Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

UK rape culture, 85,000 women,12,000 men raped every year watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Are you trolling? UK isn't even in the top 50.
    UK is definitely in the top 50 you fool, do you even know what rate of rape means?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slade p)
    UK is definitely in the top 50 you fool, do you even know what rate of rape means?
    Thanks for quoting me, but I think you will find that 22,000 rapes a year in a country with a population of 64m is 0.34 rapes per 1000 people.

    If you look at rates for the rest of the world, that puts the UK in roughly 115th place.

    It appears your fears are unfounded.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Consent is quite simple. If he or she says yes, there is consent. If he or she says no there is no consent. If you choose to ignore that, then it is rape. If there is no consent, then it is rape.

    Very, very few people deliberately lie about being raped. The number is statistically insignificant. Many people choose to not report what has happened to them to the police because they think that they will not be believed. They may be unwilling to relive the trauma that has happened. They may be unable to trust the police because a person that they trusted did that to them. They may choose to go to a rape crisis centre or call a helpline. They may be in denial because it is such a traumatic thing to happen.

    A person who says that they were raped should always be believed. They probably were. There is a significant chance that they have injuries to support that. For understandable reasons they may not want anybody to go near their genitals, because of what happened last time anyone was near there. This means that they cannot get forensic evidence.

    There is a pitifully low conviction rate. That doesn't mean that very few people are raped, it means that the police aren't treating it as a priority. There may also be a low conviction rate.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Consent is a lot more complicated than a simple yes or no, I would say most of the time there is no real yes or no, things are either very vague and open to interpretation or there is little said in the first place. Beyond that, there are cases where based on a simple yes or no there is consent, but it is still a crime, deception starts coming in to the picture, and even then things are very up in the air. If one were, for example, to pretend to be someone else, the one often cited being somebody they would give consent to such as an ongoing sexual partner, that is still rape despite consent being given.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slade p)
    Approximately 85,000 women and 12,000 men are raped in England and Wales alone every year; that's roughly 11 rapes (of adults alone) every hour

    Nearly half a million adults are sexually assaulted in England and Wales each year 1 in 5 women aged 16 - 59 has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16

    Only around 15% of those who experience sexual violence choose to report to the police

    Approximately 90% of those who are raped know the perpetrator prior to the offence


    http://rapecrisis.org.uk/statistics.php


    Why is rape and sexual assaults rampant in the u.k?

    Also why is this not being adressed properly? Media and organisations are not highlighting it or doing anything much to tackle these shockingly high amounts of rape and sexual assaults. No one in UK protests about it which shows they are totally fine with it.

    Is it because it's so normal that it's just how things are and that its just part of British culture?

    No wonder that women in the u.k are petrified to walk alone at night.

    https://youtu.be/25-G75Lz5x0
    There's no actual evidence to back up these numbers.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    There's no actual evidence to back up these numbers.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You brushing away the huge problem of rape and sexual assaults in UK is disgusting. No wonder it's such a huge problem when the media, organisations and people in general brush it aside.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by slade p)
    You brushing away the huge problem of rape and sexual assaults in UK is disgusting. No wonder it's such a huge problem when the media, organisations and people in general brush it aside.
    Are you capable of any line other than this? You're the reason that debate is being killed in our generation: people can either agree with you and your made up statistics, or they can agree with you and your made up statistics.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Are you capable of any line other than this? You're the reason that debate is being killed in our generation: people can either agree with you and your made up statistics, or they can agree with you and your made up statistics.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How about you take you're own advise because you are saying many things yet you don't have sources for them, I atleast have sources for what I'm saying, so what I say is of substance while you are just talking out of thin air.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slade p)
    You brushing away the huge problem of rape and sexual assaults in UK is disgusting. No wonder it's such a huge problem when the media, organisations and people in general brush it aside.
    Stop presenting this statistics as fact; they're estimates. Just over 1,000 people are convicted of rape each year yet you claim 97,000 people get raped? Even if we suppose each of those convicted committed three rapes that means we have a conviction rate of about 3%. If you believe our conviction rate is that bad for any crime you're an idiot


