Monday, February 13, 2012
Donate Now, Please
We write to ask our readers to do something we've never asked our readers to do.
One of this blog's principal writers is now also affiliated with A Voice for Men. Without being asked by the owner of AVFM, we insisted that we be permitted to solicit our readers for donations for AVFM here at False Rape Society. (Not only weren't we asked to solicit for donations, our readers should know that we had to continally badger the owner of AVFM, Paul Elam, to give us the "donate" button, he was that sheepish about it. He told us he was just happy to have us contribute to AVFM.) The donate button now appears on the right side of this page -- AVFM Donations -- and we are, at this time, asking you to be as generous as your means allow.
Please know that False Rape Society doesn't stand to earn one penny from this, but we are asking you to send a message that what we talk about here is vitally important to a lot of men. It is our intention in the months ahead to work with AVFM to spread the messages we think are important.
So please -- please -- donate right now if you think it's important to give voice to the wrongly accused on an even more powerful platform; if you care about runaway political correctness on campus where nagging for sex is now a punishable offense and where young men can be expelled even if a disciplinary panel is 49.9999 percent certain that he didn't commit the offense; if you care that some politicized prosecutors are more interested in empowering women than in doing justice; and if you want to help hold a voracious mainstream news media accountable for rushing to judgment and destroying the reputations of innocent men and boys in cases under investigation.
False Rape Society will continue the work we've been doing for years -- you will be seeing new names blogging here shortly, and now, we will also be spreading the message at AVFM.
AVFM is not a monolith, and all of its writers don't subscribe to a monolithic philosophy. And we are certain its writers don't agree with everything we do here. For example, when AVFM calls for jury nullification in rape cases, that may seem extreme to many of us, perhaps too broad-brush, too in-your-face. It can't be denied that it's powerful statement about a system that is broken for innocent men and boys. No one favors giving rapists a free pass, but a system that chews up innocent men and boys with glee needs to be repaired, and, at present, the people dominate the public discourse about rape don't give a damn about innocent men and boys.
For our sake, please make a donation to AVFM.
False Rape Society thanks you.
Pro athlete to sue rape accuser he claims was paid by the government for lying
Mr. Goodwillie was accused of rape early last year by a 24-year-old single mother who told cops that the Blackburn Rovers striker attacked her on a night out.
"I know what happened that night and I know that I did absolutely nothing wrong. I know all the evidence and it backs me up in everything."
Prosecutors dropped the charges last July, but Mr. Goodwillie is incensed that the woman was awarded 11,000 pounds in criminal compensation, and now he wants to take legal action against her.
If Mr. Goodwillie's allegations are correct, he should have the support of all persons of good will, including the feminist community.
In the UK, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) furnishes a monetary incentive to lie about rape. Under the Compensation Scheme, Britain pays crime victims, including women who claim they’ve been raped, substantial sums of money as “compensation.” The alleged rapes need not have involved violence to trigger the payments.
The compensation system has been subjected to rampant fraud, and women have falsely cried rape in order to collect. In one well-publicized case, a false accuser was compensated a substantial sum of money for her lie. In contrast, Britain does not compensate men for the harm they suffer after being falsely accused, no matter how egregious. The double-standard is stark, and morally grotesque. It tells us much about how our society regards the victims of false rape claims. See our report: Women Are Paid To Lie About Rape
In the Goodwillie case, the evidence includes witness statements and CCTV footage, which the 22-year-old claims shows the woman's story is a web of lies. The star athlete said he was on a night out with a pal when he met the woman on January 1. Goodwillie claims the pair knocked back booze before they headed to a house party. But the following day, the woman claimed to have possibly been drugged and attacked. Goodwillie and St Johnstone star pal David Robertson, 24, were both arrested.
No charges were ever brought against Robertson. The case against Goodwillie was based on the woman's claim that she had no memory and was not able to consent to sex.
But Mr. Goodwillie has alleged that fresh access to legal documents prove that the woman willingly went with him to the house bash. He said the evidence includes statements from the taxi driver who drove them there. And he also said the documents disprove her claims she'd no memory of sending a text message late at night, because CCTV cameras spotted her on the mobile.
Goodwillie explained: "The woman claims to have no recollection of events after 10pm on January 1, 2011. She denied sending a text message from her mobile phone to her mother around midnight, telling her not to have her brother come and collect her.
"She said the message must have been sent by me or a friend who was with me that night.
