A woman who made a false rape claim to police cost taxpayers £15,000, a court heard yesterday.
Bernadette Core, 29, of Friarscroft Lane, Wymondham, admitted attempting to pervert the course of justice between October 2009 and February 2010 by making a false allegation of rape when she appeared at Norwich Crown Court.
The court heard that Norfolk police spent £15,000 on the investigation before establishing that she made up the incident.
The charge came after she made a 999 call to Norfolk police in the early hours of October 4 claiming she had been raped at an house in Norwich.
Two men were arrested and interviewed by police but further investigations established that no crime had taken place.
Her case was adjourned for reports and she is due to be sentenced on June 24. Judge Peter Jacobs said he wanted a victim impact statement and told Core that it was a serious offence.
Det Insp Debbie Gunnill, from the force's vulnerable persons directorate, said that is was a rare case. She added that it should not deter victims from reporting genuine rapes to the police.
She said; “Norfolk constabulary treats all reports of rapes seriously and all are investigated thoroughly. On rare occasions, evidence obtained during an investigation may suggest a false allegation, in these cases we carefully consider all the facts in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether it is appropriate to take action against the individual. Decisions are taken on a case by case basis.
“We are very mindful that such cases as this can have a negative impact however I would like to give my reassurance that we are committed to giving victims of rape the best service we can and encourage any person who has been raped to come forward.”
The case comes as ministers prepare to grant men the same right of anonymity as their alleged victims.
The government plans to pass a bill changing the law which allows suspects' names, ages and addresses to be published while rape victims are granted lifelong anonymity.
It is believed that defendants will be named once they are convicted of rape or plead guilty to the offence.
It is hoped the new measures will prevent the false reporting of rapes and stop innocent men's names and reputations being tarnished by having their details revealed in the media.
Link:
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED17%20Jun%202010%2016%3A01%3A15%3A737
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Barbara Kay: Pygmies in the world of sexology
'This just in! A conservative man in Toronto has been convicted of rape after consensual sex with a liberal woman, who assumed he too was liberal because he was wearing Birkenstocks and carrying a backpack with a Greenpeace logo on it.
Even though the sex was fine, when she found out he was a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party and was using his nephew’s backpack as a ploy to arouse her lust (the sandals really were just for comfort), she accused him of rape. The courts found that indeed the man had committed “rape by deception.”
Okay, that isn’t true. But this is: a 30-year old delivery man, Sabbar Kashur, was sent to jail for 18 months for having hooked up under the Jewish name of “Daniel” with a Jerusalem woman in 2008. They met on the street, repaired to a nearby office building, and went at it. The woman had no complaints about the sex until it was revealed the guy wasn’t Jewish. Then she screamed rape.
As if there weren’t enough to keep men in a state of panic, this international legal first not only makes a mockery of the well-established principle that consent, once given, cannot be retroactively withdrawn under the rubric of buyer’s remorse, but has the effect of declaring racism a virtue, and makes a racist the victim in a clearly victimless act.'
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/21/barbara-kay-pygmies-in-the-world-of-sexology/#ixzz0uLDKNKkV
Israel: Man jailed for rape because he "deceived" woman into thinking he was Jewish
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1296442/Anger-Israel-convicts-Arab-rape-consensual-sex-Jewish-woman.html
BBC.radio.womans.hour.false.rape.allegations (17th July 2010):
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=I4LQY538
http://rapidshare.com/files/408388652/bbc.radio.womans.hour.false.rape.accusations.2010.mp3
http://www.zshare.net/audio/785700137d46756f/
You would cry rape too if the woman you had just made love to turned out to be a radical feminist.
"Judge Peter Jacobs said he wanted a victim impact statement and told Core that it was a serious offence."
Yes! The real victims will get to be heard (in a court of law) when her sentencing is considered.
It seems in many of these UK cases where, even though the lying women are convicted of Perverting the Course of Justice, there is a prevailing attitude that their crime was committed against the state - not against individuals who ended up being implicated (and risk reputational harm, or worse). Here, we have a judge (finally) clearly understanding that there were real flesh-and-blood civilian victims of this woman's crime, and will give them a voice.
Anonymous - "But this is: a 30-year old delivery man, Sabbar Kashur, was sent to jail for 18 months for having hooked up under the Jewish name of “Daniel” with a Jerusalem woman"
Thank you for posting this. It serves to highlight one of the key issues we often bring up - the idea that if a woman later regrets consensual sex (even where she admits to initiating and enjoying), then that too is clearly rape.
It's hardly any secret that women routinely lie about themselves when seeking to meet and hook-up with men. Does that also make any sex with them rape on their part? Of course not - that would be patently stupid to believe.
Do men who find out the women that they married never loved them, but was just after their money get a pass in divorce court? Do men who find out (after two years) that the children they've loved and have been raising and supporting where actually father by another man during their wives infidelities get any indemnity from further liability for those children - even when the women uses their lack of biological parentage to prevent them from ever seeing those children?
