Ops-Normal.org

In the UK there is no statute of limitations on rape. Is it time there was? I am growing uneasy at the ease with which someone can call 'rape' at any stage afterwards. In particular, with the rise of the 'Me Too' movement, it appears that 'judgement' is biased towards the woman's voice rather than the accused. It is, of course, impossible to conclusively prove or disprove rape after a time.

Don't get me wrong - rape is an abominable crime and should be punished. What I do not like is the enormous time delay (witness the latest Russell Brand news) where an offence is claimed after 10 or more years. The 'woke'/'Me-too' agenda now seems to give credence to the woman. In Brand's case, several women have 'got together' (somehow?) to 'remember' a rape which they chose not to report in the past. With someone so (admittedly) promiscuous as Brand he must be an easy target.

He is, of course, another thorn in the flesh of the establishment as he (rightly) questions 'policy' and the actions of the establishment. I have a serious concern that leaping on the rape bandwagon gives those who would like to silence his questioning a relatively easy avenue along which to walk him to the cul-de-sac. He is one of those, whatever one may think of him (and my views are, as I have stated, mixed), who is 'toxic', and now of course he will probably become a pariah as various organisations fear associating with him lest they be accused of being 'non-woke' or sexist or whatever, so he can be hobbled.

I think there should be a limit of the reporting (and prosecution) of rape. Is 2 years enough? There has to be leeway because of the potential trauma and recovery time need for a victim. What are the views of our ladies?

Boac wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 17, 2023 9:50 am

In the UK there is no statute of limitations on rape. Is it time there was? I am growing uneasy at the ease with which someone can call 'rape' at any stage afterwards. In particular, with the rise of the 'Me Too' movement, it appears that 'judgement' is biased towards the woman's voice rather than the accused. It is, of course, impossible to conclusively prove or disprove rape after a time.

Don't get me wrong - rape is an abominable crime and should be punished. What I do not like is the enormous time delay (witness the latest Russell Brand news) where an offence is claimed after 10 or more years. The 'woke'/'Me-too' agenda now seems to give credence to the woman. In Brand's case, several women have 'got together' (somehow?) to 'remember' a rape which they chose not to report in the past. With someone so (admittedly) promiscuous as Brand he must be an easy target.

He is, of course, another thorn in the flesh of the establishment as he (rightly) questions 'policy' and the actions of the establishment. I have a serious concern that leaping on the rape bandwagon gives those who would like to silence his questioning a relatively easy avenue along which to walk him to the cul-de-sac. He is one of those, whatever one may think of him (and my views are, as I have stated, mixed), who is 'toxic', and now of course he will probably become a pariah as various organisations fear associating with him lest they be accused of being 'non-woke' or sexist or whatever, so he can be hobbled.

I think there should be a limit of the reporting (and prosecution) of rape. Is 2 years enough? There has to be leeway because of the potential trauma and recovery time need for a victim. What are the views of our ladies?

Where has anybody said these women got together? I suspect most women let these things ride, alone, sadly, forever in many cases, because of the lack of credence, empathy and support they are accorded, and are likely to receive from the authorities such as the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts etc.. These authorities being male dominated in most cases, with all that goes with that. Vide. the crimes against women that have been revealed recently, up to and including murder, in the Metropolitan Police Force, for example.

Do you feel the same way about Jimmy Saville's victims, who also seem to fit the the post "traumatic" late reporting profile of the women, whose "late" reported cases, you seem, to question in the Brand case? Should he have he been allowed to get away with his crimes, due to a statute of limitations, even if it was much longer than the ludicrously short period of the 2 years that you posit (in the spirit of an agent provocateur I assume) as being possibly appropriate for rape, in the context of your thinking about the Brand case! What about children of any sex who have been raped and are in the thrall of their abusers for possibly decades after the original crime was perpetrated ?

The perpetrators of these sex crimes are often powerful, wealthy and high social status individuals, who threaten their victims with retribution, the courts and ongoing litigation. How can a statute of limitations be right in such cases, where the victim can be cowed into silence long enough for the perpetrator to escape justice (as actually happened in the Saville case)?

Where has anybody said these women got together?

In my post? Do you believe it 'just happened'? Channel 4 dispatches?? Come on. Wake up to reality. I did actually write

'got together' (somehow?)