"But there is high-definition, time-coded CCTV footage which shows her sending a message from her phone outside the club where we were close to at midnight. Her phone records have been examined by the Crown Office and they show that message was sent to her mother's phone.
"The CCTV also shows her talking and walking normally and in control of her actions."
Mr. Goodwillie also said that a neighbour at the house where the alleged attack occurred claimed he heard the star and the girl joking about sex.
And he alleged official papers also show the woman lied about her whereabouts the morning after.
"In the morning, she took a mobile phone call from a member of her family who wanted to know where she was. Unknown to her at the time, her relatives were making the call from her house and she was not where she claimed to be. It was only at this time that she claimed to have suffered a memory lapse and the allegations were made. Then, on January 3, she tried to withdraw the allegations, I have been told."
Mr. Goodwillie said he had not "taken the decision to speak out lightly." He said: "I had to endure seven months of utter hell. The prosecutors studied CCTV images, examined phone records and text message traffic. These contradicted the woman's version of events. And everything I said was backed up."
Four of the most senior Crown Office staff — including the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and Derek Ogg QC, the head of the National Sex Crimes Unit — read all the case notes.
"I find that although the most senior prosecutors refused to take the case to court I am now being tried in the court of public opinion for something of which I am innocent.
"This woman and her lawyer seem determined to undermine me.
"My reputation has been tarnished by a catalogue of lies and untruths. Enough is enough. I have now instructed my legal team to take all the necessary steps to look after my interests, including a defamation action to protect my name," he said.
"I could have been in a jail cell for several years due to a false allegation. My life, my reputation, my career would all have been lost," he said. "I will do whatever is required to prevent my reputation being sullied any further."
For her part, the accuser is now upset because Mr. Goodwillie appeared to know details of a private meeting she had with prosecutors. She says she only denied sending a text message before the alleged attack in a private conversation at the Crown Office and it was not included in her police statements.
SOURCES:
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4123455/David-Goodwillie-Ill-sue-over-rape-lies.html
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/02/12/267546-David-Goodwillie-plans-to-sue-woman-for-accusing-him-of-rape.html
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2012/02/12/scotland-star-david-goodwillie-s-interview-on-rape-claim-set-to-be-probed-86908-23745936/
Pro athlete to sue rape accuser he claims was paid by the government for lying
Mr. Goodwillie was accused of rape early last year by a 24-year-old single mother who told cops that the Blackburn Rovers striker attacked her on a night out.
"I know what happened that night and I know that I did absolutely nothing wrong. I know all the evidence and it backs me up in everything."
Prosecutors dropped the charges last July, but Mr. Goodwillie is incensed that the woman was awarded 11,000 pounds in criminal compensation, and now he wants to take legal action against her.
If Mr. Goodwillie's allegations are correct, he should have the support of all persons of good will, including the feminist community.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Campus warrior against political correctness
College campuses are among the least tolerant places in America. Smug, elitist faculty gravitate to the easily mouthed clichés of feminism and other forms of political correctness to give them a false veneer of enlightenment and sophistication, and to separate them from the “guns and religions” crowd they find so abhorrent. This veneer arms them with McCarthyistic bats to attack anyone who doesn’t share their world view.
When someone in that world isn’t afraid to stand up against the purveyors of forced orthodoxy, the fetishists of group identity victimhood, well, as Arthur Miller wrote, “Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.”
Meet Prof. John McAdams of Marquette University.
Read the rest here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/campus-warrior-against-political-correctness/
When someone in that world isn’t afraid to stand up against the purveyors of forced orthodoxy, the fetishists of group identity victimhood, well, as Arthur Miller wrote, “Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.”
Meet Prof. John McAdams of Marquette University.
Read the rest here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/campus-warrior-against-political-correctness/
Campus warrior against political correctness
College campuses are among the least tolerant places in America. Smug, elitist faculty gravitate to the easily mouthed clichés of feminism and other forms of political correctness to give them a false veneer of enlightenment and sophistication, and to separate them from the “guns and religions” crowd they find so abhorrent. This veneer arms them with McCarthyistic bats to attack anyone who doesn’t share their world view.
When someone in that world isn’t afraid to stand up against the purveyors of forced orthodoxy, the fetishists of group identity victimhood, well, as Arthur Miller wrote, “Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.”
Meet Prof. John McAdams of Marquette University.
