Detective Inspector Debbie Dooley said the case made 'a mockery of the awful experiences of genuine victims'.
She said: “As soon as we received this report we launched a thorough investigation and as a result we have established that no such offence occurred.
“To lie about being the victim of such a serious offence obviously causes undue alarm within the community and makes a mockery of the awful experiences of genuine victims.
“We treat all allegations of rape extremely seriously and our investigations into serious sexual offences are meticulous. We will always do whatever we can to uncover the truth and anyone who lies will be caught out and dealt with.”Nice line in outrage, but if it's such an awful thing for real victims and the community in general, why the pathetic punishment..?
The woman, who had claimed she was attacked in an area of land behind a Heywood pub in the early hours of Monday, has been fined £80.And aren't we forgetting someone else who didn't deserve this?
Police interviewed a man under caution who told them he'd had consensual sex with the woman who later admitted this was true.Or doesn't his experience count for much?
H/T: Curmudgeon via email
A sad state of affairs but wasting Police time is the only criminal offence this wretched creature has committed. Before a FPN was issued, the matter would have been discussed with a senior officer and probably CPS, bearing in mind the initial accusation. The penalty would have been suggested by CPS. However, as in all things of this ilk, it's the fault of Police. The offence of libel or slander is a civil offence where any action can only be taken by the bloke she accused. However, this should be made as public as possible, not only for those women who are happy to drop their drawers after a couple of drinks but also for those men who are led around by their testicles and for whom a quick shag with some nameless female is the perfect ending to a good night out. I can't wait for a male answer to Clare's Law, where a man can ask if his prospective girlfriend has a history of accusing sexual partners of rape.
ReplyDeletePenseivat
Interview under caution sounds like they've carefully avoided escalating it to an arrest until they've heard his side of it but in a setting where he is still protected by PACE and can have legal advice before saying anything.
ReplyDeleteWhether an interview under caution would show up under an enhanced CRB, I'm not sure, but it seems like a better way to go than the automatic arrest.
Until the police achive psychic and claivoyant abilities all they can really do is make enquiries either informally or formally with a view to establishing if an offence has been committed. Surely that's the job?
Must be the season for inappropriate fines. Here's another one
ReplyDeletehttp://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/10015999.Dog_walker_fined_for_falsely_claiming_she_was_sexually_assaulted/
Would the guy in question have been fingerprinted and DNA`d?
ReplyDeleteUnless the law has been changed in the past 5 years, there is no need to arrest someone to have an interview under caution, though such an interview can be used in evidence if an arrest and charge is subsequently made. If at a Police station, the subject has the right for a solicitor (provided and paid for at public expense) to be present, otherwise, the presence of a solicitor is down to the person being interviewed. Fingerprints and DNA are only taken after a person has been interviewed or charged. Unfortunately, such an arrest will show up on a CRB check, which is why it is very important to ask for a letter from the Police Force, sorry, Service, involved confirming that the allegations were without foundation and no further Police action has been/will be taken. If no response from the Police, then contact should be made with the attending solicitor for further action. Senior management of Police Forces, sorry (you know the rest), are no different from other organisations when they receive solicitors letters, especially when senior officers are named, as this can have drastic effects on their promotion, award of the Queen's Police Medal, or a knighthood.
ReplyDeletePenseivat
80 quid is alot when she dint even getwhat she was after. I compleetly agreement with you she was cort out and punisshed. neely all wimen are tarts arsking for it and then complaneining. I like you becaouse you is honist and on our side. their shuld be more wimen like you.
ReplyDelete"I can't wait for a male answer to Clare's Law, where a man can ask if his prospective girlfriend has a history of accusing sexual partners of rape. "
ReplyDeleteSomeone's bound to suggest it. And while I'm usually not in favour of yet more legislation...
"Interview under caution sounds like they've carefully avoided escalating it to an arrest... "
It's possible. But like Andy, I wonder if that means no DNA and fingerprinting?
"Unless the law has been changed in the past 5 years, there is no need to arrest someone to have an interview under caution..."
I believe it's even used by some council officials without the power to arrest!
"Senior management of Police Forces, sorry (you know the rest), are no different from other organisations when they receive solicitors letters..."
Oooh, hold that thought!
In the Met an interview under caution would not show up on a CRB and they would not have fingerprints and DNA taken.We do it all the time.
ReplyDeleteJaded
XX Unless the law has been changed in the past 5 years, there is no need to arrest someone to have an interview under caution, though such an interview can be used in evidence if an arrest and charge is subsequently made.
ReplyDeletePenseivat XX
That is also my experience....true 15 years ago and under Scottish law, but....
Ten to eleven, 10-15 year olds smashing windows in peoples flats in Boghall near Bathgate, I run out and catch one by the arm. Take the wee bastar' to it's "Mother", and she complains that the wee bastar' has a bruise on the arm.
Interviewed under caution. NFA'd.
But was NOT arrested.