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Stop presenting this statistics as fact; they're estimates. Just over 1,000 people are convicted of rape each year yet you claim 97,000 people get raped? Even if we suppose each of those convicted committed three rapes that means we have a conviction rate of about 3%. If you believe our conviction rate is that bad for any crime you're an idiot


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It does seem realistic for crimes such as rape when you think about how many barriers to achieving a successful prosecution there are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    It does seem realistic for crimes such as rape when you think about how many barriers to achieving a successful prosecution there are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And the barriers are there fore a reason. Typically for any crime, one person's word against another doesn't constitute much proof. Most rape accusations boil down to this due to the private nature of it and general lack of physical evidence. As a matter of principle, however, an accusation cannot be regarded as a rape until it has been ruled as one following a trial. As only a minority of accusations are found to be true or false, the majority remain unknown. However, anti-rape activists typically regard these unknowns as being true rapes despite the fact the accusations were never settled as true or false. In other words, to them: "true is true, unknown is true, and false is false." That isn't honest reporting, and is the source of much of the dispute on this thread.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    And the barriers are there fore a reason. Typically for any crime, one person's word against another doesn't constitute much proof. Most rape accusations boil down to this due to the private nature of it and general lack of physical evidence. As a matter of principle, however, an accusation cannot be regarded as a rape until it has been ruled as one following a trial. As only a minority of accusations are found to be true or false, the majority remain unknown. However, anti-rape activists typically regard these unknowns as being true rapes despite the fact the accusations were never settled as true or false. In other words, to them: "true is true, unknown is true, and false is false." That isn't honest reporting, and is the source of much of the dispute on this thread.
    Very few people lie about being raped. The victim should be believed unless they are proven to be lying. Rape is traumatic. Taking a case to trial involves reliving that experience over and over again. Some may not want to go through that. They were still raped. Allowing this to happen allows the victim to take control of what happened to them.

    It is hard to find forensic evidence of rape because a victim may not want or be comfortable with anyone or anything going anywhere near their genitals. This is completely understandable. That doesn't mean that they weren't raped.

    There is no such thing as "true" rape. There is rape that has been proven in a court of law and rape that hasn't. Unwillingness to report a crime that is very personal such as rape, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

    An allegation of rape must be regarded as true unless proven otherwise. Saying that a victim is lying until they prove they're not, which is what you suggested, is deeply upsetting and traumatic to a victim.

    The court centres on victim blaming. The victim is on trial just as much as the rapist, with lawyers asking questions about the length of skirts, which is completely irrelevant, but creates a culture of victim blaming, implying that it is a victim's fault if she got raped whilst wearing a short skirt for example. This makes it harder to access justice.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Very few people lie about being raped. The victim should be believed unless they are proven to be lying. Rape is traumatic. Taking a case to trial involves reliving that experience over and over again. Some may not want to go through that. They were still raped. Allowing this to happen allows the victim to take control of what happened to them.
    We don't know how many people lie. As I've said, most cases don't result in an outcome proving that the accuser was right or wrong, lying or telling the truth (truth in the sense that they were raped as they claim).

    The accuser should not be believed (in the sense that their allegations of rape are correct) until there as been a conclusive investigation and trial, otherwise we may as well throw the accused in prison and only release them if it is proven that the accuser is wrong and/or lying. Justice is supposed to blind, and the court doesn't just take anyone's word for it, nor should it. But that's not the same as saying the accuser is lying.

    (Original post by Katty3)
    It is hard to find forensic evidence of rape because a victim may not want or be comfortable with anyone or anything going anywhere near their genitals. This is completely understandable. That doesn't mean that they weren't raped.
    Right, but in real life we don't if there is a victim in the first place and that this is the case. Like I said, the court cannot rule in the plaintiff's favour in the absence of any evidence, nor can the police even arrest somebody. And we (the court and everybody else) cannot know if there was a rape until somebody has been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to have been raped. Otherwise we are only speculating on something that may or may not be so.

