Tweet
Edit by Webmaster:
This post had attracted a couple of replies before the censors hand could fall. Thus, as the debate was starting, it was decided to leave it up.
Please note before reading this that this post contains some very upsetting dialog, and this post could cause emotonal distress, especially to anyone who has been raped. Thus, please be cautious about reading it, especially if you are in an emotionally sensitive state.
The Home Office Caught Stirring Up Hatred - Again!
(You do not need to access the links in this section to understand the piece that follows in the next section.)
UK Nearly one in 20 women in England and Wales - an estimated 754,000 victims - have been raped since they were 16, according to Home Office research.
UK The Home Office revealed yesterday that 167 women are raped in England and Wales every day and that one in 20 of the adult female population is a rape victim.
The two official Home Office reports can be found in *.pdf files as follows. The first document is the main Report that describes the research fully, and presents the technical details. The second Report outlines the findings and discusses them.
Home Office Research Study 237 - Rape and sexual assault of women: the extent and nature of the problem, Findings from the British Crime Survey (22.7.02)
Findings 159 - Rape and sexual assault of women: findings from the British Crime Survey (22.7.02)
Brits should definitely study the second Report. It only takes about 15 minutes to read. However, even without reading this, the piece that follows below should still make sense. And it is based mostly on the second Report.
Non-Brits can also gain an insight into the unwholesome antics of the abuse industry by reading the article that follows and noting how inadequate and whimsical so often is the nature of social science 'research', particularly when overseen by government departments in the stranglehold of man-hating feminist 'academics'.
27/07/02
One can almost hear the excitement in the various wimmin's groups around the country as they consider the various ways in which they can replay the Home Office findings to the general public - spurious and invalid though they be.
Six women are raped every hour in Great Britain today! Dial this hotline! NOW!
1000 women every week are brutalised and raped by British men! Dial this hotline! NOW!
Women's groups from all over the world will be quoting the Home Office figures for some years to come.
But, of course, these figures are a load of hokum! And they are based on a Home Office Report that is designed to inflame more male hatred and more gender divisiveness throughout the entire country.
Well, according to this Report, some 5% of UK women have been raped at some time in their lives.
The Home Office researchers arrived at this figure mostly on the basis of a pathetically inadequate questionnaire which asked such questions as, "Have you been forced to have sex with anyone?" And, on the basis of the answers, it drew its hopelessly invalid conclusions.
For example, it concluded that 0.4% of women had been raped in the 12 months prior to the research, and that 0.5% had been sexually assaulted (without penile penetration) during the same period.
(These are very small percentages. Indeed, they each represent some 30 women out of the 6,944 women who took part in the year 2000 survey.)
Well, apart from the fact that some of these 60 women will have been genuine victims, let us look at other reasons why some of them might have FALSELY affirmed in a questionnaire that they had been 'forced' to have sex during the period in question.
1. Some 5% of women have Borderline Personality Disorder or something close to it. Features of this include the habitual making of false accusations, the constant creation of mountains out of molehills, and the re-writing of the past, mostly in order to wreak vengeance upon those who happened to be close to them at the time - usually men. For those with BDP, seeing oneself as a victim of someone else's actions is almost a permanent state of being.
Now, if just ONE-TENTH of these women answered the questionnaire in a manner that suggested that they had engaged in intercourse at least once during the 12 month period because they were 'forced' to do so, then this would account for the WHOLE of the rape figure!
And if just ONE-TENTH of these women reckoned that at least once during the same period they had ever been 'forced' to engage in non-penetrative sex then this would account for the WHOLE of the sex-assault figure.
Given that such women are constantly making false accusations against people, the chances are that the vast majority of all those identified as innocent victims of sexual assault by the Home Office were nothing of the sort.
2. If you go virtually to any nightclub or student party these days you will likely discover therein women who regularly indulge in all sorts of sexual activities, even with complete strangers - and many of these women are also taking alcohol and drugs. And so, for example, to be thrust against the wall by a drunken male and to be groped hither and thither in such venues is no great deal for many women. And the fact that they may also oftentimes be man-handled by 'force' is all part and parcel of what they happily 'endure' on a weekly basis. Nevertheless, many such women would probably answer the Home Office's questionnaire about having been 'forced' to engage in sex in the affirmative - even if such an incident had only occurred once during the 12 month period in question.
3. Many women just love to see themselves as victims of abuse. It is a badge of honour for them to claim or feel that they have been raped or assaulted - and survived! They can join an ever-growing mutual-adoration club which requires no evidence for membership.
And it could also provide them with a job, somewhere within the ever-growing abuse industry.
4. One only has to look at the TV programmes that women love to watch, the books that they like to read, the things that they love to talk about, and the most popular themes of their sexual fantasies to know just what many of them are hankering for. If just a small percentage of these women re-interpreted any sexual activity from the preceding 12 months as having been 'forced' upon them in any way - perhaps as a result of being influenced by an episode of Eastenders! - then the low-percentage assault figures from the Home Office would have been significantly inflated.
For example, American psychologist Dr Nancy Faulkner has this to say about some of the women receiving therapy at her clinic.
"I have seen women in therapy who could no longer content themselves with a non-combative relationship. They complained that it is "boring" and that the sexual relationship is not exciting. These women have become so accustomed to the roller-coaster emotional highs and lows that they appear to thrive on the thrill-ride, while at the same time hating the assaults."
Putting all this simply: A large number of women just love the idea of being sexually 'abused'.
5. There are sufficient numbers of 'feminist' women, many of whom are highly politicised and/or who work in the abuse industry, who gain much advantage from doing their best to inflate the sex-assault figures - for example, as part of their 'contribution to the feminist movement'. And, once again, if just a small percentage of these decided to answer the Home Office questionnaire in a manner that would indicate falsely some criminal abuse, then the figures for sex-assault would have been inflated significantly.
And in an area that is highly politicised, and also highly emotionalised, as is the area to do with sex-assault, the assumption that the respondents are ALL replying honestly and without prejudice to any questionnaire is extremely questionable to say the least.
6. Men have been portrayed as the devil himself for the past 20 years. During this time there can hardly have been a day that has gone by wherein most women and children have not been presented with highly-emotional portrayals of men being abusive in some way.
Would the Home Office accept the validity of a questionnaire about the behaviours of Jews or gypsies that had been handed out solely to a sample of Germans in the 1930s?
No, probably not.
And yet, after 20 years of blanket feminist-inspired propaganda demonising men emanating from both government and the media - with a daily coverage and an intensity that Hitler himself could never have even dreamed of - the Home Office presents what it considers to be a valid Report about the true behaviours of men based on the testimony only of women!
7. Women often have strong direct vested interests in making false allegations about their partners. False allegations can serve them well in relationship break-ups, child custody disputes, divorce proceedings and in soothing their consciences concerning why they themselves might have behaved badly in the past. The government has also provided women with many incentives to make false allegations. Once made (even if only 'silently' to themselves) false allegations are more than likely to be entered on to questionnaires as if they were true, even if only for the reason that not to do so would create what psychologists call 'cognitive dissonance'.
Putting this another way: If women were offered a straightforward ?1,000,000 in compensation for being abused by their partners, not only would the number of false allegations soar (for obvious reasons) but the findings even from anonymous questionnaires would reflect this increase, even though, ostensibly, there would be no direct incentives for this to occur.
Or, if you like, liars often end up truly believing what they actually once knew to be the product exclusively of their very own lies!
8. The evidence arising in the area of domestic violence (which is, after all, simply another 'aggressive' form of 'relationship' conflict) shows very clearly that the majority of women who contact the authorities - i.e. the police - are not the weak and wilting types in need of some protection. On the contrary, they are, for the most part, the aggressive, manipulative and vengeful types who are seeking some form of revenge - or some extra leverage - against their partners - e.g. see Domestic Violence - Would You Sign This Contract?)
There is no reason to believe that matters are any different when it comes to claims of rape or sex-assault.
9. And, of course, we know that some 50% of women admit to telling lies on a daily basis - which is one reason that public 'surveys' are so often worthless.
The Scruples and Lies survey was based on interviews with 5,000 women. It found that 94% confessed to telling fibs, with 48% lying on a daily basis. (BBC News)
Furthermore, the evidence that women are far more likely to lie about their sexual experiences than are men, is increasing all the time - e.g. see Women Fake Sex Numbers
And so, all in all, when it comes to women filling in the Home Office's questionnaire, the very notion that a true picture can be gleaned from the data about the true incidence of assault and rape is just ridiculous. The overwhelming probability is that the conclusions and the numbers will be wildly exaggerated and will dramatically over-estimate the number of true rapes and true assaults.
