Det Chief Insp Scott Cannon said: “When a false allegation of rape is made, it heightens the difficulty for those victims who have suffered from sexual abuse.
“The outcome of this prosecution should act as a very clear message to those people who deliberately lie to police and significantly hinder a major investigation.
“The actions of Cathy Richardson in this case led to an innocent man being arrested, having to spend time in a custody cell and undergo an intrusive and personal medical examination.
“He had to endure the stigma of being suspected of a serious offence, only to be cleared of a crime he knew he had not committed.”Gosh, it's almost like the poor innocent sod is an afterthought for you, isn't it?
He added: “People who make false and malicious allegations jeopardise the hard work that Essex Police and partner agencies have done to increase the confidence levels of victims reporting sexual crime.
“My team will relentlessly pursue every line of inquiry in a search for the truth and will always strive to bring sexual offenders to justice.
“I would like to reassure every victim of sexual abuse that Essex Police take any report very seriously and will offer all the support and protection we can.”And in the next breath, you are advertising how easy it is to do this, because healthy scepticism is thrown away in pursuit of politically-correct guidelines...
H/T: Misanthrope Girl via Twitter
Equal 1st in the hierarchy of misfortune for "the poor innocent sod", is that he won't get his DNA sample back.
This is one of your hobby horses isn't it Julia? The police are in an impossible position-they can't automatically believe or dis-believe anyone.If we get it wrong on either side then armchair critics will come out of the woodwork.
I expect to get shot down by people who have never investigated a rape.
Harriet harman knows that they are all guilty really. Except the brown ones.
Jaded, with all due respect are they really?
Consider the numbers of men arrested, DNA taken and incarcerated for lengthy periods based purely on an accusation when they have already provided evidence that the accusation was false, they were elsewhere, witnesses and even audio/video recordings and yet all was ignored for hours or even days before a police officer eventually decided maybe, possibly, reluctantly (because the defence solicitor insisted) to check 'the facts'.
The police have lost support and all respect because they 'choose' to arrest and play 'the procedure' game rather than gather the evidence of a crime before deciding to charge someone.
This is not only in rape accusations but in all crime. Answer truthfully - is it procedure to 'investigate' a crime scene, decide who is to be arrested/charged and then 'only' gather evidence which supports that charge? It used to be you would gather all the evidence and then decide - what happened?
We won't mention the refusal to arrest/charge women known/proven to have made false allegations either and it's police officers as much as the CPS who 'excuse' (and help them get extra support) these poor misunderstood women.
"...he won't get his DNA sample back."
"This is one of your hobby horses isn't it Julia?"
Along with dangerous dogs, yes, I suppose you could say so.
Odd, I know, that I should be concerned with the inversion of justice, the continuing slide of a once-respected police force into a politically-correct morass, and the contempt for the truly innocent party in the affair...
"The police have lost support and all respect because they 'choose' to arrest and play 'the procedure' game rather than gather the evidence of a crime before deciding to charge someone."
And that, when the wheels come off, their concern for the innocent party is always, always secondary in their statement.
It's like they were reading off some pre-prepared script, or something.
In this decade, the 'unfit for purpose' label completed the metamorphosis of UK police into an irrelevant and expensive government accessory. Our laziest clowns of administrative fouls have missed the boat for salvage/rebuild.
Plod unwisely opted for smearing their critics and denying everything. I state with much sincerity that comments from the likes of WC Jaded and Gadget were sources of great personal pleasure.
@ Anon 18:35
If the guy didn't do the crime (i.e. even 'better' than "not guilty"), there is no logical reason to keep his DNA?
I'm glad Melvin that I have amused you over the years.Unfortunately I cannot reciprocate.Your posts are tedious,pompous,sneering and repetitive.
And you still haven't said why you are such an expert on policing (and everything else).
That DNA record can now be inspected by our EU "partners" -
Post a Comment