UK: 'Rape cases dropped' over police phone search demands. OP: There is a campaign by man hating feminists to ban police from requesting information from an accusers phone.

furchfur · 2019-07-23T11:01:09+00:00

I cannot see how there can be any justice for the accused if only his phone is searched and not the accusers.

DJ-Roukan · 2019-07-23T13:57:39+00:00

Feminism, their entire agenda of hate relies on censorship and control to survive, and anything that counters their mantra is subject to attack and ratification under their dictation.

If police investigation is proving their claims wrong, they will seek to end police investigation.

lostapwbm · 2019-07-23T14:38:53+00:00

There is a campaign by man-hating feminists to ban police from COLLECTING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

FTFY.

She said: "Imagine your most private thoughts and feelings from counselling held in your phone being seen by anyone, let alone your rapist."

I don't know the exact rules in Britainstan, but in Freedomland, there is these things called privileged communication and evidentiary hearings. Can the defense get those texts where the accuser tells the defendant that his dick was the greatest thing ever? Probably. Could the defense get a random picture of you standing naked in your bedroom? Probably not. Phone conversations with a psychotherapist? Maybe. It depends on whether the patient intended for the communication to be confidential and whether the patient had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

In another case, the Crown Prosecution Service demanded to search the phone of a 12-year-old rape victim - even though the perpetrator had admitted the crime.

The previous five sentences were some woman self-reporting about her fee-fees about the police wanting to see her phone (complainants have a duty to cooperate with an ongoing criminal investigation) and then sentence six is 'a 12-year-old was raped' but we'll just neglect to mention that it was a male, not a female?

Poorly done, BBC.

Wisemanner · 2019-07-23T11:10:38+00:00

Men are regularly "strip searched" simply on an allegation of rape from a woman. What's the betting that weak and cowardly political white knights will support these demands, thinking they themselves will not be affected.

jp_mra · 2019-07-23T20:47:30+00:00

> A woman who reported historic abuse that took place before the mobile phone era had her case dropped when she refused consent to search her current phone, the report says.

Considering she reported the rape 25+ years after it happened, I'd suspect something amiss with her claim. The case would not have been dropped if she had any evidence to offer.

> "No victim should have to make a choice between their privacy and justice,"

The falsely accused are also victims.

That said, it appears the police are downloading ALL phone data and not just the relevant data. Why the police do not serve warrants to Facebook and the phone company for access to records is beyond me...

azazelcrowley · 2019-07-24T04:50:01+00:00

Reminder that men are raped at equal rates.

I've said before and will now, i'm broadly fine with this, but would like some protections. It might be best to have a neutral sworn officer of the court look over the phone, perhaps with a second officer for supervision, instead of the police. Someone who will get the relevant shit and enter it into evidence, but will not prosecute the person for evidence of crime on the phone whatever they find, whether its them buying weed from a dealer, evidence they did a murder, or whatever. They perform their duty and gather/search for texts relevant to the rape case, then hand the phone back.

This would avoid police harassment of complainants over unrelated issues. It might gall us to consider evidence of the complainants crimes being ignored, but its the only reasonable compromise. We can't give them immunity for the stuff on the phone in general because that would really piss everybody off when the first child porn case came up or something, but we can perhaps have the sworn officer of the court testify as to the relevant contents.

That way the rights of the accused are protected, and we don't end up jailing complainants who were legitimately raped by forcing them to testify against themselves for unrelated crimes.

I also think that having a person (or two, one to supervise) do it rather than "The Police" as an entire organization is going to feel like a lot less of an invasion of privacy, especially under the above conditions where it is made clear the irrelevant contents are confidential and not to be disclosed to anyone else, regardless of what they are.

The two people could functionally be viewed as attorneys, one for the complainant, one for the accused, with client-lawyer confidentiality applying. It could even be their actual lawyers, maybe.

EsraYmssik · 2019-07-23T12:34:16+00:00

This struck me as a really dodgy idea.

Bascially, the cops can search an accuser's phone and use any evidence of crimes not related to the rape case to charge the 'victim'. Of course that's going to cause a fuss.

I wonder if it was deliberate, as a move to block accusers' phone records completely.

ConnorGracie · 2019-07-24T07:28:57+00:00

If it was true evidence would help you, but if not.

SqueakyPoP · 2019-07-23T22:27:03+00:00

Don't the police know that women don't lie about rape? A single accusation should be enough evidence for a conviction!

Rethgil · 2019-07-23T23:35:08+00:00

Yeah I saw this. Proof if we ever needed it that feminism is nothing to do with equality and everything about special treatment for women.

lmao1969 · 2019-07-23T12:58:00+00:00

I don't see what's wrong with this. It's not gender specific. It also would help male accusers not be slandered and shamed for completely irrelevant content on his phone. Like if you had flirted with her first, which most men do, they could accuse you of lying because you showed prior interest in some woman who went on to later rape you against your will. Why would anyone want this?

Comments