And remember: Out of 7,000 women, only 60 reported having being assaulted in some way during the preceding 12 months.
In fact, it is interesting to note that about 35% of the alleged victims in this study did not see themselves as victims of any crime!
On the basis of some simple, and somewhat minimal, questionnaire, however, the Home Office thinks that it knows better than the two people involved in these incidents!
It counted them all as crimes!
Well, let's get one thing straight.
If HE doesn't think that what happened was a crime of rape, and SHE thinks the same, then the Home Office has no legitimate business in classifying whatever happened as a rape!
Of course, it is possible that some women do not actually recognise that a crime against them has happened, when it has, but in matters of sexual assault, the UK is not a country that has buried such matters under the carpet and hidden the ins and outs of sexual assault from public scrutiny. The UK has been positively deluged for some twenty years with propaganda designed to make women see themselves as victims in just about every area where they operate - employment, education, pay, domestic violence and so on - and especially in areas to do with abuse.
And so the notion that tens of thousands of women are just too naive to recognise when they have been criminally assaulted has no legitimate basis whatsoever.
Indeed, the very opposite is far more likely to be true. It is far more likely that UK women will see actions as being criminal or abusive when they are not, because women are constantly being targeted and urged to see matters in such a way.
And, in fact, this is exactly what just about all the evidence shows. For example, when women today make allegations of rape, 95% of the time they fail to convince people of their case!
Oh yes, the Home Office can define whatever happened 'operationally' as a rape, presumably, on the basis of some stupefyingly simplistic predetermined notions (e.g. a YES to questions 1, 4, 9 and 13) and by using 'legal' terms it can also define that whatever happened was a rape, but neither of these could ever be counted upon to reflect the reality of what such a 'rape' might actually be.
And this would seem somewhat crucial when dealing with matters of serious crime - particularly when the government looks set to CORRUPT the justice system still further on the basis of what these supposedly enormous number of rapes actually are.
If my partner takes without express permission ?10 from my wallet, is this theft?
This is seemingly a very simple question, isn't it?
Well, morally speaking, presumably, it all depends upon my attitude toward it - and upon her attitude toward it - and upon what she thought that my attitude would be - and upon what I thought that my attitude would be should I discover such a thing - and upon what she thought that my attitude would be should I discover such a thing - and how in the past I conveyed my attitude toward such a thing - and if I did so successfully - and so on, backwards in time and space through the trillions of interactions that made us believe whatever we believed about such a thing prior to the discovery of the event itself.
The complexities of such real life between two people, however, were not assessed by the Home Office's questionnaire, nor even discussed properly in its Report.
The Home Office seems to think that matters of rape and assault can be analysed by simple questions.
Did someone take ?10 out of your wallet without your knowledge in the past 12 months? Yes, my wife. Then, whether or not you reported this to the police, and whether or not you considered this to be a crime against you, this is completely irrelevant to the Home Office.
It simply counts the event as a crime!
And the woman as a thief!
Such 'non-crimes' are simply added by the Home Office into the pot of evidence in order to support their recommendations of changes to the laws in order to make it more likely that people will both see and report such incidents as crimes and that more men are prosecuted for them.
This, in effect, is what the Home Office Report boils down to. It is part of a concerted attempt to make crimes out of non-crimes and to demonise men.
Indeed, the Home Office could define sexual assault as any sexual activity that takes place without a signed sex-consent document if it wanted to. And, on this basis, the statistics for sex-assault could even include any impulsive kisses planted on your wife's cheek in the morning.
Well, such a position might well protect a few more women from assault, but at what tremendous cost to everyone else? Most people would just find it impossible to have any decent stable relationships that were safe from wild and histrionic accusations in times of stress.
Sex-assaults and rapes are all treated as if they are incredibly simplistic phenomena when it comes to filling in questionnaires - but real life is infinitely more complex.
And so when the Home Office uses the responses to simple questionnaires to define rape in a way which is not even consistent with the way in which some 30% of those of whom it alleges are victims of it would actually define it, one has to be very careful indeed.
At the very least, it shows that the Home Office's questionnaire wasn't a very good one!
The Report based on the survey's findings also provides some further considerable evidence to suggest that the Home Office wishes to generate more hysteria concerning sex-assault in order, presumably, to prosecute even more men than it is already doing.
And the evidence that damns the Home Office just keeps growing (e.g. see the piece entitled Does The Home Office Willfully Stir Up Domestic Violence?)
There is something highly treacherous about a government body that seems always to seek the demonisation of its own people - the very people whom it is supposed to serve and to protect. And the Home Office is turning more and more into a destructive parasite that spreads disease throughout society rather than a body that serves and looks after its people.
The Home Office actually wants women to see themselves as victims of rape. It wants to demonise the white heterosexual male population. This is why, for example, its headline rape figures include those situations where neither partner thought that any rape had occurred, and why, for example again, there is no consideration in the report concerning the fact that a very high percentage of women who report rape are known to lie and exaggerate about such things.
And here, I should add that the 'headline' rape figures are also nothing more than a downright deception by the Home Office designed to stir up hatred towards men.
They are not 'rape' figures at all.
They are the number of allegations that have been made.
And these are more than 10 times greater than the number of convictions for rape.
In the report there is also made the completely unwarranted assumption that the associated research and methodology are tainted only with the possibility that many women who have been raped will, for some reason or other, have failed to provide the correct evidence - on the questionnaire - for their particular rapes to have been counted as rapes by the researchers. As such, it is argued that the survey's results will actually underestimate the true extent of rape.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
For example, given that the survey was ostensibly about 'crime', it is argued that many rape victims may not have considered past rapes by their partners to be 'crimes', and so they will not have associated their particular 'rapes' with a 'crime survey'. As such, these women will not have made responses to the questionnaire that would allow the researchers to count them as crimes.
Well, the idea that 'rapes' by partners may not readily be viewed by some women as crimes seems a reasonable one, but, surely, if anything is to be deduced from the fact that women may have excluded their incidents from a crime survey, specifically on the grounds that it was a crime survey, then it is that these women do not think that a crime against them has been committed!
So, why on earth does the Home Office use these particular women (about whose 'assaults', in fact, nothing at all is known, or even heard about) as some kind of justification for claiming that its Report might have underestimated the true incidence of assaults?
You see, the Home Office can have no idea AT ALL how many women actually failed to see their assaults as crimes on the basis of this research; and who therefore failed to mention them in such a 'crime' survey.
NO IDEA AT ALL!
In fact, there could have been thousands of them!
And perhaps if these women had indeed all recognised their assaults as crimes, and also deemed them fit to be entered on a crime survey, then maybe the figures might have shown that a staggering 30% of UK women had been raped and that 90% had been sexually assaulted - well, at least, according to the Home Office's way of defining things!
Let me put this another way.
It is quite possible that a monumental 99% of the women in the survey had been 'raped' according to the way in which the Home Office appeared to be defining it in its 'crime' survey.
And it is quite possible that most of these women simply refused to pander to this definition because it was a 'crime' survey and because they did not seem themselves as being victims of a crime!
To repeat. The Home Office can have no idea AT ALL how many women actually failed to see their assaults as crimes.
Who knows what the figures could have shown?
But there is no real discussion in the Report concerning even this possibility.
For example, on the basis of its questionnaire, the Report estimates that about 61,000 UK women were raped in the year 2,000 alone. However, only some 8,000 actually ended up reporting these incidents.
Well, if anything, this rather suggests that the vast majority of these 61,000 alleged victims didn't actually care very much about their supposed rape incidents.
And, goodness me, this would appear to remain the case despite an uninterrupted twenty-year long feminist onslaught to urge female victims of rape to report their experiences to the police, with hotlines installed nationwide, refuge shelters in place nationwide, and with daily advertising from every media orifice in the land to urge women to come forward, and yet still only some 15% of them do so - according to the Home Office's very own figures!
It seems that the overwhelming majority of women who are supposedly 'raped' or sexually assaulted (as defined by the Home Office) just will not report their incidents as crimes.
Why not?
Well, Perhaps it's because they don't see these incidents as crimes!
And the very serious question then arises as to what is so special, and unusual, about the relatively few women who do report their incidents to the police!?
Perhaps this is what the Home Office should be looking at!
After all, most of the evidence that I have seen suggests to me that the vast majority of assault and rape accusations are false - e.g. see Rape Baloney
Let me explain what I think is going on using some simple numbers.
Imagine that, throughout the year ...
... 1000 real rapes have occurred.