    (Original post by Katty3)
    There is no such thing as "true" rape. There is rape that has been proven in a court of law and rape that hasn't. Unwillingness to report a crime that is very personal such as rape, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
    'True rape' would refer to a rape that actually occurred. Not every rape that happens is proven, this is correct. But these are all unknown to us, remember, and we also can't assume that every accusation that is investigated or goes to court involved a rape (that the allegation was true). We don't know which ones do and which ones don't, who was actually raped and who wasn't. That's the whole point of the investigation and trial.

    (Original post by Katty3)
    An allegation of rape must be regarded as true unless proven otherwise. Saying that a victim is lying until they prove they're not, which is what you suggested, is deeply upsetting and traumatic to a victim.
    No. See again what I wrote previously. We do not (and should not) start from the position that the accuser is lying, but we do not (and should not) start from the position the the accused is guilty. Also, however, if we started with the position that the accuser is telling the truth, then we start with the position that there was a rape, meaning we start with the position that the accused is guilty. But we cannot assume and say the accused is guilty unless they are shown to be guilty. That's how the justice system works, and how it should work. The accuser is treated neutrally.

    (Original post by Katty3)
    The court centres on victim blaming. The victim is on trial just as much as the rapist, with lawyers asking questions about the length of skirts, which is completely irrelevant, but creates a culture of victim blaming, implying that it is a victim's fault if she got raped whilst wearing a short skirt for example. This makes it harder to access justice.
    The court doesn't blame anyone until there is reason (evidence) to. The accuser is questioned, yes, because their honesty and accuracy is pertinent in determining whether or not they are a victim and that the accused is actually guilty. Just because the court is not immediately with the accuser does not mean they are against them. And dumb questions like "what were you wearing" generally aren't looked upon favourably in the courts, however, despite the occasional controversy that makes the news (for good reason).

    In summary, other than cases that result in a rape conviction or confirmed false accusation, we don't know which allegations actually involved a rape and which did not, and we don't know how many of these unknowns involved false accusations, either, because they never got far enough to determine anything at all other than the fact there wasn't enough evidence (i.e. no evidence that the accused was raped, and no evidence that the accused was lying). Hence unknowns should not be treated as 'true' allegations (i.e. rapes).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    We don't know how many people lie. As I've said, most cases don't result in an outcome proving that the accuser was right or wrong, lying or telling the truth (truth in the sense that they were raped as they claim).

    The accuser should not be believed (in the sense that their allegations of rape are correct) until there as been a conclusive investigation and trial, otherwise we may as well throw the accused in prison and only release them if it is proven that the accuser is wrong and/or lying. Justice is supposed to blind, and the court doesn't just take anyone's word for it, nor should it. But that's not the same as saying the accuser is lying.



    Right, but in real life we don't if there is a victim in the first place and that this is the case. Like I said, the court cannot rule in the plaintiff's favour in the absence of any evidence, nor can the police even arrest somebody. And we (the court and everybody else) cannot know if there was a rape until somebody has been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to have been raped. Otherwise we are only speculating on something that may or may not be so.



    'True rape' would refer to a rape that actually occurred. Not every rape that happens is proven, this is correct. But these are all unknown to us, remember, and we also can't assume that every accusation that is investigated or goes to court involved a rape (that the allegation was true). We don't know which ones do and which ones don't, who was actually raped and who wasn't. That's the whole point of the investigation and trial.



    No. See again what I wrote previously. We do not (and should not) start from the position that the accuser is lying, but we do not (and should not) start from the position the the accused is guilty. Also, however, if we started with the position that the accuser is telling the truth, then we start with the position that there was a rape, meaning we start with the position that the accused is guilty. But we cannot assume and say the accused is guilty unless they are shown to be guilty. That's how the justice system works, and how it should work. The accuser is treated neutrally.



    The court doesn't blame anyone until there is reason (evidence) to. The accuser is questioned, yes, because their honesty and accuracy is pertinent in determining whether or not they are a victim and that the accused is actually guilty. Just because the court is not immediately with the accuser does not mean they are against them. And dumb questions like "what were you wearing" generally aren't looked upon favourably in the courts, however, despite the occasional controversy that makes the news (for good reason).

