A woman who made twenty -- read that again: twenty -- false reports of rape, abduction, false imprisonment and assault against her innocent husband and other unnamed men will not be jailed unless she breaks a court order to stop wasting police time. Let that sink in: a serial false accuser, who targeted members of one gender, will not spend a day behind bars based on her conduct to date, unless she further breaks the law. (The news story is below.) A five-year restraining order bans her from harassing or contacting more than a dozen named individuals, or from getting someone to do it for her.
But the judge entered "not guilty" verdicts on all charges, and warned the woman that they could be held against her if she repeats her behaviour. Why was she not tried and convicted and given prison time? Doctors were unable to agree whether she was of sound enough mind to realize her claims were false, and that's an element of the crimes.
Consider the implications: the progressives who seek to minimize the prevalence of false rape reports will not count the rape claims here as "false rape" claims, simply because the woman supposedly was so deranged that she didn't know she was lying and so was not convicted. Instead, they will dishonestly suggest that since these claims weren't "false" in the sense of leading to a conviction, that they were actual rapes. You think I'm kidding?
If women were victimized by a man in an analogous manner, this obscure case would be a rallying cry for women's rights. There would be talk of "hate crimes," and widespread outrage that such a monster was able to escape prison and terrorize other innocent people. But since the victims were "just" men, this case will not be discussed beyond the confines of this and similar blogs.
Why is there not far more outrage about this?
HERE IS THE NEWS STORY:
Woman who falsely accused husband given court order
A WOMAN who repeatedly made false allegations against her husband could be jailed if she breaks a court order to stop her wasting police time.
Amanda Taylor was yesterday prohibited from contacting more than a dozen named people, including a doctor and police officers in North Yorkshire.
The 34-year-old was due to stand trial on 21 charges of perverting the course of justice, but they were dropped after two days of legal discussions.
The case collapsed after doctors were unable to agree whether Taylor was of sound enough mind to realise her claims were false.
Although a judge entered not guilty verdicts on all charges, he warned Taylor they could be held against her if she repeats her behaviour.
The five-year restraining order imposed yesterday bans her from harassing or contacting the named individuals, or from getting someone to do it for her.
Her barrister, Katherine Dunn, told Judge Howard Crowson she had also explained the implications of the order to her client’s husband, David.
Mr Taylor was named in most of his wife’s false claims made to police between March and September 2009, Teesside Crown Court heard.
Twenty untrue reports of rape, abduction, false imprisonment and assault were made against her innocent husband and other unnamed men.
Then in May last year, she made a series of false reports about her and her husband receiving a number of threatening letters.
At an earlier hearing, Miss Dunn said Taylor, of Rye Cottage, Aldbrough St John, near Richmond, North Yorkshire, accepted making all the untrue allegations, but the issue was whether she knew it was wrong.
Judge Crowson said he believed the prosecution had made the right decision and told Taylor: “I hope that it might be the case that this will never happen again.
He added: “Although it resulted in the acquittal of Amanda Taylor, it is necessary to protect people from harassment by her.
“I have read enough statements – both those prepared for the trial and other documents – which make it clear that each and every one of those people does require that type of protection.”
Link: http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8788804.Woman_who_falsely_accused_husband_given_court_order/
P.S. Check out our latest piece in The Spearhead: An 89-Year-Old-Statue Helps Unlock the Scorn For Men's Rights
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
If the husband does rape her now, good luck to her getting anyone to believe her.
She was given twenty free passes. Now it's: "If you try to destroy another man, so help me, I might just put you behind bars!"
Somehow, I don't think this is the message we should be sending if we want to deter other rape liars. But I guess I'm assuming we want to stop rape lies and that's a presumption I shouldn't make.
I'm a different Anonymous than who posted above.
One time, I was arguing on a blog with a feminist about the existence of a "stigma" that attaches to women who make rape allegations.
I submitted to her the link to an instance of a woman in the UK who made MULTIPLE (7, actually) false rape allegations. I asked her, rather straightforwardly, why this woman didn't get the memo about the "stigma" which supposedly makes genuine rape victims too fearful to come-forward once about the real thing.
The feminist had no answer for this. Only silence.
"Doctors were unable to agree whether she was of sound enough mind to realize her claims were false, and that's an element of the crimes."
Regardless, she belongs in an institution. If a man was not of sound enough mind to realize that he was committing rape, robbery, or any other serious crime, much fewer than twenty times, he would be locked up somewhere.
Not surprised, thats the Kangaroo COurt system for ya!
www.being-anon.it.tc
"But the judge entered "not guilty" verdicts on all charges, and warned the woman that they could be held against her if she repeats her behaviour."
WTF!?