... 200 of these are reported to the police
... 8,000 allegations of rape are made to the police
Well, if these figures were true, then two things would follow from them.
Firstly, the vast majority of real rapes go unreported to the police - in fact, only 200 out of the 1000 real rapes are reported.
Secondly, despite the large under-reporting of real rapes, the vast majority of rape allegations made to the police are actually false! - in fact, 7800 of the 8000 reports are false.
There is a positive sea of false allegations.
And, indeed, this is what the real evidence shows!
I have already given you a great deal of the evidence that bears upon this in the NINE points numbered above.
And now, if that wasn't enough, here is some more.
25% of allegations to the police are shown to have no basis at all for any legal action. The police have investigated the matter and decided that no crime has been committed. Rapes that are simply 'unclear' do not form part of this 25%.
(According to the Report "The case can be ‘no-crimed’ if the complainant ‘retracts completely and admits to fabrication’".)
Only 7% of rapes that are investigated beyond the no-crime point result in convictions.
And so, in summary, when the police and the respective juries have done their investigations, some 95% of rape allegations fail to result in convictions, and some 20% are almost certainly false.
Putting this another way: Out of every 125 allegations of rape made to the police, 25 are no-crimed (i.e. they are false) and a further 93 do not result in convictions.
How much more evidence does one need!?
Now, yes, it could certainly be suggested that this poor conviction rate occurs because in these failed cases there was just not enough evidence to secure the convictions, but why go for this argument? It is just as plausible to argue that the allegations in this 95% of cases were, quite simply, false.
Or, more realistically, it is extremely plausible that most of the allegations were false. Indeed, what valid evidence is there to suggest that this is not the case?
There isn't any!
But there is a mountain of evidence arising from very many quarters that keeps suggesting that most rape accusations are, indeed, false.
To cloud the issues even further, 45% of alleged rapes were said in the Report to have occurred in situations where the alleged rapist was actually the partner of the victim. But this large percentage alone suggests very strongly that the research which gave rise to it is highly suspect. After all, how does a simple questionnaire attempt to sort out the complex interactions and ups and downs of people who are intimately involved with each other? - particularly when it seeks the views of only one of the partners.
And how is it that these alleged rapists actually had 'partners'?
Were these relationships going exceedingly well and then, suddenly, one day, the male partners just turned into rapists?
No, of course not. The chances are that the relationships that these women had with their rapist partners were full of ups and downs, with lots of turmoil, and involved much in the way of heavy emotional hurt and aggravation.
Of course, such things do not justify any form of traumatic 'rape', and I am not even remotely suggesting that they do.
My point is that in a whopping 45% of ALL the incidents that are counted as rape in this Report, the researchers have only received 'evidence' from the women's side of the story concerning these evidently turbulent relationships.
And this research is supposed to be valid?
The whole notion is ridiculous.
This 'research' is not even fit to be passed as an undergraduate project.
Imagine asking these women simply about the arguments that they would have had with their 'rapist' partners.
"Was your partner ever verbally abusive, domineering, intransigent, intimidating, hostile, unreasonable?"
Yes?
Then that's 'domestic violence'!
That man counts as an abuser of women!
Do you see?
The Home Office cannot hope to gain decent information over complex issues that arise within relationships - particularly emotionally volatile ones - and particularly so when it insists on taking only evidence from one of the partners.
Perhaps the researchers would have come up with better data if they had simply also asked men whether or not they had actually raped their partners recently!
Why not? I am being absolutely serious. Even if done anonymously, their responses would surely be just as invalid as those of their partners!!?
Anyway, while on the subject of domestic violence (which the Home Office also brings into its Report in order to link it to sexual violence) let me continue to make some analogy with it here - just to give you an added flavour of what is going on in matters of sexual assault, in my view.
It is now known that tens of thousands of women every year pick up their phones and call the police because their partners have just shouted at them.
Now, according to the Home Office funded website run by the Royal Holloway College, 'shouting' may be considered to be an act of domestic violence.
And so it is that many of the women who actually do alert the police because they have just been shouted at may well feel quite justified in taking this course of action. After all, being shouted at is a crime according to the Home Office's website.
My question, however, is what exactly can be said about the population of women who are prepared to pick up their phones and have their partners arrested simply for having shouted at them?
And my own answer to this question is that most of the women in this population are just not 'normal'.
And, as evidence for this proposition, the UK police claim to receive some 1300 domestic violence reports every day, but hardly any of them are ever followed through or prosecuted.
Why?
Well, it is because the vast majority of the calls are, thankfully, found mostly to be nothing more than about the fluff and nonsense of everyday life. (Either that or the British police are doing a really, really terrible job.)
But if the Home Office were to conduct research into such domestic violence, in a manner similar to the sex-assault research currently under discussion, then ALL of these phone calls that result from simply being shouted at, would have been judged to be valid evidence of domestic violence by the researchers.
Those women who picked up their phones simply for being shouted at, would, effectively, have ALL ticked the box marked 'crime'. And the Home Office researchers would have swallowed it.
ALL OF IT!
And from this 'evidence' the Home Office would then have foolishly concluded that ALL these phone calls were valid markers of crimes.
Well, the rape and sex-assault figures from The Home Office suggest that exactly the same thing is occurring in these matters.
Most of the allegations turn out to be false when investigated, but they are regarded as true in the research!
As further evidence for this, whenever one studies closely those cases that are highlighted to the public - often the 'best' of cases chosen by the women's groups themselves - most of them seem to be utterly spurious, with the alleged female victims demonstrating a clear history of self-harm, self-delusion and downright fabrication, and/or one of sexual 'negligence' - where, for example, women reputed for their sexual favours to men happily suck them off in the toilets of their local nightclubs but reckon that it's rape or sexual victimisation when they reckon (or later re-interpret) that the incidents just went too far.
Thus, the overwhelming evidence suggests that most women who report rape and sexual assault are either deluded in some way or are just downright malicious. And the consequence is that those women who are true victims of assault are having their credibility shattered by a flood of demonstrably false allegations.
For example, only some 20% of those who, according to the Report, were assaulted or raped, actually bothered to go to the police.
Well, why didn't the other 80% report their incidents to the police?
The stock answer is that these women felt intimidated by the processes and the procedures that would arise out of reporting the matter to the police.
Or, as the Report itself says ...
"Rape victims may not wish to identify themselves as such since they may perceive that this has associations of stigmatised and degraded status. It may also be difficult for women raped by somebody they know, perhaps even somebody they liked or loved, to label this person a rapist."
"The highly personal and traumatic nature of sexual victimisation means that apart from often not reporting their experiences to the police, victims will also be reluctant to share their experiences with anybody."
Well, this is all certainly possible, and quite likely to be true in very many instances.
However, as indicated earlier, what is far more likely is that the supposed victims of sex assault (as judged by the questionnaire) who failed to go to the police did not actually care very much about the incidents.
And, in many cases, they probably even enjoyed them at the time. (Think nightclubs, and the behaviours of MANY young women today.)
Putting this another way: The supposed effects on the alleged 'victims' of sexual 'assault' - as defined by the Home Office - are probably not nearly as negative as feminists, women's activists and others in the abuse industry would like to have the public believe.
Indeed, one of the main private complaints of police officers who specialise in these areas is that even those women whose 'assaults' have been brought to their attention (perhaps through an eye-witness) do not want to press charges despite being put under considerable pressure to do so.
And so, again, it seems that despite the enormous amount of effort being put in - this time by the police and the Home Office - to encourage victims of sexual assault to contact the authorities over them, the vast majority of them simply refuse to do so.
And even in those cases where the women were genuinely aggrieved and concerned about what had happened to them, many will have had the common sense and the decency to recognise that they, themselves, were partly responsible for whatever took place - with the men most probably also feeling just as aggrieved by the incidents - and many will also feel that their incidents were just too trivial to warrant prison sentences and/or to justify the wholesale aggravation of themselves having to go to court.
But the Report seems concerned only to promote the view that tens of thousands of men annually are simply getting away with rape and assault, and that tens of thousands of women are just too intimidated to report them.
Every if, every but, and every piece of uncertainty is stitched together in such a way as to demonise the maximum number of men.
Anyway. Moving on.
As further evidence of the invalidity of this particular piece of research is the finding that the number of women who claim to have been sexually assaulted without being raped in the preceding year (0.5% of the survey) is just about the same as the number of women who allegedly were raped during this same period (0.4%).
