This report contradicts a lot of the feminist 'patriarchal conspiracy' crap that has been spouted by nutcases like Harriet Harman and her vile ilk for so long.

A breakdown of cases showed conviction rates were high in cases involving young girls and low in some cases involving alleged male victims.

No suprise there.

Ministers have introduced a series of measures aimed at improving the conviction rate in rape cases which do come before the courts, including specialist rape prosecutors.

This sounds frighteningly similar to star chambers. The judges are already trained (indoctrinated) by deranged feminists about rape and DV. So how much more can you skew the judicial process, other then allowing Harman, witchfinder-esque, to appoint radical feminists solely to preside over rape cases (the feminist wet dream)?

An earlier Home Office study which found juries were more likely to acquit than convict alleged rapists looked at fewer than 200 cases in just a handful of courts.

What is the deal with the Home Office in England? I read alot about it and it seems to me that although it is a government entity it has a socio/political ax to grind that is extremely pro feminist and anti male.
I know I like to ask all of the Brits here to give me your thoughts quite often but again I would like to hear from you about these home office people. Do you all tire of them?

Quote from rohara

What is the deal with the Home Office in England?

I watched an interesting documentary about the history of the Home Office last week.

It's still available to view online: The Dark Department

Major important thread. Thanks Marx. Also thanks for the comments, they add good information to the article.

Now, to e-mail this link to myself, so I can come back to it.

Well, I gotta admit I'm not hot on the math side of things where statistics are concerned, but I asked about this in Yahoo!Answers just recently. A couple of feminists took the question on and came back to me with the following responses.

My question to them:-

Quote from me

Feminist lies slowly revealed?

How do normal women and feminists feel about the lies of feminism slowly but surely being revealed for what they are?

In an article (today's news) it states, contrary to feminist hate literature against men:-

~~~
It found 55% of rape cases resulted in conviction.
...conviction rates were high in cases involving young girls and low in some cases involving alleged male victims.
~~~

Note the top quote. Yet, we repeatedly see feminist groups lying to the public that only 5% - not 55% of rape claims result in convictions. Harriet Harman is often seen quoting this lie. Do you think it has been an on-going 'typo' of every columnist on Earth, accidently tapping the 5-key only once instead of twice - was this blatantly unrealistic figure (5%) somehow a man's fault and feminists have been above-board the entire time? (LOL - as if)?


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100217...y-6323e80.html

So folks, as the lies and hate campaigns by feminist groups slowly unfold, do you feel glad (I suspect most normal people will be happy to see reality showing itself) or do you feel that women are forevermore eternal victims at the hands of the evil patriarchy - as feminism tends to suggest?

• 20 hours ago
• - 3 days left to answer.

Additional Details

Just me - I agree with you that women should have "equal rights" - but feminists promote "superior rights" (hence why they have to lie about 5% conviction rates vs the reality of 55% conviction rates).
20 hours ago
Give Blood - the figures also fail to account for false allegations which are numerous too. Seems they about even out to me.
20 hours ago
Eleanor - linking to a cached copy of a study by the fawcett society is hardly a reliable source.

Quote from feminist #1

Well, obviously we'd need to know more about the information that the 5% figure was based on. There is a difference, of course, between "rape cases" and "rape cases that have gone to trial," and that may account for a discrepancy, depending on what the 5% was referring to. Generally speaking, prosecutors try to bring only the cases to trial that have sufficient evidence to convict.

After looking really briefly, it does appear that the 5% figure is based on rapes reported, and not rapes that have gone to trial. http://jezebel.com/5011675/the-rape-conv… Still, that 55% of juries convict is heartening. Good for the U.K. justice system.

ETA:

Re. math: While it's right to say "no process, no case," the article's 55% conviction rate is based on only those cases that end in a jury decision, not on cases that are filed. So it would be incorrect to say that 55% of all rape cases end in a conviction.

