The predictability of rape apology.

The predictability of Rape Apology part 2

I wrote the first part of this post (below the line down under) at around 1:00am this morning. Approximately 10 hours later, EXACTLY as predicted, our friend @facerealitynow came back with his list of reasons why the CPS study is flawed (screenshot below).

@facerealitynow
You are predictable
You are a rape apologist
You are wrong

You are predictable

Sort of goes without saying – see below the line.

You are a rape apologist

I’ve seen 1000’s like you over the last 2 to 3 years. One of the common factors is an overwhelming compulsion to understate prevalence of rape, while overstating the prevalence of false allegations. This is rape apology pure and simple. It harms victims, it helps rapists, and it makes it more likely for women to be raped.

You are wrong

Lets put aside for a moment the extremely high level of qualification of those carrying out the study, which pretty much out of hand, invalidates any rebuttal you might make.

You correctly point out that the study counts prosecuted false allegations of rape. What you failed to notice (Comprehension? Willful ignorance? Or inability to face reality?) is that the study compares that count with the number of cases prosecuted as rape. The nature of rape cases (mostly carried out in private without witnesses) will mean that it is approximately equally difficult to evidence a false allegation as it is to evidence an actual rape. It is therefore a reasonable position to take that the ratio of false allegations to rapes, in the cases not prosecuted, will be approximately the same as those that are prosecuted.

Those figures are 5651 prosecutions for rape and 35 prosecutions for false allegations of rape. At face value those figures would suggest a false rape reporting rate of around 0.6%.

Before you try to state that the ratio in the unprosecuted cases is not going to be the same (for whatever fabricated reason you can pluck from your imagination): The figure used elsewhere on this blog of 3% ALREADY allows for a 500% (Factor 5, 5 times) error in that assessment.

Don’t bother posting a reply – you are very unlikely to meet the criteria for having it published, and my patience is much thinner now than when I set those criteria. Feel free to respond on twitter – but don’t expect a reply. As far as I am concerned this is not up for debate. Further, as you’ll see from my twitter bio, I am no longer debating with the willfully ignorant.

And rape apology is ALWAYS willfully ignorant.

 

The tweets:
Screen Shot 2015-01-13 at 19.34.07


 

The predictability of Rape Apology part 1

 

I’ve just posted this series of tweets (in reverse order, sorry):
Screen Shot 2015-01-12 at 23.50.25

In response to the “can you argue against those facts please?” in this sequence:
Screen Shot 2015-01-12 at 23.51.54

At some point, he’s going to read the study report and come back with a list of reasons why it is invalid – despite the legal credentials of those carrying out the report. In this way he will demonstrate his agenda of rape apology.

I’m posting this in advance to demonstrate to him the predictability of his agenda of rape apology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.