    In summary, other than cases that result in a rape conviction or confirmed false accusation, we don't know which allegations actually involved a rape and which did not, and we don't know how many of these unknowns involved false accusations, either, because they never got far enough to determine anything at all other than the fact there wasn't enough evidence (i.e. no evidence that the accused was raped, and no evidence that the accused was lying). Hence unknowns should not be treated as 'true' allegations (i.e. rapes).
    There are rape crisis figures for the number of people who have been raped. These are people who have accessed support services. People who lie generally don't do so. I don't have any evidence that I drunk three cups of tea yesterday. It doesn't mean that I didn't. Just because you have no evidence of something, it doesn't mean that it wasn't true.

    If you have an allegation of rape it needs to be treated as true unless proven otherwise. We need to treat allegations of rape as factual unless it is proved otherwise. That doesn't mean that anyone gets arrested and imprisoned without fair trial, it just means that we acknowledge that someone has been raped and give them the support they need. Otherwise people who may be deeply traumatised are prevented from accessing potentially life saving support.

    If a rape crisis centre worked in the way you described, the vast majority of victims would fall through the cracks because they are unable or unwilling to prove their case in court. Not every victim is willing to go to the police. Not every victim is willing to tell anyone what happened to them. That doesn't mean that their experiences are invalid, or that it didn't happen. It means that they responded in a certain way.

    A significant proportion of rapes occur within abusive relationships. The victim in these circumstances may not be able to tell anyone. They may not have access to a phone or have any friends to turn to. That doesn't mean that they weren't raped.

    The problem with only relying on crimes successfully prosecuted by the police is that whole swathes of people may be missed. Rape and sexual assault, due to the nature of the crimes, are vastly underreported and missed. That doesn't mean that there are few rapes. It means that we have a problem with the way the criminal justice system works in this area.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    There are rape crisis figures for the number of people who have been raped. These are people who have accessed support services. People who lie generally don't do so. I don't have any evidence that I drunk three cups of tea yesterday. It doesn't mean that I didn't. Just because you have no evidence of something, it doesn't mean that it wasn't true.

    If you have an allegation of rape it needs to be treated as true unless proven otherwise. We need to treat allegations of rape as factual unless it is proved otherwise. That doesn't mean that anyone gets arrested and imprisoned without fair trial, it just means that we acknowledge that someone has been raped and give them the support they need. Otherwise people who may be deeply traumatised are prevented from accessing potentially life saving support.

    If a rape crisis centre worked in the way you described, the vast majority of victims would fall through the cracks because they are unable or unwilling to prove their case in court. Not every victim is willing to go to the police. Not every victim is willing to tell anyone what happened to them. That doesn't mean that their experiences are invalid, or that it didn't happen. It means that they responded in a certain way.

    A significant proportion of rapes occur within abusive relationships. The victim in these circumstances may not be able to tell anyone. They may not have access to a phone or have any friends to turn to. That doesn't mean that they weren't raped.

    The problem with only relying on crimes successfully prosecuted by the police is that whole swathes of people may be missed. Rape and sexual assault, due to the nature of the crimes, are vastly underreported and missed. That doesn't mean that there are few rapes. It means that we have a problem with the way the criminal justice system works in this area.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I never said that an absence of evidence means that it never happened. It just means that we cannot be sure that it happened. So we can't have statistics saying 'x number of women are raped' if most of those accusations never conclusively turned out to be rapes on investigation. It would be dishonest. Some cases turn up rapes, some turn up false accusations, and most turn up nothing. It is not our place to decide what those were, because we don't know.

    If a rape support network wants to believe everyone that seeks their help, that's fine and it's encouraged, but the authorities shouldn't automatically accept that there was a rape, nor should any reputable source reporting on rates of rape. It is not a rape crisis centre's job or place to investigate and determine if there was actually a rape, anyway.

    EDIT: Before you claim that I'm saying the authorities should treat the accuser as a liar, what I mean is that they should't automatically agree that the accuser was raped by the accused. They need to reserve judgement until they've investigated and weighed the evidence in a fair and impartial manner.