But it is just not credible that the number of actual rapes is so close to the number of sexual assaults without rape. Life is just not like this. More extreme things happen far less frequently than less extreme things in real life. And, further, given that sexual assaults without rape will encompass a very wide range of behaviours, including such trivialities as being forcibly groped in the nightclub by a drunken lout, a piece of research that shows rape to be just as prevalent as other kinds of sexual assault is clearly just not credible!
Further, throwing out the whole notion that defendants should be seen to be innocent until proven guilty, the authors do not even bother to point out that reports of assault to the police are not proof of any crimes.
Here is what the authors say ...
In 1999 the police recorded 7,707 incidents of rape.
Well, NO THEY DID NOT!
They recorded 7,707 allegations of rape.
And this point is not trivial, because it provides further evidence to help describe the mindset of those who wrote the Report. This mindset, contrary to the whole ethos of the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty, simply presumes that every allegation of rape is the true recording of an actual rape.
And it is alarming, to say the least, to discover that a Report of such considerable national and international importance should contain sweeping statements that are decidedly FALSE.
Is it the case, therefore, that the authors of the Report were simply too clumsy and too incompetent to recognise the difference between an allegation and an actual event?
Somehow, I doubt it. The bulk of the Report just bears too many hallmarks of manipulation and anti-male prejudice to avoid the conclusion that this was just part of a purposeful attempt to inflate the rape figures in the public's mind.
Here is another example of this.
As Table E.1 shows, although the number of recorded rapes has increased more than four-fold since 1985, the proportion of recorded rapes resulting in a defendant being convicted is lower than it has ever been.
Notice the phrase, 'recorded rapes'.
Well, they are not recorded rapes. They are recorded allegations of rape.
Imagine, for the moment, that you were a pathologist peering down a microscope at a piece of tissue, and you wanted to determine how many cells were cancerous.
125 cells are brought to your attention as possibly being cancerous.
The first 25 cells you reject straight away, because they are very clearly not cancer cells. They are 'no-crimed'! The remaining 100 cells you investigate very closely with all your colleagues, as best as you can, but you can determine that only about 7 of them are cancerous.
Would you then write a Report claiming that you had, in fact, discovered 100 (or 125!
cancer cells?
Well, if you did, then you would be being highly manipulative and thoroughly dishonest.
But this, in effect, is what the Home Office researchers are doing with the assault data. They are being manipulative and dishonest.
Let me put all this another way because it is very important to get this across.
Despite the two-decade long, nationwide, wholesale encouragement of women 'to come forward', some 30% of the survey's respondents did not see their 'rapes' as crimes - as judged by the questionnaire - but the Home Office, nevertheless, counts them as crimes.
Some 80% of women (about 53,000, apparently) did not report their 'rapes' as crimes by going to the police - but the Home Office also counts these as crimes.
And when the Report refers to the 7,707 women who did make a report to the police in 1999, it refers to these as incidents of rape, even though only some 7% of them gave rise to convictions.
And so this highly-influential Report turns out to be far more of a conjuring trick than a serious investigation into the world of sex-assault.
Also, so simplistic and crude was this particular piece of research into complex behaviours that it could well be the case that the numbers of rapes and sexual assaults (as defined by the Home Office) are well in excess of even their very own figures!
Yes, in excess!
Perhaps, for example, it is simply not the case that just 5% of all UK women have been sexually assaulted without penile penetration during their lives. The true figure may be nearer 90%!!!
For example, here is one of the questions ...
Since age 16, has someone, either a stranger or someone you know, ever attempted to force you to have sexual intercourse or make you do sexual things against your will?
Well, most young men seem to spend most of their free time trying to 'force' women to do sexual things against their will. And this is no doubt a ritual that has gone on for many thousands of years, in one way or another.
But the Home Office seems completely unaware of this.
Did it not surprise the Home Office researchers to discover that only 5% of UK women have ever been 'forced' to do non-penetrative 'sexual things' against their will?
Well, it surprised me!
Indeed, in my view, there is only one worthwhile lesson to be learned from this Report, and this is that it is a piece of malicious propaganda.
It is designed to inflame hatred toward men, to give government employees further excuses to poke their noses into people's private lives, to make women feel that they are being abused when they are not, to create further divisions between men and women in general, to provide a weapon for feminists the world over with which to continue with their destructive agenda, and to justify even more funding to the abuse industry.
And, further, just as in the case of the recent Sentence Advisory Panel's advice to the Court of Appeal concerning the difference between Stranger Rape and Relationship Rape (there is no difference between the two, apparently) this Home Office Report simply ignores completely the realities of the lives that are actually lived by the vast majority of its citizens.
Well, whatever the true figures are, and whatever, in fact, they may truly imply, the Home Office has put only one spin on its findings.
A completely misandric one - through and through.
And this is what damns it so. This is what exposes the true aims of the Home Office.
What is so sickening about this Report is not so much the figures themselves - which are worthless - but the blatant attempt to maximise the amount of male-hatred that can be squeezed out of them.
There is no attempt whatsoever to look at the numerous important real life factors that may colour what they mean - many of which I have mentioned above.
It is demonstrably a one-sided prejudicial piece of propaganda that seeks throughout to propagate the view that there are, annually, tens of thousands of UK women who are being badly victimised despite the fact that the weight of evidence currently clearly suggests, firstly, that the vast majority of women who are 'sexually victimised' - 'sexually victimised' according to the Home Office, that is - do not consider that their incidents are even worth reporting, and, secondly, that of those women who do report such incidents, the vast majority of them, on close inspection, appear to be false.
This is what the Home Office data really show.
Finally, one of the main reasons that feminists and women's groups have successfully bamboozled the public for so long, when it comes to allegations of domestic violence and sex-assault, is that when most people think about 'women', they mostly recognise that 'women', on the whole, are a pleasant bunch.
What they do not recognise is that there are many women who are virtually impossible to deal with and to cope with, who can almost literally drive intimates insane, and who are emotionally quite unstable and/or hypersensitive, and prone to manipulation and deceit.
If only 5% of women have such problems (which is, in fact, the case, and which equates to 1,000,000 UK women) then these women are highly likely to account for MOST of the allegations concerning domestic violence and sex-assault.
Now, whether or not this is, in fact, true - and I believe that it is - one might have expected the Home Office researchers at least to have discussed this highly likely possibility given the enormous consequences and costs that are likely to arise from its Report.
But this has not been done because too many Home Office staff are completely dominated, deluded and controlled by pernicious feminist propaganda and ideology, and the academics who wrote the Report are simply not up to the job - in my view.
Fortunately, however, this situation is currently being exposed.
The truth of the matter is this.
Neither the Home Office nor the police have the foggiest notion how many real rapes occur every year in the UK. There might be 1000. There might be 1,000,000.
It all depends on the definition of rape.
But the overwhelming evidence shows very clearly that the vast majority of rape allegations that are actually made to the police are very decidedly FALSE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24/07/03
UK Police recorded a 27 per cent increase in rapes - with the number exceeding 10,000 for the first time, a trend the Home Office said could be a result of encouraging women to come forward to complain. Daily Telegraph
And this was in the Times ...
RAPES of women rose by more than a quarter to more than 10,000 annually for the first time in the history of police-recorded crime, according to figures published today.
However, the 10,000 figure does not represent rapes at all.
This figure is for allegations of rape made to the police.
Readers should ask themselves why the Home Office is purposely disseminating downright lies to the media and to the public with regard to these rape figures (and, indeed, with regard to many other issues relating to 'relationship' assaults).
During the past decade, the Home Office and western governments have pandered to feminist falsehoods and feminist ideology in order to create disharmony among those in close relationships. This is what the overwhelming evidence shows.
Furthermore, apart from disseminating downright lies, these authorities have purposely fudged the definitions of relationship crimes, falsified the figures, seriously corrupted the justice system, inflamed women to report abuse when none has occurred, and have carried out what can only be described as a campaign of male hatred that has now lasted for over two decades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also see ...
+ Have You Been Raped Recently? to see how the federal government in the USA feeds the public with false statistics.
+ Rape Baloney - to see how ridiculous must be the rape figures and why it is almost certainly the case that over 80% allegations of rape are false.
+ UK It is this agenda of marriage-busting, man-hating feminism which has now got the Home Office well and truly in its clutches. Ever since New Labour came to power, it has been spouting a torrent of distorted information about domestic violence. Melanie Phillips
+ UK It seems unlikely that blurring the distinction between rape and an unpleasant sexual encounter can make prosecuting rape cases easier. Rather, as the 'one in 20' headlines indicate, its main consequence is to define more and more aspects of sexual contact as rape - even when the woman concerned does not see it as such. Josie Appleton
This post had attracted a couple of replies before the censors hand could fall. Thus, as the debate was starting, it was decided to leave it up.
