of how Rich routinely misrepresents those he disagrees with.Name whomever you claim I misrepresented. Well me, for starters - as I've posted in my previous reply.

I responded to Daran, but I don't have time to respond to everything.

I may have responded to you already.

Rich
[...] John James (JJ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The lying ball-less Andre Lieven wrote: "OK. The states on the British Isles are *all under one government*. IE- The United Kingdom." JJ wrote: http://www.know-britain.com/general/great_britain.html The lying ball-less Andre Lieven wrote: <deafening silence...> --------------------------------------------------------------------------