Read the rest here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/campus-warrior-against-political-correctness/
When someone in that world isn’t afraid to stand up against the purveyors of forced orthodoxy, the fetishists of group identity victimhood, well, as Arthur Miller wrote, “Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.”
Meet Prof. John McAdams of Marquette University.
Read the rest here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/campus-warrior-against-political-correctness/
Why the New York Post's coverage of the Greg Kelly rape case enraged some
Last week, the New York Post's Andrea Peyser wrote an impassioned plea to New York's district attorney to prosecute Maria Di Toro, the woman who wrongly claimed she was raped by New York television personality Greg Kelly. Ms. Peyser wrote: "The DA must take a stand against false claims leveled against men, the same way he would uphold the right of any other minority to not be harassed and scorned because of physical appearance."
It was merely the culmination of the Post's efforts to expose the injustice to Mr. Kelly. The Post also took the unusual step of revealing the accuser's name, and it splashed her face on its front page.
Truth be told, the Post's coverage of the Kelly investigation turned out to be fairly accurate. It's reporters were getting good information from someone on the inside. The fact that this information was leaked was unusual. The Post's coverage of the case differed from the way high profile rape cases usually are covered because the usual coverage treats the accuser, shrouded in anonymity, as a helpless victim brutalized by a predator whose identity and every flaw is revealed to the public. The public typically is invited to prejudge the case based not on information, but on stereotypes that always favor the accuser.
Here, the public was being given more information by the Post than it usually gets from anyone. And because that information didn't favor the accuser -- often called the "victim" even while the investigation is ongoing -- that enraged the usual suspects. They are so terribly accustomed to seeing the presumptively innocent man who is accused of rape skewered in the news media, that when the usual narrative didn't play out in the Post, they felt betrayed and enraged.
Over at Gawker, someone named Hamilton Nolan is incensed that the Post has been an "extremely gleeful Greg Kelly defender." Nolan lets us know right away how s/he feels about the Post: "[T]he Post is a shitty right wing partisan paper . . .."
Then Nolan makes the following sweeping assertions:
"Anyone with a passing familiarity with How These Things Work knows that the paper could have just as easily cast Kelly as a shady villain throughout the entire process, had they wished to. They're certainly not above that sort of thing. They just chose to do the opposite. Why? I can think of two possible reasons:
"1) The Post is a fundamentally misogynist institution run by misogynists.
"2) The Post decided to use this case as an opportunity to do a favor for Ray Kelly [Ray Kelly is New York's police commissioner, the accused man's father]. Police and crime coverage is the Post's bread and butter. It pays to be on the commissioner's good side."
I write this piece to describe How These Things Really Work, because Hamilton Nolan doesn't get it. Let's examine Nolan's assertions.
First, let's dismiss out of hand the assertion that the Post's coverage in the Kelly case proves the paper is "fundamentally misogynistic." The assertion is as puerile as it is wrongheaded.
Remember how the New York Post covered the September, 2009, Hofstra false rape case? In case anyone doesn't remember that case, you need to read this.
The Post only became the drum major for the falsely accused young men after it was clear they were falsely accused. Before that, the Post's reporters were little more than stenographers and parrots for police, and police weren't telling anyone, including reporters, about the weaknesses in the false accuser's story. The result was that the Post, and the other media outlets, weren't giving the public all the information the police had.
The headline for one of the Post's stories on the alleged rape was as chilling as it was unjust: "Nightmare gang rape at Hofstra." The first two sentences in the story left little doubt for readers -- who wrongly assume that newspaper reporters actually investigate the things they write -- that a rape certainly occurred: "An 18-year-old Hofstra University co-ed was gang-raped by five men on campus, cops said last night. The shocking attack took place Sunday at around 3 a.m."
Wow!
On the day that the false accuser's story finally unraveled, the Post ran a comment by Kieran Crowley with this headline: "Hofsta rape case. Fiends lured co-ed to attack: cops."
Read it again: "Fiends." Here is the first sentence of that story: "They were 'predators' and she was their prey."
This wasn't a rush to judgment; it was a 60 meter sprint in record time. More to the point, does that sound "misogynistic" to you?