How can "not guilty" verdicts ever be held against someone? That's what "Deferred Judgments" are for - not punishing a person for a crime they've committed, but holding it in "reserve" to count against them should they re-offend. "not guilty" means, that as far as the court will be concerned, she never committed those crimes, and can never be punished.
Maybe it's different in the UK than here in the States, but issuing a "not guilty" verdict for all charges seems highly inappropriate as well as completely ineffective`.
On the other hand, if the laws are like there are like the laws here, if she violates the restraining order, she could be charged with a felony. Go figure...
Archivist - "Consider the implications: the progressives who seek to minimize the prevalence of false rape reports will not count the rape claims here as "false rape" claims, simply because the woman supposedly was so deranged that she didn't know she was lying and so was not convicted. Instead, they will dishonestly suggest that since these claims weren't "false" in the sense of leading to a conviction, that they were actual rapes."
This is the most potentially problematic issue arising from this case. I can only imagine how it might be twisted around by some.
Given that this woman might not be of sound enough mind to know what she was doing when filing false reports, how can she be let loose on society? If she really is that unstable, wouldn't it have made more sense for the judge to have found her guilty so that she could be sent to a mental hospital and ordered to undergo treatment.
Again, this may ba a difference between US and UK law, but here, unless they are "convicted" (found not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect) and sentenced to it, they cannot be forced to undergo such treatment. The fact that a restraining order was issued seems to indicate that she was not ordered remanded to a mental facility.
This seems like a serious misapplication of of a courts discretion.
slw: "Given that this woman might not be of sound enough mind to know what she was doing when filing false reports, how can she be let loose on society?"
Bravo! How can anyone argue with that? Just set her loose -- so she can tell MORE rape lies that she doesn't know are lies, and so she can't be convicted of them, either.
When viewed in that light, this is among the more inane decisions we've seen in a long time.
I was just watching the new gang rape false accusation on abc; from a girl in the peace corp.
I hate to be the bringer of bad news folks, but i believe she is lying.
If the story sounds too strange to be real..chances are it is not real.
"Why is there not far more outrage about this?"
Because nobody was harmed.
"If the story sounds too strange to be real..chances are it is not real."
Is your opinion based on fact or is that what your little ol' heart is telling you?
"Why is there not far more outrage about this?"
Because nobody was harmed.
Jan 13, 2011 3:57:00 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"If the story sounds too strange to be real..chances are it is not real."
Is your opinion based on fact or is that what your little ol' heart is telling you?
Jan 13, 2011 4:02:00 PM
I say, Its based on the reality that out of the last big American media extravaganza ???"rape cases"???, 10 out of the last 10 big rape cases turned out to be actually false rape accusations.
These gang of guys knocked me down and raped me; then they scratched a backwards b on my face, then the whole gang brought me to their space ship from where they were stalking me from.
Then they kept calling me, and even sent a facebook message to my sister, and said they were gonna rape her then scratch a backwards be in her face to.
when lies become truth, and law enforcement force society to accept lies...then the truth is treason.
The Average American would be shocked to learn the true percentages of falserape accusations..
Anonymous - "I was just watching the new gang rape false accusation on abc"
Link please.
Never mind, I found it myself:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/peace-corps-gang-rape-volunteer-jess-smochek-us/story?id=12599341&page=1
@the poster who introduced this story,
So, I'm curious, which of the accounts did you think was false, or did you think they were all false? What made you think that any particular account was not true?
We see lots of stories about known FRA's here, but I don't really see anything in any of those accounts that struck me as being the sort of "red flags" that we can look for in speculating that a given rape claim might be false.
"law enforcement force society to accept lies"
I too hate the way in which law enforcement goes door-to-door, and puts a gun to each persons head and tells them what they must believe.[/sarcasm]
********Anonymous said...
If the husband does rape her now, good luck to her getting anyone to believe her.*********
That's exactly what the Judge is counting on.
Mr werner, one big red flag was why didn't the girl leave and go home after she said she was first raped???
Anyone that is a victim of a violent crime does not stick around, they want to go be around their families.
If i had 5 minutes questioning this girl, i would show you she is a false rape accuser.
I wander what the law enforcement in that area would say when perverts from America ask them "why didn't you arrest these men that beat and gang raped this young girl???.
Maybe the law enforcement in that area would say they couldn't arrest a group of men for a gang rape that never happened.
I could not say that these accusations of rape are true, without asking some questions to all those involved.
So far out of the last 10 big rape cases that the news media initially published as real, all 10 of them were false...
Why should i believe these are any different???
If the legal system is not reformed to punish people who make false claims, then exploitative people will hide behind the veil of the victim.
This case highlights a common ploy by those who abuse others, which is for an abusive woman to hide behind the traditional view of female weakness, which in and of itself is perpetuated by chauvinism against females. If women were true equals then they would be treated as such under the law, until they are, they are not equal.
