Comics Creators

Diversity in Modern Society


Simply not true - if it were that easy we wouldn’t have these cases of abusers operating over years and decades!

There’s been plenty of research over the stats - the rate of false accusations for sexual assault is no different to false accusations of crime in general.


How do you know? Did they ask the accusers if they lied?

Also the fact some people allegedly abused people and got away with it, doesn’t prove there aren’t people locked up for crimes they didn’t commit. It just shows people lie, and they lie, and then they lie some more. I think it is just common human nature.


They are found out.

The more important “proof” is the former - if it was that easy for someone to be found guilty in court and imprisoned, there wouldn’t be so much abuse. Accusers have for a long time been treated with suspicion by law enforcement; if they have suffered a traumatic assault, they then have to recount and relive this in front of several audiences over and over again. For many people the idea of going through that is enough to put them off making a complaint.

(And then if we’re dealing with high profile people, invested parties can threaten and endanger the accusers as happened in the case of the US Supreme Court nominee.)


Yes, they do.

They lie to protect the accused from prosecution and punishment. They lie to ensure the guilty ones can continue their abhorrent behavior.

They lie about accusers to discredit and humiliate them so they will drop the accusations and charges. They will to further damage and destroy victims.

People lie to protect the guilty so they can continue to profit from them and maybe not go to jail themselves.


Or not.

There is a case in the Netherlands where a guy who was accused of raping his children was freed after sitting in jail innocently for 11 years. Why was he found to be innocent? Because after 11 years his daughters confessed they lied.

Now if they had never recanted their statements, for all intents and purposes this guy would have been in jail still and everybody would still believe the lie and think he was a rapist, including according to all “researchers”.

I suspect this happens a lot. There is the moral panic about ritual sexual abuse most people now admit was probably all bullshit, but there are still people who are in all likelihood innocent in jail for that. I think @BeingHenning posted an article about that one time. I think it is no different with a lot of cases we see now and that get put into the #metoo basket, or a lot of rape cases. The conviction rate for rape is very low by the way I think.

We’ve not moved on very much from medieval witch hunts.

edit: although on second thought, maybe the low conviction rate proves we have moved on. But you wouldn’t believe that from the constant chorus of “believe the vctim”.


Arguing over the nature of human behaviour isn’t going to go anywhere in this thread. People are unreliable sources, witnesses and narrators.

Which is why we have a court system in the first place.

Polanski is a convicted criminal, Weinstein is being prosecuted, so is Spacey. There will be verdicts on them and others, maybe Singer, maybe Ratner, maybe people we’ve yet to hear about?

And then people will decide whether they believe those too?

What’s happening now is that a dam has broken and all this stuff is pouring through the gap. The dam should never have been there, and hopefully it wont be rebuilt, but it’s still in the chaotic phase right now. We’ll see where we are after the flood.


Of course, there are many reasons to lie.


A problem with a lot of these is that the statute of limitations passed for them.


No doubt - should we be more concerned that a far greater number of perpetrators were not, have not, and will not be brought to justice?

People are wrongly imprisoned and executed for murder - tragic, but a minority of cases.

There are but they’d be outliers. Maybe the Dutch have figured it out but in Australia, in the UK, in the US such abuse is and has been disturbingly common.

The rape conviction rate being low goes against your earlier claim. It’s hard to convict someone of rape. It’s far, far, far more likely that rapists live freely than that people falsely accused of rape are convicted. You’re really at odds with yourself there.


It’s not that it doesn’t happen. I just read on the article I posted, the list provides names and what the offenders did and some of those accusations really sound like bullshit. To me, committing such crime is equal as false accuse (the latter I consider even worse).
Now, in my country (I don’t know for others), a regulation is brought up a year, a bullshit one. Now, victims are encouraged when they are abused by their partners (I am talking about domestic cases here) to pick up the phone and report them to police. This normally wouldn’t be a problem. However, the police is required or will face penalty if they don’t immediately arrive on the scene and bust the “perp”. See, a perp has, after his spouse reported him to cops, to do a two days in jail and will face kick of their mutual crib and is denied to approach his spouse, just on one phone call. Needless to say, many men are displeased with this law.
Also, if you hear neighbors arguing, you are also required to call the police or you will be considered as an accomplice. This also wouldn’t be a problem, if you are not meant to keep your nose in your business. Otherwise, if men and his wife are arguing loud (him verbally abusing her) and I am unaware of it (I am not at home, I am in deep sleep, I listen loud music), how can I know if someone is doing foul play?