Let's recap How These Things Really Work. In rape cases, it is very rare that the defendant speaks to the news media after being accused. Moreover, the police hardly ever reveal weaknesses in rape cases before they fall apart. In Hofstra, the cops knew early on that there were problems with the accuser's story, but their public face to reporters didn't reveal any of it, likely out of fear of compromising the case for the district attorney in the event she decided to prosecute it. And the Post's reporters, and the reporters for every other newspaper, simply wrote down exactly what the police told them without doing any of their own investigations. The information was incomplete, but the Post, and the other news outlets, ran with it. The result was the destruction of four young reputations for having consensual (albeit stupid) group sex.
Second, Nolan's assertion that the Post was currying favor with the Commissioner in all likelihood is not correct. Can anyone doubt that the Post would print the same information in any high profile case where they got an inside scoop, even if the man accused had no connection with the police? The difference between this case and all the other rape cases was that the cops wanted to help their boss, so they leaked information they ordinarily wouldn't leak to the Post.
It wasn't that the Greg Kelly story was wrongly reported by the Post; the Post's reporting here was better than the typical reporting of high profile rape cases. It only seems wrongly reported because the information reported was not favorable to the accuser.
In a perfect world, the press would not take sides while an investigation is going on. But if I had to choose between the Post's coverage in Hofstra versus its coverage in the Greg Kelly case, I'd pick the latter any day of the week, as would any fair-minded person.
It was merely the culmination of the Post's efforts to expose the injustice to Mr. Kelly. The Post also took the unusual step of revealing the accuser's name, and it splashed her face on its front page.
Truth be told, the Post's coverage of the Kelly investigation turned out to be fairly accurate. It's reporters were getting good information from someone on the inside. The fact that this information was leaked was unusual. The Post's coverage of the case differed from the way high profile rape cases usually are covered because the usual coverage treats the accuser, shrouded in anonymity, as a helpless victim brutalized by a predator whose identity and every flaw is revealed to the public. The public typically is invited to prejudge the case based not on information, but on stereotypes that always favor the accuser.
Here, the public was being given more information by the Post than it usually gets from anyone. And because that information didn't favor the accuser -- often called the "victim" even while the investigation is ongoing -- that enraged the usual suspects. They are so terribly accustomed to seeing the presumptively innocent man who is accused of rape skewered in the news media, that when the usual narrative didn't play out in the Post, they felt betrayed and enraged.
Over at Gawker, someone named Hamilton Nolan is incensed that the Post has been an "extremely gleeful Greg Kelly defender." Nolan lets us know right away how s/he feels about the Post: "[T]he Post is a shitty right wing partisan paper . . .."
Then Nolan makes the following sweeping assertions:
"Anyone with a passing familiarity with How These Things Work knows that the paper could have just as easily cast Kelly as a shady villain throughout the entire process, had they wished to. They're certainly not above that sort of thing. They just chose to do the opposite. Why? I can think of two possible reasons:
"1) The Post is a fundamentally misogynist institution run by misogynists.
"2) The Post decided to use this case as an opportunity to do a favor for Ray Kelly [Ray Kelly is New York's police commissioner, the accused man's father]. Police and crime coverage is the Post's bread and butter. It pays to be on the commissioner's good side."
I write this piece to describe How These Things Really Work, because Hamilton Nolan doesn't get it. Let's examine Nolan's assertions.
First, let's dismiss out of hand the assertion that the Post's coverage in the Kelly case proves the paper is "fundamentally misogynistic." The assertion is as puerile as it is wrongheaded.
Remember how the New York Post covered the September, 2009, Hofstra false rape case? In case anyone doesn't remember that case, you need to read this.
The Post only became the drum major for the falsely accused young men after it was clear they were falsely accused. Before that, the Post's reporters were little more than stenographers and parrots for police, and police weren't telling anyone, including reporters, about the weaknesses in the false accuser's story. The result was that the Post, and the other media outlets, weren't giving the public all the information the police had.
The headline for one of the Post's stories on the alleged rape was as chilling as it was unjust: "Nightmare gang rape at Hofstra." The first two sentences in the story left little doubt for readers -- who wrongly assume that newspaper reporters actually investigate the things they write -- that a rape certainly occurred: "An 18-year-old Hofstra University co-ed was gang-raped by five men on campus, cops said last night. The shocking attack took place Sunday at around 3 a.m."
Wow!
On the day that the false accuser's story finally unraveled, the Post ran a comment by Kieran Crowley with this headline: "Hofsta rape case. Fiends lured co-ed to attack: cops."
Read it again: "Fiends." Here is the first sentence of that story: "They were 'predators' and she was their prey."
