so she obviously deserved it...

Originally Posted by jamesrichardson

Counselling is what they should get, as that is what helps people recover. Money is not a band aid, it just encourages people to abuse the system.

+10

The conselling we got didn't help - it's all very dependent on the the counsellor and the person being counselled. The more she had to re- live it the worse she got. We went through 5 counsellor and 4 sucide attempts. And they keep telling you , you need to be strong as you'll need to do this in court.
I don't disagree the need for counselling but sometimes looking back i think the money would have helped so that we could have got her out of the situation before counselling started. hard to explain but with her being in the same place the same house same streets did not help and she didn't have the money to go anywhere else or afford different counsellors.

Originally Posted by Quedos

I would love to see the women who cry rape when it wasn't prosecuted (strange froma women i know) it will add credability to those who have suffered and take the step to report.

+1. We have "perverting the course of justice" to deal with this and potentially the scope for quite high sentences for those found to be doing it, but the typical sentences meted out are very low indeed and fairly rare. My POV not just concerning rape, but all crimes is that if you try to stitch someone up for a crime they did not commit and they are proven to be innocent (as opposed to "not guilty" as the French would have it) you should be given at least as much punishment as they would have been, had they been found guilty. Perfect proportionality- it's worse to wrongly accuse someone of murder than speeding after all- and a deterent to time wasting. The nice knock on benefit is that suddenly people would start taking real incidences of rape more seriously and the number of legit prosecutions would rise.

Before someone jumps in and points out it might scare people into not attempting prosecutions in the first place, read up on the distinction between not guilty and innocent.

Originally Posted by anna

my main argument was that argument was that alcohol consumption should not be taken as a sign that a person has attributed to their rape... male or female!

Something I feel is appropriate to bring up, Rape is legally impossible where the victim is male, due to the whole biology involved (and the legal wording). Sexual abuse is a different story, but also carries a lesser penalty IIRC.

In the modern age with drugs like viagra existing, perhaps someone should mention that they ought to change the legal definition of rape.

Originally Posted by Baph

Something I feel is appropriate to bring up, Rape is legally impossible where the victim is male, due to the whole biology involved (and the legal wording). Sexual abuse is a different story, but also carries a lesser penalty IIRC.

In the modern age with drugs like viagra existing, perhaps someone should mention that they ought to change the legal definition of rape.

Really? What about guy forcing another guy, or does that come under some other offence?

Being drunk is not an excuse for committing a rape offense so i cant be considered a excuse for someone being raped. end of argument.

what makes me angry about it is the attitude that someone in entitled to monetary compensation as a victim like somehow it makes it ok to be raped if you get £11,000 not the paltry £7,000 offered in this case.

Thats a lot of money to the tax payer and wont help the victim at all to cope with the emotional trauma of the rape so why is the money involved in the first place?

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Really? What about guy forcing another guy, or does that come under some other offence?

Male rape is now recognised in law and has the same victim protection as female rape.

Originally Posted by neillfergie

Thats a lot of money to the tax payer and wont help the victim at all to cope with the emotional trauma of the rape so why is the money involved in the first place?

Again, as most people did, you appear to of missed the point.

Compensation was awarded because of the way the Police dealt with the case, not because the crime happened.

Originally Posted by Baph

Again, as most people did, you appear to of missed the point.

Compensation was awarded because of the way the Police dealt with the case, not because the crime happened.

That's not what the article says.

The compensation was given out by CICA (Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) for the 'injury' caused by the crime.

[Biker Biggles]

I dont think so Baph.
She was awarded compo from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority which is there to compensate victims of crime for the injuries/losses they suffer.If she was claiming for a botched investigation,she would sue the Police.Same for the other 14 cases mentioned.