Men get no protections from the deceptions (and even frauds) committed against them by women. So, how is it that allowing from this "rape-by-deception" to be considered in any way just or fair?
Truly western society is tilted heavily in favor of women. There is zero "male privilege". (I defy gender-feminist trolls to give an example that can apply widely to men - not just a few select examples of men who already enjoy other privileges accruing to them by such means as their wealth, but to "Joe Average" as well.)
If a woman can now claim that anything a man might have told her, lead her to believe, or even failed to correct her from believing; then the door is wide open to charge virtually any sexual encounter as having been rape at her whim.
Tell me again how men are privileged and woman are oppressed.
slwerner said...
Anonymous - "But this is: a 30-year old delivery man, Sabbar Kashur, was sent to jail for 18 months for having hooked up under the Jewish name of “Daniel” with a Jerusalem woman"
Thank you for posting this. It serves to highlight one of the key issues we often bring up - the idea that if a woman later regrets consensual sex (even where she admits to initiating and enjoying), then that too is clearly rape.
It's hardly any secret that women routinely lie about themselves when seeking to meet and hook-up with men. Does that also make any sex with them rape on their part? Of course not - that would be patently stupid to believe.
Do men who find out the women that they married never loved them, but was just after their money get a pass in divorce court? Do men who find out (after two years) that the children they've loved and have been raising and supporting where actually father by another man during their wives infidelities get any indemnity from further liability for those children - even when the women uses their lack of biological parentage to prevent them from ever seeing those children?
Men get no protections from the deceptions (and even frauds) committed against them by women. So, how is it that allowing from this "rape-by-deception" to be considered in any way just or fair?
Truly western society is tilted heavily in favor of women. There is zero "male privilege". (I defy gender-feminist trolls to give an example that can apply widely to men - not just a few select examples of men who already enjoy other privileges accruing to them by such means as their wealth, but to "Joe Average" as well.)
If a woman can now claim that anything a man might have told her, lead her to believe, or even failed to correct her from believing; then the door is wide open to charge virtually any sexual encounter as having been rape at her whim.
Tell me again how men are privileged and woman are oppressed.
Jul 22, 2010 11:09:00 AM
Once upon many times lies were told...
Amy Alkon's take on this rape-by-deception crap:
The Difference Between A Douchebag And A Rapist
"...if this case is rape, millions of men and women in bars, parties and countless other venues around the world are rapists."
I'm not an Israel-basher, but I find it pretty disturbing that their legal system thinks that being tricked into having sex with a Muslim is somehow tantamount to rape.
Part 1 of 2
Off-topic:
Fred Reed's most recent column
"
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Mattis.shtml
Psycopathy Legitimized Feminist Marine Gets His Kicks Killing Male Chauvinists
22 July 2010
On Anti-War.com, I find a loutish American general, James Mattis, martial feminist, talking about the fun he has killing Afghans. Yes, fun, wheeee-oooo! and ooo-rah! too. He says, “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” adding “guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyways. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.” What must he do with prisoners?
A joyous killer, possibly orgasmic. Note mandatory flagly background, pickle suit, and stupid colorful gewgaws so he looks like a goddam stamp collecton. Stern gaze is necessary to become a general. From defending the Constitution to the pleasre of watching Afghans die: The military has come a long way.
I’ll guess he fell just shy of graduating from third grade. He sure ain’t much of a general, no ways, I reckon. Just the fellow I want representing me in the world.
Does General Dworkin-Mattis speak of manhood? Odd, since his military is being badly outfought by the unmanly Afghans that are fun to kill. By the Pentagon’s figures the US military outnumbers the resistance several to one. The US has complete control of the air, enjoying F16s, helicopter gun-ships, transport choppers, and Predator drones, as well as armor, body armor, night-vision gear, heavy weaponry, medevac, hospitals, good food, and PXs. The Afghans have only AKs, RPGs, C4, and balls. Yet they are winning, or at least holding their own. How glorous.
Man for man, weapon for weapon, the Taliban are clearly superior. They take far heavier casualties, but keep on fighting. Their politics are not mine, but they are formidable on the ground. If I were General Dworkin, I’d change my name and go into hiding. Maybe he could wear a veil.
Perhaps the US should recognize that it has a second-rate military at phenomenal cost—an enormous, largely useless national codpiece. It is embarrassing. The Pentagon’s preferred enemies are lightly armed, poorly equipped peasants, which makes for a long war and thus hundreds of billions of dollars in juicy contracts for military industries. Yet the greatest military in history (ask it) gets run out of Southeast Asia, blown up and run out of Lebanon, shot down and run out of Somalia, with Afghanistan a disaster in progress and Iraq claimed as an American victory rather than Shiite.Do the aircraft carriers intimidate North Korea? No. Iran? No. China? No. For this, a trilliaon dollars a year?