This wasn't a rush to judgment; it was a 60 meter sprint in record time. More to the point, does that sound "misogynistic" to you?
Let's recap How These Things Really Work. In rape cases, it is very rare that the defendant speaks to the news media after being accused. Moreover, the police hardly ever reveal weaknesses in rape cases before they fall apart. In Hofstra, the cops knew early on that there were problems with the accuser's story, but their public face to reporters didn't reveal any of it, likely out of fear of compromising the case for the district attorney in the event she decided to prosecute it. And the Post's reporters, and the reporters for every other newspaper, simply wrote down exactly what the police told them without doing any of their own investigations. The information was incomplete, but the Post, and the other news outlets, ran with it. The result was the destruction of four young reputations for having consensual (albeit stupid) group sex.
Second, Nolan's assertion that the Post was currying favor with the Commissioner in all likelihood is not correct. Can anyone doubt that the Post would print the same information in any high profile case where they got an inside scoop, even if the man accused had no connection with the police? The difference between this case and all the other rape cases was that the cops wanted to help their boss, so they leaked information they ordinarily wouldn't leak to the Post.
It wasn't that the Greg Kelly story was wrongly reported by the Post; the Post's reporting here was better than the typical reporting of high profile rape cases. It only seems wrongly reported because the information reported was not favorable to the accuser.
In a perfect world, the press would not take sides while an investigation is going on. But if I had to choose between the Post's coverage in Hofstra versus its coverage in the Greg Kelly case, I'd pick the latter any day of the week, as would any fair-minded person.
Why the New York Post's coverage of the Greg Kelly rape case enraged some
Last week, the New York Post's Andrea Peyser wrote an impassioned plea to New York's district attorney to prosecute Maria Di Toro, the woman who wrongly claimed she was raped by New York television personality Greg Kelly. Ms. Peyser wrote: "The DA must take a stand against false claims leveled against men, the same way he would uphold the right of any other minority to not be harassed and scorned because of physical appearance."
It was merely the culmination of the Post's efforts to expose the injustice to Mr. Kelly. The Post also took the unusual step of revealing the accuser's name, and it splashed her face on its front page.
Truth be told, the Post's coverage of the Kelly investigation turned out to be fairly accurate. It's reporters were getting good information from someone on the inside. The fact that this information was leaked was unusual. The Post's coverage of the case differed from the way high profile rape cases usually are covered because the usual coverage treats the accuser, shrouded in anonymity, as a helpless victim brutalized by a predator whose identity and every flaw is revealed to the public. The public typically is invited to prejudge the case based not on information, but on stereotypes that always favor the accuser.
Here, the public was being given more information by the Post than it usually gets from anyone. And because that information didn't favor the accuser -- often called the "victim" even while the investigation is ongoing -- that enraged the usual suspects. They are so terribly accustomed to seeing the presumptively innocent man who is accused of rape skewered in the news media, that when the usual narrative didn't play out in the Post, they felt betrayed and enraged.
Over at Gawker, someone named Hamilton Nolan is incensed that the Post has been an "extremely gleeful Greg Kelly defender." Nolan lets us know right away how s/he feels about the Post: "[T]he Post is a shitty right wing partisan paper . . .."
It was merely the culmination of the Post's efforts to expose the injustice to Mr. Kelly. The Post also took the unusual step of revealing the accuser's name, and it splashed her face on its front page.
Truth be told, the Post's coverage of the Kelly investigation turned out to be fairly accurate. It's reporters were getting good information from someone on the inside. The fact that this information was leaked was unusual. The Post's coverage of the case differed from the way high profile rape cases usually are covered because the usual coverage treats the accuser, shrouded in anonymity, as a helpless victim brutalized by a predator whose identity and every flaw is revealed to the public. The public typically is invited to prejudge the case based not on information, but on stereotypes that always favor the accuser.
Here, the public was being given more information by the Post than it usually gets from anyone. And because that information didn't favor the accuser -- often called the "victim" even while the investigation is ongoing -- that enraged the usual suspects. They are so terribly accustomed to seeing the presumptively innocent man who is accused of rape skewered in the news media, that when the usual narrative didn't play out in the Post, they felt betrayed and enraged.
Over at Gawker, someone named Hamilton Nolan is incensed that the Post has been an "extremely gleeful Greg Kelly defender." Nolan lets us know right away how s/he feels about the Post: "[T]he Post is a shitty right wing partisan paper . . .."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