Please note before reading this that this post contains some very upsetting dialog, and this post could cause emotonal distress, especially to anyone who has been raped. Thus, please be cautious about reading it, especially if you are in an emotionally sensitive state.
The Home Office Caught Stirring Up Hatred - Again!
(You do not need to access the links in this section to understand the piece that follows in the next section.)
UK Nearly one in 20 women in England and Wales - an estimated 754,000 victims - have been raped since they were 16, according to Home Office research.
UK The Home Office revealed yesterday that 167 women are raped in England and Wales every day and that one in 20 of the adult female population is a rape victim.
The two official Home Office reports can be found in *.pdf files as follows. The first document is the main Report that describes the research fully, and presents the technical details. The second Report outlines the findings and discusses them.
Home Office Research Study 237 - Rape and sexual assault of women: the extent and nature of the problem, Findings from the British Crime Survey (22.7.02)
Findings 159 - Rape and sexual assault of women: findings from the British Crime Survey (22.7.02)
Brits should definitely study the second Report. It only takes about 15 minutes to read. However, even without reading this, the piece that follows below should still make sense. And it is based mostly on the second Report.
Non-Brits can also gain an insight into the unwholesome antics of the abuse industry by reading the article that follows and noting how inadequate and whimsical so often is the nature of social science 'research', particularly when overseen by government departments in the stranglehold of man-hating feminist 'academics'.
27/07/02
One can almost hear the excitement in the various wimmin's groups around the country as they consider the various ways in which they can replay the Home Office findings to the general public - spurious and invalid though they be.
Six women are raped every hour in Great Britain today! Dial this hotline! NOW!
1000 women every week are brutalised and raped by British men! Dial this hotline! NOW!
Women's groups from all over the world will be quoting the Home Office figures for some years to come.
But, of course, these figures are a load of hokum! And they are based on a Home Office Report that is designed to inflame more male hatred and more gender divisiveness throughout the entire country.
Well, according to this Report, some 5% of UK women have been raped at some time in their lives.
The Home Office researchers arrived at this figure mostly on the basis of a pathetically inadequate questionnaire which asked such questions as, "Have you been forced to have sex with anyone?" And, on the basis of the answers, it drew its hopelessly invalid conclusions.
For example, it concluded that 0.4% of women had been raped in the 12 months prior to the research, and that 0.5% had been sexually assaulted (without penile penetration) during the same period.
(These are very small percentages. Indeed, they each represent some 30 women out of the 6,944 women who took part in the year 2000 survey.)
Well, apart from the fact that some of these 60 women will have been genuine victims, let us look at other reasons why some of them might have FALSELY affirmed in a questionnaire that they had been 'forced' to have sex during the period in question.
1. Some 5% of women have Borderline Personality Disorder or something close to it. Features of this include the habitual making of false accusations, the constant creation of mountains out of molehills, and the re-writing of the past, mostly in order to wreak vengeance upon those who happened to be close to them at the time - usually men. For those with BDP, seeing oneself as a victim of someone else's actions is almost a permanent state of being.
Now, if just ONE-TENTH of these women answered the questionnaire in a manner that suggested that they had engaged in intercourse at least once during the 12 month period because they were 'forced' to do so, then this would account for the WHOLE of the rape figure!
And if just ONE-TENTH of these women reckoned that at least once during the same period they had ever been 'forced' to engage in non-penetrative sex then this would account for the WHOLE of the sex-assault figure.
Given that such women are constantly making false accusations against people, the chances are that the vast majority of all those identified as innocent victims of sexual assault by the Home Office were nothing of the sort.
2. If you go virtually to any nightclub or student party these days you will likely discover therein women who regularly indulge in all sorts of sexual activities, even with complete strangers - and many of these women are also taking alcohol and drugs. And so, for example, to be thrust against the wall by a drunken male and to be groped hither and thither in such venues is no great deal for many women. And the fact that they may also oftentimes be man-handled by 'force' is all part and parcel of what they happily 'endure' on a weekly basis. Nevertheless, many such women would probably answer the Home Office's questionnaire about having been 'forced' to engage in sex in the affirmative - even if such an incident had only occurred once during the 12 month period in question.
3. Many women just love to see themselves as victims of abuse. It is a badge of honour for them to claim or feel that they have been raped or assaulted - and survived! They can join an ever-growing mutual-adoration club which requires no evidence for membership.
And it could also provide them with a job, somewhere within the ever-growing abuse industry.
4. One only has to look at the TV programmes that women love to watch, the books that they like to read, the things that they love to talk about, and the most popular themes of their sexual fantasies to know just what many of them are hankering for. If just a small percentage of these women re-interpreted any sexual activity from the preceding 12 months as having been 'forced' upon them in any way - perhaps as a result of being influenced by an episode of Eastenders! - then the low-percentage assault figures from the Home Office would have been significantly inflated.
For example, American psychologist Dr Nancy Faulkner has this to say about some of the women receiving therapy at her clinic.
"I have seen women in therapy who could no longer content themselves with a non-combative relationship. They complained that it is "boring" and that the sexual relationship is not exciting. These women have become so accustomed to the roller-coaster emotional highs and lows that they appear to thrive on the thrill-ride, while at the same time hating the assaults."
Putting all this simply: A large number of women just love the idea of being sexually 'abused'.
5. There are sufficient numbers of 'feminist' women, many of whom are highly politicised and/or who work in the abuse industry, who gain much advantage from doing their best to inflate the sex-assault figures - for example, as part of their 'contribution to the feminist movement'. And, once again, if just a small percentage of these decided to answer the Home Office questionnaire in a manner that would indicate falsely some criminal abuse, then the figures for sex-assault would have been inflated significantly.
And in an area that is highly politicised, and also highly emotionalised, as is the area to do with sex-assault, the assumption that the respondents are ALL replying honestly and without prejudice to any questionnaire is extremely questionable to say the least.
6. Men have been portrayed as the devil himself for the past 20 years. During this time there can hardly have been a day that has gone by wherein most women and children have not been presented with highly-emotional portrayals of men being abusive in some way.
Would the Home Office accept the validity of a questionnaire about the behaviours of Jews or gypsies that had been handed out solely to a sample of Germans in the 1930s?
No, probably not.
And yet, after 20 years of blanket feminist-inspired propaganda demonising men emanating from both government and the media - with a daily coverage and an intensity that Hitler himself could never have even dreamed of - the Home Office presents what it considers to be a valid Report about the true behaviours of men based on the testimony only of women!
7. Women often have strong direct vested interests in making false allegations about their partners. False allegations can serve them well in relationship break-ups, child custody disputes, divorce proceedings and in soothing their consciences concerning why they themselves might have behaved badly in the past. The government has also provided women with many incentives to make false allegations. Once made (even if only 'silently' to themselves) false allegations are more than likely to be entered on to questionnaires as if they were true, even if only for the reason that not to do so would create what psychologists call 'cognitive dissonance'.
Putting this another way: If women were offered a straightforward ?1,000,000 in compensation for being abused by their partners, not only would the number of false allegations soar (for obvious reasons) but the findings even from anonymous questionnaires would reflect this increase, even though, ostensibly, there would be no direct incentives for this to occur.
Or, if you like, liars often end up truly believing what they actually once knew to be the product exclusively of their very own lies!
8. The evidence arising in the area of domestic violence (which is, after all, simply another 'aggressive' form of 'relationship' conflict) shows very clearly that the majority of women who contact the authorities - i.e. the police - are not the weak and wilting types in need of some protection. On the contrary, they are, for the most part, the aggressive, manipulative and vengeful types who are seeking some form of revenge - or some extra leverage - against their partners - e.g. see Domestic Violence - Would You Sign This Contract?)
There is no reason to believe that matters are any different when it comes to claims of rape or sex-assault.
9. And, of course, we know that some 50% of women admit to telling lies on a daily basis - which is one reason that public 'surveys' are so often worthless.
The Scruples and Lies survey was based on interviews with 5,000 women. It found that 94% confessed to telling fibs, with 48% lying on a daily basis. (BBC News)
Furthermore, the evidence that women are far more likely to lie about their sexual experiences than are men, is increasing all the time - e.g. see Women Fake Sex Numbers
And so, all in all, when it comes to women filling in the Home Office's questionnaire, the very notion that a true picture can be gleaned from the data about the true incidence of assault and rape is just ridiculous. The overwhelming probability is that the conclusions and the numbers will be wildly exaggerated and will dramatically over-estimate the number of true rapes and true assaults.