I, perhaps wrongly, have little sympathy for a woman who does not report it in a reasonable time on the basis of a 'lack of credence,' etc etc since by reporting it it is a matter of record rather than something "Oh, I have just remembered it from over 10 years ago". I am also innately suspicious of the trigger for any sudden 'revelation' of previously unreported, aged, sex crimes that all come together. In any case I believe a court can override any such limitation if it deems it appropriate.

You pollute the discussion by conflating male rape with human trafficking and kidnapping - and murder.

However, your views noted. I hope for further.

I will hold my counsel until a few more folks have had their say. Suffice it to say I fundamentally disagree with some of your points/attempted rebuttals, while also taking the good from some of your arguments/concerns.

I agree with a time limit on reporting rape, certainly should be reported inside a year. I don't like Brand but that is neither here nor there, and when one woman says she might have been raped by him and another says he did me also and the first one jumps on the bandwagon,
'might' becomes 'definitely, and a third one joins in... ten years later. His lawyer says he will have a heck of a job proving he didn't. Can anyone here who has ever had a one-night stand years ago think of a defence if the lady (or man) now claims it was rape?

I find expressions like "agenda" and "bandwagon" to be trivialising.

Experience: six weeks after moving to new town, back in days when Post Office ran telephone system as well as mail services, reporting unpleasant phone calls and requesting new unlisted phone-number from Postmaster: "You must have some idea who it was".

Experience: prowler/peeping Tom, a married family man who lived further along the street. Solution: change address? He was the local Registrar of Electors...

I have other experiences.

I assure you, two years, or ten, is not long enough to process this contemptible garbage.

Just to add: I chased the prowler away and he fell over as he ran across the street probably afraid I was going to set my bellowing Labradors on him (I'd acquired those on a police officer's advice after the phone-calls incidents)

The statistics and facts as to why so few women report rape are interesting to those who might be inclined to think about this carefully.


https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... Harassment

Overall this is not just a UK phenomenon but here are some more stats and facts on that subject here in the UK.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... gmarch2020

This thread needs to be separate from the (new) Russell Brand thread viewtopic.php?f=64&t=8242

My main concern with all the historical stuff is that standards have changed. Stuff that was acceptable/tolerated back in the 1970s is definitely not OK now, but is it fair to go after someone for what they did back in the 70s? If they're still doing it now, then yes, definitely, but if they evolved with the times and stopped, then I think caution is called for before proceeding with a prosecution.

That's less true in the case of rape, which was as illegal back then as it is now, and I can understand why women who might not have wanted to make a complaint back then (given the likely treatment they'd have received and the probably outcome of any case, see above about "tolerated") are feeling more like they can do it now.

I have read various accounts from females who were actively involved, and most were initially consensual, however some seemed to develop a sense of 'entitlement' by the male.

With the Met’s recent record, as well as other forces, you can understand why women can be reluctant to trust them enough to report any sexual assault allegations!

I agree, but on the topic, by your argument, then, Woody, it would be OK to have a 2 year limit in London since they would be unlikely to be reporting anyway, however long it is? What do you think the statute limit should be?

I don’t think that a statute limit is necessary, what is definitely required is for the Police forces to be trusted enough for anyone to report an allegation within a reasonable time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66842521

Can anyone here who has ever had a one-night stand years ago think of a defence if the lady (or man) now claims it was rape?

I would like to see some comment on that, M'self.

As for the Brand case; The Lady formerly known as Mrs Pinky, upon hearing the story, stated the usual question;

'Why now, after all this time?'

I'm far from promiscuous and never was, but I can remember just one occasion of consensual rumpy-tumpy (a one-off) where should the lady change her mind about having enthusiastically participated in a bit of fun 29 years ago, I don't think I would have a defence.

A major problem is that a claim for something such as rape or other sexual offence is treated as 'evidence' by the UK justice system without requiring a shred of anything to substantiate the claim. As we have seen from the current Brand situation, the accused is tried and found guilty by the media long before any formal legal process is even commenced. When that process does start the accused has to 'prove' innocence rather than guilt being proven. Anyone who think the UK legal system is a case of being innocent until proven guilty has never had dealings with the system.
Whilst Brand appears to be an odious character, it seems unlikely that he can expect to get anything like a fair hearing.

Agree completely with that last paragraph in all respects. Tried and found guilty by the media....

As we have seen from the current Brand situation, the accused is tried and found guilty by the media long before any formal legal process is even commenced. When that process does start the accused has to 'prove' innocence rather than guilt being proven.

Does this not add weight to the argument for a statute of limitations for rape accusation?

Days, weeks or hours?