The reasons for the mediocrity are clear enough. First, the Pentagon has become a contracting agency for buying gorgeous and elaborate arms of little relevance to the wars the US fights. (If the Martians attack, we’ll be ready.)
Second, the US is no longer a nation of hardy country boys who grow up shooting and loading hay bales into pick-ups for spare change. (For the uninitiated, hay bales are heavy.) I often see headlines such as “More than two-thirds of Texas schoolchildren flunked the state's physical fitness test this year…” If Texas has gone all soft and rubbery, you can forget about Massassachusetts. The American pool of hardy, manipulable kids without too much schoolin' isn't what it was. The lack of troops of course pushes the Pentagon toward more pricey gadgetry and greater imbalance.... "
-continued-
Part 2 of 2
Off-topic:
Fred Reed's most recent column
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Mattis.shtml
"....Now, it is regarded as treasonous to question that Our Boys are the best trained, best armed, toughest troops in the world, and I’ll probably get punched out in bars for pointing out the awful truth. Let’s imagine an experiment. We take Killing-is-Fun General Mattis-Abzug, and a thousand GIs, and a thousand Taliban, and let them fight it out in any patch of wretched barren mountains of your choosing. On equal terms. What you think? Same weapons..
Good idea, General? You et what they eat, wear what they wear, They have no medical care, and neither do you. If they get lung-shot and die the hard way, you do too. It will come down to guts and motivation.
Motivation: It counts, general. I believe it was Bedford Forrest who said of some of his troops, “Them cane-brake boys jest plain likes to fight.” I guess there must be just a whole lot of cane in Afghanistan. The Taliban will go to any length to cut your freaking throat because you have been killing their wives and children ,fathers and brothers, and you will fight for…for…well. Uh. Big oil, AIPAC, Ann Coulter. Or a promotion for General Mathis-Abzug. Anybody want to put odds on the outcome?
Or what if they had the air power, the gun ships…?
And General, killing them might be a tad less fun when you couldn’t do it from the safety of a gunship. Just a thought, General.
A digression here. Bear with me. It’s just that General Mattis-Steinem makes killing sound like so much fun. And I guess it is, for some. You’ve seen the YouTube video of GIs machine-gunning people walking around a city street from a helicopter gunship. A hoot. But—can I offer a second opinion?
I went off to Viet Nam because I was young and dumb and adventurous and they told me that I was fighting for Apple Pie, and Mom, and White Christian Motherhood (which I spent my high-school days dreading, but never mind). Actually I was just another sucker from the small-town South. The Pentagon depends, utterly, on small-town suckers. They are brave, trainable, not real thoughtful.
Funny how things look if you think about them. Patriots talk about the tragic deaths of young Americans in Afghanistan. Well, ok. Other things being equal, young guys getting shot to death in a pointless war is not a swell idea. I’m against it. In fact, the more you see of it, and I’ve seen a lot, the worse an idea it seems. Of course, a logician might point out that if you didn’t send them to Afghanistan, they wouldn’t die there—would they?
The dead are not the only casualties. Go to aVeterans Hospital, and watch the left-overs come in. You might be surprised how much fun they didn't think it was. Or what they think of General Mattis-Firmstare. You might be very surprised.
But tell me: why is a GI’s life, mine or anyone else’s, worth more than the life of an Afghan child of three? Especially if you pretend to be a Christian, tell me. (I love this part. Military Christians are wonderfully funny frauds.)
A pretty good rule of thumb is that the attacking army is in the wrong, which would have made a Vietnamese kid’s life worth more than mine. I'll buy that, though I'm happy it didn't work out that way. But the attacking countries always believe that Their Boys are sacred.
When the Japanese attacked Pearl, they figured a Japanese pilot’s life was worth more than that of an American sailor. The Germans thought the same, mutatis mutandis, when the Wehrmacht went into Poland, as of course do Americans when they invade country after country. But why is the aggressor’s life sacred, prithee? If I leap out of a dark alley and attack your daughter with a butcher knife, is my life worth more than hers?
But it is just so much fun to kill Afghans. Excuse me, I need to puke."
Anonymous - "I'm not an Israel-basher, but I find it pretty disturbing that their legal system thinks that being tricked into having sex with a Muslim is somehow tantamount to rape."
The notion that "tricking" a woman into sex equals rape isn't anything new (anyone remember Denise Romano and her "men who use game are rapists" BS?). In fact, many gender-feminists have openly stated their belief that if a women felt she'd been deceived into having sex, then she was raped.
Given that this one prime example is coming from the Middle East, the "Camels nose under the tent" analogy is especially apt.
I'm afraid we can now expect to see more attempts to us this line of reasoning to charge men with rape throughout the Western/Westernized World.
Post a Comment