And remember: Out of 7,000 women, only 60 reported having being assaulted in some way during the preceding 12 months.
In fact, it is interesting to note that about 35% of the alleged victims in this study did not see themselves as victims of any crime!
On the basis of some simple, and somewhat minimal, questionnaire, however, the Home Office thinks that it knows better than the two people involved in these incidents!
It counted them all as crimes!
Well, let's get one thing straight.
If HE doesn't think that what happened was a crime of rape, and SHE thinks the same, then the Home Office has no legitimate business in classifying whatever happened as a rape!
Of course, it is possible that some women do not actually recognise that a crime against them has happened, when it has, but in matters of sexual assault, the UK is not a country that has buried such matters under the carpet and hidden the ins and outs of sexual assault from public scrutiny. The UK has been positively deluged for some twenty years with propaganda designed to make women see themselves as victims in just about every area where they operate - employment, education, pay, domestic violence and so on - and especially in areas to do with abuse.
And so the notion that tens of thousands of women are just too naive to recognise when they have been criminally assaulted has no legitimate basis whatsoever.
Indeed, the very opposite is far more likely to be true. It is far more likely that UK women will see actions as being criminal or abusive when they are not, because women are constantly being targeted and urged to see matters in such a way.
And, in fact, this is exactly what just about all the evidence shows. For example, when women today make allegations of rape, 95% of the time they fail to convince people of their case!
Oh yes, the Home Office can define whatever happened 'operationally' as a rape, presumably, on the basis of some stupefyingly simplistic predetermined notions (e.g. a YES to questions 1, 4, 9 and 13) and by using 'legal' terms it can also define that whatever happened was a rape, but neither of these could ever be counted upon to reflect the reality of what such a 'rape' might actually be.
And this would seem somewhat crucial when dealing with matters of serious crime - particularly when the government looks set to CORRUPT the justice system still further on the basis of what these supposedly enormous number of rapes actually are.
If my partner takes without express permission ?10 from my wallet, is this theft?
This is seemingly a very simple question, isn't it?
Well, morally speaking, presumably, it all depends upon my attitude toward it - and upon her attitude toward it - and upon what she thought that my attitude would be - and upon what I thought that my attitude would be should I discover such a thing - and upon what she thought that my attitude would be should I discover such a thing - and how in the past I conveyed my attitude toward such a thing - and if I did so successfully - and so on, backwards in time and space through the trillions of interactions that made us believe whatever we believed about such a thing prior to the discovery of the event itself.
The complexities of such real life between two people, however, were not assessed by the Home Office's questionnaire, nor even discussed properly in its Report.
The Home Office seems to think that matters of rape and assault can be analysed by simple questions.
Did someone take ?10 out of your wallet without your knowledge in the past 12 months? Yes, my wife. Then, whether or not you reported this to the police, and whether or not you considered this to be a crime against you, this is completely irrelevant to the Home Office.
It simply counts the event as a crime!
And the woman as a thief!
Such 'non-crimes' are simply added by the Home Office into the pot of evidence in order to support their recommendations of changes to the laws in order to make it more likely that people will both see and report such incidents as crimes and that more men are prosecuted for them.
This, in effect, is what the Home Office Report boils down to. It is part of a concerted attempt to make crimes out of non-crimes and to demonise men.
Indeed, the Home Office could define sexual assault as any sexual activity that takes place without a signed sex-consent document if it wanted to. And, on this basis, the statistics for sex-assault could even include any impulsive kisses planted on your wife's cheek in the morning.
Well, such a position might well protect a few more women from assault, but at what tremendous cost to everyone else? Most people would just find it impossible to have any decent stable relationships that were safe from wild and histrionic accusations in times of stress.
Sex-assaults and rapes are all treated as if they are incredibly simplistic phenomena when it comes to filling in questionnaires - but real life is infinitely more complex.
And so when the Home Office uses the responses to simple questionnaires to define rape in a way which is not even consistent with the way in which some 30% of those of whom it alleges are victims of it would actually define it, one has to be very careful indeed.
At the very least, it shows that the Home Office's questionnaire wasn't a very good one!
The Report based on the survey's findings also provides some further considerable evidence to suggest that the Home Office wishes to generate more hysteria concerning sex-assault in order, presumably, to prosecute even more men than it is already doing.
And the evidence that damns the Home Office just keeps growing (e.g. see the piece entitled Does The Home Office Willfully Stir Up Domestic Violence?)
There is something highly treacherous about a government body that seems always to seek the demonisation of its own people - the very people whom it is supposed to serve and to protect. And the Home Office is turning more and more into a destructive parasite that spreads disease throughout society rather than a body that serves and looks after its people.
The Home Office actually wants women to see themselves as victims of rape. It wants to demonise the white heterosexual male population. This is why, for example, its headline rape figures include those situations where neither partner thought that any rape had occurred, and why, for example again, there is no consideration in the report concerning the fact that a very high percentage of women who report rape are known to lie and exaggerate about such things.
And here, I should add that the 'headline' rape figures are also nothing more than a downright deception by the Home Office designed to stir up hatred towards men.
They are not 'rape' figures at all.
They are the number of allegations that have been made.
And these are more than 10 times greater than the number of convictions for rape.
In the report there is also made the completely unwarranted assumption that the associated research and methodology are tainted only with the possibility that many women who have been raped will, for some reason or other, have failed to provide the correct evidence - on the questionnaire - for their particular rapes to have been counted as rapes by the researchers. As such, it is argued that the survey's results will actually underestimate the true extent of rape.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
For example, given that the survey was ostensibly about 'crime', it is argued that many rape victims may not have considered past rapes by their partners to be 'crimes', and so they will not have associated their particular 'rapes' with a 'crime survey'. As such, these women will not have made responses to the questionnaire that would allow the researchers to count them as crimes.
Well, the idea that 'rapes' by partners may not readily be viewed by some women as crimes seems a reasonable one, but, surely, if anything is to be deduced from the fact that women may have excluded their incidents from a crime survey, specifically on the grounds that it was a crime survey, then it is that these women do not think that a crime against them has been committed!
So, why on earth does the Home Office use these particular women (about whose 'assaults', in fact, nothing at all is known, or even heard about) as some kind of justification for claiming that its Report might have underestimated the true incidence of assaults?
You see, the Home Office can have no idea AT ALL how many women actually failed to see their assaults as crimes on the basis of this research; and who therefore failed to mention them in such a 'crime' survey.
NO IDEA AT ALL!
In fact, there could have been thousands of them!
And perhaps if these women had indeed all recognised their assaults as crimes, and also deemed them fit to be entered on a crime survey, then maybe the figures might have shown that a staggering 30% of UK women had been raped and that 90% had been sexually assaulted - well, at least, according to the Home Office's way of defining things!
Let me put this another way.
It is quite possible that a monumental 99% of the women in the survey had been 'raped' according to the way in which the Home Office appeared to be defining it in its 'crime' survey.
And it is quite possible that most of these women simply refused to pander to this definition because it was a 'crime' survey and because they did not seem themselves as being victims of a crime!
To repeat. The Home Office can have no idea AT ALL how many women actually failed to see their assaults as crimes.
Who knows what the figures could have shown?
But there is no real discussion in the Report concerning even this possibility.
For example, on the basis of its questionnaire, the Report estimates that about 61,000 UK women were raped in the year 2,000 alone. However, only some 8,000 actually ended up reporting these incidents.
Well, if anything, this rather suggests that the vast majority of these 61,000 alleged victims didn't actually care very much about their supposed rape incidents.
And, goodness me, this would appear to remain the case despite an uninterrupted twenty-year long feminist onslaught to urge female victims of rape to report their experiences to the police, with hotlines installed nationwide, refuge shelters in place nationwide, and with daily advertising from every media orifice in the land to urge women to come forward, and yet still only some 15% of them do so - according to the Home Office's very own figures!
It seems that the overwhelming majority of women who are supposedly 'raped' or sexually assaulted (as defined by the Home Office) just will not report their incidents as crimes.
Why not?
Well, Perhaps it's because they don't see these incidents as crimes!
And the very serious question then arises as to what is so special, and unusual, about the relatively few women who do report their incidents to the police!?
Perhaps this is what the Home Office should be looking at!
After all, most of the evidence that I have seen suggests to me that the vast majority of assault and rape accusations are false - e.g. see Rape Baloney
Let me explain what I think is going on using some simple numbers.
Imagine that, throughout the year ...
... 1000 real rapes have occurred.