    Please hear what I am saying: yes, no evidence and no conviction does not mean no rape, but unless an accusation produces these, we cannot honestly say there was a rape, either. It remains unknown to all those who weren't involved. A person could have been raped and the rapist got away with it, or a person could have accused somebody of rape when no rape occurred. We do not know which, so we cannot say which, not the courts, and not anybody presenting statistics. They have to be honest and not report them as rapes or false accusations, but as unknowns. And most accusations are unknown.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by slade p)
    How about you take you're own advise because you are saying many things yet you don't have sources for them, I atleast have sources for what I'm saying, so what I say is of substance while you are just talking out of thin air.
    My mistake, I thought I had at the very least mentioned the source, at which point a quick google gets the data, and actually when looking just now I have even more up to date data with it being for the year to June rather than to some time in 2014

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_419450.pdf

    estimated 31,621 rapes

    Although it does also seem to think that the population of the UK is around about 15m which seems a bit odd

    The 'only 15% report' figure has definitely been wrong at some point during various citations because that figure has been used for a long long time whilst the rate of reporting increases.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Sweden in worse also countries like India have far worse records of violence against women.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    Sweden in worse also countries like India have far worse records of violence against women.
    This is down to how they collate their data. If they used the same criteria as other countries then their figures would be a lot lower.

    As for India... :lol: ask OP.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    My mistake, I thought I had at the very least mentioned the source, at which point a quick google gets the data, and actually when looking just now I have even more up to date data with it being for the year to June rather than to some time in 2014

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_419450.pdf

    estimated 31,621 rapes

    Although it does also seem to think that the population of the UK is around about 15m which seems a bit odd

    The 'only 15% report' figure has definitely been wrong at some point during various citations because that figure has been used for a long long time whilst the rate of reporting increases.
    The 31,000 is not an estimate, that is the amount of rapes which have been reported officially which is a jump from the previous official amount of 24,000 and it is said that that sexual assaults have gone up by 41% from the previous year.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    It does seem realistic for crimes such as rape when you think about how many barriers to achieving a successful prosecution there are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No it still doesn't seem realistic.

    (Original post by Katty3)
    Very few people lie about being raped. The victim should be believed unless they are proven to be lying. Rape is traumatic. Taking a case to trial involves reliving that experience over and over again. Some may not want to go through that. They were still raped. Allowing this to happen allows the victim to take control of what happened to them.

    It is hard to find forensic evidence of rape because a victim may not want or be comfortable with anyone or anything going anywhere near their genitals. This is completely understandable. That doesn't mean that they weren't raped.

    There is no such thing as "true" rape. There is rape that has been proven in a court of law and rape that hasn't. Unwillingness to report a crime that is very personal such as rape, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

    An allegation of rape must be regarded as true unless proven otherwise. Saying that a victim is lying until they prove they're not, which is what you suggested, is deeply upsetting and traumatic to a victim.

    The court centres on victim blaming. The victim is on trial just as much as the rapist, with lawyers asking questions about the length of skirts, which is completely irrelevant, but creates a culture of victim blaming, implying that it is a victim's fault if she got raped whilst wearing a short skirt for example. This makes it harder to access justice.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You clearly have no appreciation for human rights, I suggest you read article 6 ECHR which is binding on the UK.

    I find it amazing that in an era of sexual liberation where sex is being seen as far less of a 'big deal' and just causal fun that people still say it should be punished more severely than a physical assault


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    No it still doesn't seem realistic.



    You clearly have no appreciation for human rights, I suggest you read article 6 ECHR which is binding on the UK.

    I find it amazing that in an era of sexual liberation where sex is being seen as far less of a 'big deal' and just causal fun that people still say it should be punished more severely than a physical assault


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I have an a good knowledge of human rights, thank you. I don't see how that has anything to do with a woman choosing to not report the fact she was raped to the police.

    Sex may not be seen as a big deal by some, but it is seen as a big deal by many. Not everyone is comfortable with casual sex, or sex at all. That does not mean a person is repressed or illeberal.

    It is more serious than a physical assault as it is violating a person. It removes the control from a person. It violates the personal space, and it removes a person's choice.

    I have a right to choose not to have sex. I don't want to have sex. Ever. That doesn't mean that you or anybody else can say that because most people want sex, and most people will have sex at some point, that it is not serious to remove the choice.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 20, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.