The 4,000 cases that go forward for prosecution is over a three-year period, not a one-year period (according to the article). If you take one-third of that, that gives you 1,333 rape cases being decided by jury per year, which is about 9.7% of the cases reported to the police (using the figure Eleanor provided). Which gives us 733 convictions out of the 13,750 cases filed per year, which is a 5.3% conviction rate from the total of cases filed per year. (N.B.: There may be other rape cases that result in punishment because the criminal pled guilty. The ~5% figure presumably does not count pleas.)

I think. I admit that am not a math genius, so feel free to check my work.

Quote from feminist #2

No, it just means you don't know how to read statistics hon.

Around 47,000 people are raped each year in the UK (British Crime Survey 2001)

Around 13,750 of these are reported to the police = 29% (Home Office figures 2001/2005)

Around 4000 of these go forward for prosecution = 8.5% (Your figures)

Of these, 55% resulted in conviction (2200) = 4.6% (Your figures)

Even if we ignored those not reported to the police, the total rape convictions as a percentage of reported rapes is still only 2200 out of 13750 = 16%

Bad anti-feminist maths being slowly revealed? I think so! :-)


Edit: Bee - Wow, I didn't even realise that was a 3 year figure - so actually the conviction rate is 1.5% of all rapes, or 5.3% of all reported rapes. That's even worse than I thought - well done for spotting that it was a 3 year study and not a 1 year one as I assumed though. Can't believe how bad the conviction rate is...


Edit: Feminists Love Captain Caveman - it's a lot more reliable than linking a source which only mentions rape cases that were prosecuted, and trying to claim this shows a 55% conviction rate.

The Fawcett Society is a huge NGO with international respect, its figures are from official sources. Do you have any information to suggest the figures I quoted are not correct? I think not. The really hilarious thing about your question is that you have, with your own figures, just proved all the feminists right (Including the Fawcett Society). Your chances of getting away with rape in this country are 98.5%. Absolutely shocking.

Quote from frostyboy

I watched an interesting documentary about the history of the Home Office last week.

It's still available to view online: The Dark Department

I can't see it. Can you provide another link?

Marx, it's interesting to read the feminist's comments you got.

Sometimes, I used to think, OMG, they're running circles around me. But I am grateful really, because they have given me information. It makes my responses better by knowing what they are about.

From your small discussion on Yahoo, I now know 5% of complaints are taken seriously by police while 55% of rape cases are found guilty.

That means that police consider 95% of complaints to be false and that 45% of cases that go to court are false. That's a massive amount of false rape complaints. The amount of rape cases found false is very high too. It is completely wrong to give feminists money to make the law easier for women who cry rape based on this.

Edit: I do agree though that we need to know for certain what this 5% is related to.

I know that sometimes I have trouble seeing things clearly, so I have two questions that I wish someone would answer for me:

1) Yeah, yeah, unreported rapes blah blah blah. Ummmmm, if we are talking about unreported rapes, how exactly can be establish them as a percentage of all rapes and/or convictions? By virtue of them being unreported, aren't we necessarily unsure as to what the percentage is? If we are unsure, why couldn't the percentage be 0%? Why do we show such a concern about unreported rapes/domestic violence/child abuse and not a corresponding concern about the rate of unreported burglaries or insurance fraud (I think I may know the answer to that last one.... )?

2) Why isn't the real story that 45% of all rape allegations that make it to trial are false (or, to be more charitable, unsubstantiated)? Just wondering....

Quote from rohara

What is the deal with the Home Office in England? I read alot about it and it seems to me that although it is a government entity it has a socio/political ax to grind that is extremely pro feminist and anti male.

Well the whole government is like that, Home Office isn't massively worse i don't think.

From 2007 to 2009 it was run by feminist Jacqui Smith - she wasn't insanely anti-male, but still very sexist. She got kicked out over her expenses and I think things have improved slightly since.

Proof that she wasn't inherently evil came after she lost the job when she basically admitted she was under qualified and hadn't really been up to the job - you don't see that degree of honesty form the very worst feminists (though shame she didn't admit as such when actually in the job)