... 200 of these are reported to the police
... 8,000 allegations of rape are made to the police
Well, if these figures were true, then two things would follow from them.
Firstly, the vast majority of real rapes go unreported to the police - in fact, only 200 out of the 1000 real rapes are reported.
Secondly, despite the large under-reporting of real rapes, the vast majority of rape allegations made to the police are actually false! - in fact, 7800 of the 8000 reports are false.
There is a positive sea of false allegations.
And, indeed, this is what the real evidence shows!
I have already given you a great deal of the evidence that bears upon this in the NINE points numbered above.
And now, if that wasn't enough, here is some more.
25% of allegations to the police are shown to have no basis at all for any legal action. The police have investigated the matter and decided that no crime has been committed. Rapes that are simply 'unclear' do not form part of this 25%.
(According to the Report "The case can be ‘no-crimed’ if the complainant ‘retracts completely and admits to fabrication’".)
Only 7% of rapes that are investigated beyond the no-crime point result in convictions.
And so, in summary, when the police and the respective juries have done their investigations, some 95% of rape allegations fail to result in convictions, and some 20% are almost certainly false.
Putting this another way: Out of every 125 allegations of rape made to the police, 25 are no-crimed (i.e. they are false) and a further 93 do not result in convictions.
How much more evidence does one need!?
Now, yes, it could certainly be suggested that this poor conviction rate occurs because in these failed cases there was just not enough evidence to secure the convictions, but why go for this argument? It is just as plausible to argue that the allegations in this 95% of cases were, quite simply, false.
Or, more realistically, it is extremely plausible that most of the allegations were false. Indeed, what valid evidence is there to suggest that this is not the case?
There isn't any!
But there is a mountain of evidence arising from very many quarters that keeps suggesting that most rape accusations are, indeed, false.
To cloud the issues even further, 45% of alleged rapes were said in the Report to have occurred in situations where the alleged rapist was actually the partner of the victim. But this large percentage alone suggests very strongly that the research which gave rise to it is highly suspect. After all, how does a simple questionnaire attempt to sort out the complex interactions and ups and downs of people who are intimately involved with each other? - particularly when it seeks the views of only one of the partners.
And how is it that these alleged rapists actually had 'partners'?
Were these relationships going exceedingly well and then, suddenly, one day, the male partners just turned into rapists?
No, of course not. The chances are that the relationships that these women had with their rapist partners were full of ups and downs, with lots of turmoil, and involved much in the way of heavy emotional hurt and aggravation.
Of course, such things do not justify any form of traumatic 'rape', and I am not even remotely suggesting that they do.
My point is that in a whopping 45% of ALL the incidents that are counted as rape in this Report, the researchers have only received 'evidence' from the women's side of the story concerning these evidently turbulent relationships.
And this research is supposed to be valid?
The whole notion is ridiculous.
This 'research' is not even fit to be passed as an undergraduate project.
Imagine asking these women simply about the arguments that they would have had with their 'rapist' partners.
"Was your partner ever verbally abusive, domineering, intransigent, intimidating, hostile, unreasonable?"
Yes?
Then that's 'domestic violence'!
That man counts as an abuser of women!
Do you see?
The Home Office cannot hope to gain decent information over complex issues that arise within relationships - particularly emotionally volatile ones - and particularly so when it insists on taking only evidence from one of the partners.
Perhaps the researchers would have come up with better data if they had simply also asked men whether or not they had actually raped their partners recently!
Why not? I am being absolutely serious. Even if done anonymously, their responses would surely be just as invalid as those of their partners!!?
Anyway, while on the subject of domestic violence (which the Home Office also brings into its Report in order to link it to sexual violence) let me continue to make some analogy with it here - just to give you an added flavour of what is going on in matters of sexual assault, in my view.
It is now known that tens of thousands of women every year pick up their phones and call the police because their partners have just shouted at them.
Now, according to the Home Office funded website run by the Royal Holloway College, 'shouting' may be considered to be an act of domestic violence.
And so it is that many of the women who actually do alert the police because they have just been shouted at may well feel quite justified in taking this course of action. After all, being shouted at is a crime according to the Home Office's website.
My question, however, is what exactly can be said about the population of women who are prepared to pick up their phones and have their partners arrested simply for having shouted at them?
And my own answer to this question is that most of the women in this population are just not 'normal'.
And, as evidence for this proposition, the UK police claim to receive some 1300 domestic violence reports every day, but hardly any of them are ever followed through or prosecuted.
Why?
Well, it is because the vast majority of the calls are, thankfully, found mostly to be nothing more than about the fluff and nonsense of everyday life. (Either that or the British police are doing a really, really terrible job.)
But if the Home Office were to conduct research into such domestic violence, in a manner similar to the sex-assault research currently under discussion, then ALL of these phone calls that result from simply being shouted at, would have been judged to be valid evidence of domestic violence by the researchers.
Those women who picked up their phones simply for being shouted at, would, effectively, have ALL ticked the box marked 'crime'. And the Home Office researchers would have swallowed it.
ALL OF IT!
And from this 'evidence' the Home Office would then have foolishly concluded that ALL these phone calls were valid markers of crimes.
Well, the rape and sex-assault figures from The Home Office suggest that exactly the same thing is occurring in these matters.
Most of the allegations turn out to be false when investigated, but they are regarded as true in the research!
As further evidence for this, whenever one studies closely those cases that are highlighted to the public - often the 'best' of cases chosen by the women's groups themselves - most of them seem to be utterly spurious, with the alleged female victims demonstrating a clear history of self-harm, self-delusion and downright fabrication, and/or one of sexual 'negligence' - where, for example, women reputed for their sexual favours to men happily suck them off in the toilets of their local nightclubs but reckon that it's rape or sexual victimisation when they reckon (or later re-interpret) that the incidents just went too far.
Thus, the overwhelming evidence suggests that most women who report rape and sexual assault are either deluded in some way or are just downright malicious. And the consequence is that those women who are true victims of assault are having their credibility shattered by a flood of demonstrably false allegations.
For example, only some 20% of those who, according to the Report, were assaulted or raped, actually bothered to go to the police.
Well, why didn't the other 80% report their incidents to the police?
The stock answer is that these women felt intimidated by the processes and the procedures that would arise out of reporting the matter to the police.
Or, as the Report itself says ...
"Rape victims may not wish to identify themselves as such since they may perceive that this has associations of stigmatised and degraded status. It may also be difficult for women raped by somebody they know, perhaps even somebody they liked or loved, to label this person a rapist."
"The highly personal and traumatic nature of sexual victimisation means that apart from often not reporting their experiences to the police, victims will also be reluctant to share their experiences with anybody."
Well, this is all certainly possible, and quite likely to be true in very many instances.
However, as indicated earlier, what is far more likely is that the supposed victims of sex assault (as judged by the questionnaire) who failed to go to the police did not actually care very much about the incidents.
And, in many cases, they probably even enjoyed them at the time. (Think nightclubs, and the behaviours of MANY young women today.)
Putting this another way: The supposed effects on the alleged 'victims' of sexual 'assault' - as defined by the Home Office - are probably not nearly as negative as feminists, women's activists and others in the abuse industry would like to have the public believe.
Indeed, one of the main private complaints of police officers who specialise in these areas is that even those women whose 'assaults' have been brought to their attention (perhaps through an eye-witness) do not want to press charges despite being put under considerable pressure to do so.
And so, again, it seems that despite the enormous amount of effort being put in - this time by the police and the Home Office - to encourage victims of sexual assault to contact the authorities over them, the vast majority of them simply refuse to do so.
And even in those cases where the women were genuinely aggrieved and concerned about what had happened to them, many will have had the common sense and the decency to recognise that they, themselves, were partly responsible for whatever took place - with the men most probably also feeling just as aggrieved by the incidents - and many will also feel that their incidents were just too trivial to warrant prison sentences and/or to justify the wholesale aggravation of themselves having to go to court.
But the Report seems concerned only to promote the view that tens of thousands of men annually are simply getting away with rape and assault, and that tens of thousands of women are just too intimidated to report them.
Every if, every but, and every piece of uncertainty is stitched together in such a way as to demonise the maximum number of men.
Anyway. Moving on.
As further evidence of the invalidity of this particular piece of research is the finding that the number of women who claim to have been sexually assaulted without being raped in the preceding year (0.5% of the survey) is just about the same as the number of women who allegedly were raped during this same period (0.4%).
