The trio were arrested after Dodd claimed they had all raped her after she met them on a night out in the city - and they spent a total of nearly 50 hours in police custody before being released on bail.Rosie Dodd got two years for this. And once again, we get the same old platitudes:
Detective Constable Gina Farrell led the investigation for Nottinghamshire Police and slammed Dodd after the hearing for never showing ‘an ounce of remorse’ for what she put the men through.And how about what the police put him through? Any remorse from you, Gina?
DC Farrell added that time the force’s specially-trained officers spent with Dodds could have been given to someone who ‘really needed our help’.And that's not entirely all her fault, is it?
A man* says he is still in shock and feels emotionally shattered and unable to trust women after being falsely accused of rape.
And he is now warning other men to be careful when they go on a night out.
The 29-year-old, who does not want to be named, was arrested and his home was subjected to a rigorous police investigation after the incident.He has a few words that ought to resound in Gina Farell's mind:
Until it happens to you you don’t realise how destructive it can be and how scared it can make you. When I was at the police station I felt like the female officers were looking at me with disgust.They probably were. No doubt that's exactly how Gina looked at the three she arrested at first.
And we'll no doubt get the usual complaints that 'police aren't psychic' and 'we have to arrest to investigate, blah, blah, blah...'.
Well, save it. Until I see police officers going into print arguing that the current way rape is investigated is unfair and unjust to those men falsely accused, who end up with their DNA on file and potential employment problems, I'm going to consider you part of the problem, not part of the solution.
*H/T: Steve via email
13 comments:
'Any remorse from you, Gina?'
For as long as the tabloids print her name correctly, the publicity can trigger no moral anguish. And certainly no regrets for her fine dual performances as indignant, avenging angel of the law followed by a brief cameo as sanctimonious cow.
Gina's hypocrisy will be rewarded as surely as officious police meddling will continue to be part of the problem.
I cannot understand why these people never sue for false arrest and imprisonment.
.... and the net result seems to be - bearing in mind the 2-year jail sentence - Rosie Dodd virtually "got away with it".
"the current way rape is investigated is unfair and unjust to those men falsely accused, who end up with their DNA on file and potential employment problems".
This is two separate issues. Keeping of DNA and CRB checks have nothing to do with the investigation. There certainly is an issue of people who are not charged, let alone convicted remaining on the 'naughty list'.
"I cannot understand why these people never sue for false arrest and imprisonment."
Because as long an arrest was reasonable under the circumstances, it is legal. The fact they werent charged is irelivent. An arrest takes place at the start or middle of an investigation, not the end.
A man is now telling other men that going home with two other men and a woman and having a foursome *might* be something they'd like to think twice about ?
There are so many other reasons to think twice about that...beyond the possible accusation of rape...that i just don't even know where to start. Suffice to say the timing of that thought is going to be crucial.
Since the gods gave man a penis and a brain... but not enough blood to run both at the same time...then I wish you Good Luck with that.
Not saying they deserved it but come on...it's not like foursomes are a normal everyday/night occurrence that no one bats an eyelid at ? Or, is it ?
Not sure I really want to know...
Bill,
You make my point for me.
It is entirely UNreasonable for a person to be arrested on the say-so of a drunken slapper alone.
Nearly 40 years ago at Police Training School, I learned that sexual offences were hard to prove, but even harder to disprove. Nothing much has changed.
In the past it was fairly common practice for the Police to look very hard at a sexual assault allegation before action was taken. The 1982 Thames Valley Police documentary showed detectives, with some justification, telling a 'false rape' complainant "This is the biggest bollocks I've ever heard,"
The public did not like what they saw and this is the result...
Why can we not have a situation that perjury or lying to cause or in the course of an investigation or trial brings an automatic penalty of the longest sentence that could be handed down for the alleged offence. OH, wait, that will have the slutwalkers up in arms again, and we can't upset Harriet Harm-Men's cronies, can we.
"It is entirely UNreasonable for a person to be arrested on the say-so of a drunken slapper alone."
With any offence a lot of evidence is going to come from the victim. Yes, this needs to be looked at objectively but unless there are provable lies or the account is ridiculous the victim deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Julia`s original post was about post investigation issues. Those are political issues about civil rights not policing issues. Imo the greater problem is that while being arrested is never a good experience, being arrested for rape means having intimate samples taken as well as being asked lots of questions about you sex life. That's the bit that seems unavoidable in a lot of cases to me.
"I cannot understand why these people never sue for false arrest and imprisonment. "
Because, as Bill points out, they'd have no grounds. That's wrong. It needs to change.
"This is two separate issues."
Maybe, but inextricably linked.
And since the police have shown a marked reluctance to let go of DNA even when retention is ruled unlawful...
"There are so many other reasons to think twice about that.."
Well, indeed!
"The public did not like what they saw..."
'The public'? Since when have cultural Marxists, Common Purpose drones and rabid feminazis been 'the public'?
The solution is to stop the police retaining DNA not to stop them arresting people.
Bill,
So it's OK to arrest an innocent man, cause him the shame and embarrassment of a rape accusation, the financial loss of hiring a solicitor and the hassle associated with visa applications to the US and Australia, so long as the police stop illegally retaining DNA.
I think you'll find the police do need to stop arresting people willy nilly, just to be on the safe side.
"So it's OK to arrest an innocent man, cause him the shame and embarrassment of a rape accusation"
Yes. To have best chance of a conviction an early arrest is necessary. Yes I recognised it is extremely unpleasant but I don't see a alternative.
"stop arresting people willy nilly"
That's an unfair comment, arresting someone is a judgement made on the evidence available at the time. As we don't know what they knew we cant say if it was willy nilly or not.
"the financial loss of hiring a solicitor"
Legal aid is free at a police station and often free post charge as well.
" hassle associated with visa applications to the US and Australia"
Like DNA retention this could be changed without affecting the investigation. It also said that records were 'scrubbed' in this case in the initial article.
Post a Comment