"Anyone that is a victim of a violent crime does not stick around, they want to go be around their families."
Oh sure, they all wanna rush home and tell their families the gory details.
Ever occur to you that they'd rather die?
"This case highlights a common ploy by those who abuse others, which is for an abusive woman to hide behind the traditional view of female weakness, which in and of itself is perpetuated by chauvinism against females. If women were true equals then they would be treated as such under the law, until they are, they are not equal."
Hell yeah!
Oh sure, they all wanna rush home and tell their families the gory details.
Ever occur to you that they'd rather die?
This things has been parroted by feminists for a while now. It's mostly built upon the old adage of a woman being worth nothing if she was raped.
That thing was stupid when it was perpetrated by sexist male idiots one hundred years ago, and it's stupid when it's perpetrated by sexist female idiots today.
The human body is determined to survive despite the most grievous of injuries and offenses done to it. You see so many people clinging to life when it's clear that the physical damage they took will quickly overwhelm them.
You see people lose multiple limbs, get saddled with the most disgusting of diseases, get shot (perforated), and still cling to life.
I will absolutely refuse to minimize the damage rape does to a person, because it is enormous.
But you are telling me that since most rape (feminist statistic) is committed by someone you know, so probably of the vein he said/she said, where there is too much alcohol, can be so much worse than those horrible things (even though the "rape victim" often hangs around her "rapist" for years afterwards)...
Well, the term horse manure comes to mind.
”Mr werner, one big red flag was why didn't the girl leave and go home after she said she was first raped???”
S,
I knew that you had some difficulties in reading comprehension, I guess I just didn’t realize how serious it was. The first story of the alleged gang-rape occurred after she complained about men grabbing her, and her having asked to be reassigned.
You probably won’t understand this, but these were cases of young women alone in foreign countries, where they had no one else there to help them. They were as vulnerable as any woman ever was. Also, if you’ll take the time to look at a map, you’ll find that Bangladesh is actually quite a distance from the US, with an ocean in-between. That she didn’t immediately, upon regaining consciousness in an alley, just walk home to her family is quite understandable.
Anonymous - ” Oh sure, they all wanna rush home and tell their families the gory details. Ever occur to you that they'd rather die?”
Um…Not only did they wish to survive, they did report what had happened to their Peace Corp “handlers” (and, even though we aren’t specifically told that they did, they most likely did contact their families ASAP to tell them what had happened).
Their real issue seem to be with the way in which the Peace Corp worked to cover-up the alleged attacks, and how they were given little or no help in dealing with what had happened to them.
Their accounts seem believable to me (and, I’m definitely a skeptic). Woman are raped, even violently, and quickly recover physically – but tend to bear emotional scars (this is also true of men raped in prisons, BTW).
Unless they become pregnant (which is rare, according to the Guttmacher Institute) or are infected with a sexually transmitted disease, the actual act of rape is quite similar to normal reproductive activities. And, woman today can typically find plenty of help and support, not shame and rejection, if they are raped.
This is why so many woman make false rape claims for attention and/or sympathy. They don’t fear any shame, nor that they will be blamed. They know quite well they will be treated kindly.
Mr werner, youre tirade does not convince me all these girls were telling the truth.
My interest is not in debating with you, for at times you may be as (willfully ignorant) as the masses; by my thoughts are shifting to "Can American news media outlets be held accountable for the faulty and inflammatory propaganda they promulgate??
Mr. werner, i know you like to attack me with "yer ignorant"; (of which i do get amused at times by), but i say it is the "willfully blind" that cannot see what is right in front of them.
10 out of 10 of the last rape cases that abc news reported as real rapes; turned out to be false rapes. Why do you think that this faulty and inflammatory news story from abc news is any different??
Get the facts straight.
#1 ------ Mr. Werner does not go into tirades, nor is he ignorant.
#2 ------- Ten out of the last 10 rape cases have been proven false? WRONG!
only men who are deaf and blind in the eyes, escape the wrath of the sirens cries.
Abc news investigates more than a thousand rapes and gang rapes.
Thats unbelievable!!
The agitation propaganda of the future will be a video of all the stacked and shelved rape kits on the shelves from 10 years ago, played with lurid music.
There should be a law that women cannot collect a mans sperm sample, and call it rape (and get a chunk of victim funds for it)..without his written permission.
His sperm, his body, his choice.
concerning the new phenomena of "shelving rape kits" for later agitation propaganda.
I say it is unconstitutional for girls to swab a mans sperm after consensual sex, and bring it to a rape clinic and swab it out to put a sample in the kit to potentially shelve for years. A man or boy who has his sperm taken from him, and branded a rapist...has the constitutional right to protect and defend himself right then and there.
Post a Comment