But it is just not credible that the number of actual rapes is so close to the number of sexual assaults without rape. Life is just not like this. More extreme things happen far less frequently than less extreme things in real life. And, further, given that sexual assaults without rape will encompass a very wide range of behaviours, including such trivialities as being forcibly groped in the nightclub by a drunken lout, a piece of research that shows rape to be just as prevalent as other kinds of sexual assault is clearly just not credible!
Further, throwing out the whole notion that defendants should be seen to be innocent until proven guilty, the authors do not even bother to point out that reports of assault to the police are not proof of any crimes.
Here is what the authors say ...
In 1999 the police recorded 7,707 incidents of rape.
Well, NO THEY DID NOT!
They recorded 7,707 allegations of rape.
And this point is not trivial, because it provides further evidence to help describe the mindset of those who wrote the Report. This mindset, contrary to the whole ethos of the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty, simply presumes that every allegation of rape is the true recording of an actual rape.
And it is alarming, to say the least, to discover that a Report of such considerable national and international importance should contain sweeping statements that are decidedly FALSE.
Is it the case, therefore, that the authors of the Report were simply too clumsy and too incompetent to recognise the difference between an allegation and an actual event?
Somehow, I doubt it. The bulk of the Report just bears too many hallmarks of manipulation and anti-male prejudice to avoid the conclusion that this was just part of a purposeful attempt to inflate the rape figures in the public's mind.
Here is another example of this.
As Table E.1 shows, although the number of recorded rapes has increased more than four-fold since 1985, the proportion of recorded rapes resulting in a defendant being convicted is lower than it has ever been.
Notice the phrase, 'recorded rapes'.
Well, they are not recorded rapes. They are recorded allegations of rape.
Imagine, for the moment, that you were a pathologist peering down a microscope at a piece of tissue, and you wanted to determine how many cells were cancerous.
125 cells are brought to your attention as possibly being cancerous.
The first 25 cells you reject straight away, because they are very clearly not cancer cells. They are 'no-crimed'! The remaining 100 cells you investigate very closely with all your colleagues, as best as you can, but you can determine that only about 7 of them are cancerous.
Would you then write a Report claiming that you had, in fact, discovered 100 (or 125!
cancer cells?Well, if you did, then you would be being highly manipulative and thoroughly dishonest.
But this, in effect, is what the Home Office researchers are doing with the assault data. They are being manipulative and dishonest.
Let me put all this another way because it is very important to get this across.
Despite the two-decade long, nationwide, wholesale encouragement of women 'to come forward', some 30% of the survey's respondents did not see their 'rapes' as crimes - as judged by the questionnaire - but the Home Office, nevertheless, counts them as crimes.
Some 80% of women (about 53,000, apparently) did not report their 'rapes' as crimes by going to the police - but the Home Office also counts these as crimes.
And when the Report refers to the 7,707 women who did make a report to the police in 1999, it refers to these as incidents of rape, even though only some 7% of them gave rise to convictions.
And so this highly-influential Report turns out to be far more of a conjuring trick than a serious investigation into the world of sex-assault.
Also, so simplistic and crude was this particular piece of research into complex behaviours that it could well be the case that the numbers of rapes and sexual assaults (as defined by the Home Office) are well in excess of even their very own figures!
Yes, in excess!
Perhaps, for example, it is simply not the case that just 5% of all UK women have been sexually assaulted without penile penetration during their lives. The true figure may be nearer 90%!!!
For example, here is one of the questions ...
Since age 16, has someone, either a stranger or someone you know, ever attempted to force you to have sexual intercourse or make you do sexual things against your will?
Well, most young men seem to spend most of their free time trying to 'force' women to do sexual things against their will. And this is no doubt a ritual that has gone on for many thousands of years, in one way or another.
But the Home Office seems completely unaware of this.
Did it not surprise the Home Office researchers to discover that only 5% of UK women have ever been 'forced' to do non-penetrative 'sexual things' against their will?
Well, it surprised me!
Indeed, in my view, there is only one worthwhile lesson to be learned from this Report, and this is that it is a piece of malicious propaganda.
It is designed to inflame hatred toward men, to give government employees further excuses to poke their noses into people's private lives, to make women feel that they are being abused when they are not, to create further divisions between men and women in general, to provide a weapon for feminists the world over with which to continue with their destructive agenda, and to justify even more funding to the abuse industry.
And, further, just as in the case of the recent Sentence Advisory Panel's advice to the Court of Appeal concerning the difference between Stranger Rape and Relationship Rape (there is no difference between the two, apparently) this Home Office Report simply ignores completely the realities of the lives that are actually lived by the vast majority of its citizens.
Well, whatever the true figures are, and whatever, in fact, they may truly imply, the Home Office has put only one spin on its findings.
A completely misandric one - through and through.
And this is what damns it so. This is what exposes the true aims of the Home Office.
What is so sickening about this Report is not so much the figures themselves - which are worthless - but the blatant attempt to maximise the amount of male-hatred that can be squeezed out of them.
There is no attempt whatsoever to look at the numerous important real life factors that may colour what they mean - many of which I have mentioned above.
It is demonstrably a one-sided prejudicial piece of propaganda that seeks throughout to propagate the view that there are, annually, tens of thousands of UK women who are being badly victimised despite the fact that the weight of evidence currently clearly suggests, firstly, that the vast majority of women who are 'sexually victimised' - 'sexually victimised' according to the Home Office, that is - do not consider that their incidents are even worth reporting, and, secondly, that of those women who do report such incidents, the vast majority of them, on close inspection, appear to be false.
This is what the Home Office data really show.
Finally, one of the main reasons that feminists and women's groups have successfully bamboozled the public for so long, when it comes to allegations of domestic violence and sex-assault, is that when most people think about 'women', they mostly recognise that 'women', on the whole, are a pleasant bunch.
What they do not recognise is that there are many women who are virtually impossible to deal with and to cope with, who can almost literally drive intimates insane, and who are emotionally quite unstable and/or hypersensitive, and prone to manipulation and deceit.
If only 5% of women have such problems (which is, in fact, the case, and which equates to 1,000,000 UK women) then these women are highly likely to account for MOST of the allegations concerning domestic violence and sex-assault.
Now, whether or not this is, in fact, true - and I believe that it is - one might have expected the Home Office researchers at least to have discussed this highly likely possibility given the enormous consequences and costs that are likely to arise from its Report.
But this has not been done because too many Home Office staff are completely dominated, deluded and controlled by pernicious feminist propaganda and ideology, and the academics who wrote the Report are simply not up to the job - in my view.
Fortunately, however, this situation is currently being exposed.
The truth of the matter is this.
Neither the Home Office nor the police have the foggiest notion how many real rapes occur every year in the UK. There might be 1000. There might be 1,000,000.
It all depends on the definition of rape.
But the overwhelming evidence shows very clearly that the vast majority of rape allegations that are actually made to the police are very decidedly FALSE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24/07/03
UK Police recorded a 27 per cent increase in rapes - with the number exceeding 10,000 for the first time, a trend the Home Office said could be a result of encouraging women to come forward to complain. Daily Telegraph
And this was in the Times ...
RAPES of women rose by more than a quarter to more than 10,000 annually for the first time in the history of police-recorded crime, according to figures published today.
However, the 10,000 figure does not represent rapes at all.
This figure is for allegations of rape made to the police.
Readers should ask themselves why the Home Office is purposely disseminating downright lies to the media and to the public with regard to these rape figures (and, indeed, with regard to many other issues relating to 'relationship' assaults).
During the past decade, the Home Office and western governments have pandered to feminist falsehoods and feminist ideology in order to create disharmony among those in close relationships. This is what the overwhelming evidence shows.
Furthermore, apart from disseminating downright lies, these authorities have purposely fudged the definitions of relationship crimes, falsified the figures, seriously corrupted the justice system, inflamed women to report abuse when none has occurred, and have carried out what can only be described as a campaign of male hatred that has now lasted for over two decades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also see ...
+ Have You Been Raped Recently? to see how the federal government in the USA feeds the public with false statistics.
+ Rape Baloney - to see how ridiculous must be the rape figures and why it is almost certainly the case that over 80% allegations of rape are false.
+ UK It is this agenda of marriage-busting, man-hating feminism which has now got the Home Office well and truly in its clutches. Ever since New Labour came to power, it has been spouting a torrent of distorted information about domestic violence. Melanie Phillips
+ UK It seems unlikely that blurring the distinction between rape and an unpleasant sexual encounter can make prosecuting rape cases easier. Rather, as the 'one in 20' headlines indicate, its main consequence is to define more and more aspects of sexual contact as rape - even when the woman concerned does not see it as such. Josie Appleton
Comment