I am not saying some rapists don’t walk freely, of course they do, I am really saying I think that often we don’t have appropriate tools for determining guilt and instead we revert to jumping on the bandwagon of moral condemnation. “Believe the victim” is exactly the same as “burn the heretic”.

That is an unfortunate truth. Sometimes victims don’t get justice and sometimes people get locked up when they’re innocent and we need to be concerned about both.


The point is one is waaaaaaay more likely and common that the other. The fact remains that we don’t have appropriate tools for determining guilt, true - it’s often one person’s word against another when there’s no physical evidence. In these cases that is the vast majority of the time not enough to convict.

Knowing this, many victims do not report the crime, or do not follow through the entire process. Generally if it’s one person’s word against another that is not enough to convict. If there are multiple complaints against the one person by several unrelated parties that tends to be more meaningful, but because people don’t talk about their experiences they are largely unaware of fellow victims.

Violent, abusive men? I guess it makes sense that they’d be unhappy.

Does the law not apply to same sex couples? Are men also able to lodge similar complaints against their female partners?


There is a bit of distortion that comes with the media attention. The vast majority of people in any position of authority actually do not criminally abuse that authority or position they’re in. It’s just that the people that do commit the crimes make it into the news. For every Weinstein, Polanski, Saville or Spacey, there are many more people in those positions who are not guilty of wrongdoing.

So, while it’s important to pursue these cases and protect people in vulnerable positions, it’s not going to have a wide impact on the majority of people working in any industry or going to address more common but less “newsworthy” problems of inequality and prejudice in the workplace.


I am not sure how you know that, nor am I sure how it’s relevant. If we can’t determine guilt, the accused is innocent. That is the law for a good reason, and to think otherwise is inviting in the lynch mobs. Which is a very bad thing.

(And even then a lot of innocent people end up in jail. I am pretty cynical about the ability to prove anything beyong the reasonable doubt, unless there is good phorensical evidence, or someone was caught on tape, or there is a paper trail, or the accused made an admission. I think it is better for a rapist to go free then have a justice system that arbitrarily steals freedom)


It’s relevant because your concern appears to be weighted toward the wrongfully imprisoned instead of the guilty and free.

Indeed, under the law in most places the presumption of innocence is a standard. But you’re conflating “the court of public opinion” with legal courts. It’s well understood that not only are sexual assaults under-reported, but also because they are hard to prove in a court of law, their perpetrators are under-prosecuted.

Knowing this, the cases you’re referring to (where someone is accused, and convicted, despite being innocent) are a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction.

That is the ideal. But at the moment it’s more like several thousand rapists going free (freedom never in doubt) for every one falsely accused and convicted. I don’t think one is the price to pay for the other, but it’s important to remember just how hard it is to be convicted.

(I know people here who have been assaulted. The perpetrators were either not charged, or not convicted.)


They are different topics. The trouble with providing justice for victims as well as protecting fair treatment for the accused is not closely related to specific cases of celebrities who have been accused. It’s a terrible idea to use celebrities or powerful people as examples of anything to do with broader social issues. The Bill Cosby, Jimmy Saville, Harvey Weinstein and O.J. Simpson cases, for a few examples, are radically different from any of the cases of rape, domestic abuse and murder that are tried in courts all around the world on a daily basis.

In cases where there is no clear evidence other than the words of the accused and accuser, it’s okay to not have an opinion. More importantly, though, the idea that these celebrities, multi-millionaire corporate heads, televangelists or politicians actually personally represent anything going on in our normal lives is plainly terrible and possibly even socially destructive.

David Brinkley once defined the news as “something worth knowing that you didn’t already know.” However, the 24 hour news cycle has become obsessed with the exceptional situations that lead to divisive arguments and less and less related to what we experience or are concerned about on a common, personal level. I don’t know that much of it tells us anything that is worth knowing, but they have to fill the airtime.


Where do you get that number from? How do you determine they’re rapists if the law has declared them innocent?


Well, not quite. I am unhappy as well. Violent, abusive men have no anything with this. I
If we are discussing about general negative traits of human nature, men are frustrated and aggressive; while women are manipulative and liars.


Piece published online today in the British Medical Journal about our rainbow NHS badge project:


Great article, Mike, and sounds like a great program. Best wishes.