In 1982, the BBC screened a fly-on-the-wall documentary called "A Complaint Of Rape". This showed three detectives questioning a woman who claimed to be the victim of a gang-rape. She was said to have had a history of psychiatric treatment; the preferred euphemism today is "mental health issues" which should be taken to read if she is delusional, or if she is making it all up, perhaps out of malice, she is still to be treated as a victim. The recent outrageous case of Rhiannon Brooker springs to mind, the woman who went to incredible lengths to frame the totally innocent Paul Fensome.
The 1982 programme caused outrage, especially in view of what happened 13 days before it was screened. Businessman John Allen, who had been standing trial at Ipswich Crown Court on a charge of rape, changed his plea to guilty after the alleged victim, a teenage hitchhiker, broke down in court. Instead of gaoling him, the judge said the girl had been "guilty of a great deal of contributory negligence", and fined Allen £2,000.
No information is available about the aforementioned gang-rape allegation, but the current case is very clear. The alleged victim, a Spanish teenager named Alba - apparently her real name because she appears in the film - claims to have been raped by a stranger at a Bedford hotel. She reports promptly - to a local hospital - she is tearful, and she is bruised. No red flags there, a highly credible victim. The police carry out a prompt, thorough investigation, and make an arrest. Unsurpisingly, the alleged perpetrator tells an entirely different story. She said/he said - cases like this are extremely difficult for juries, depending on the credibility and perhaps the likability of both parties. Fortunately for Mr X in this case, there is CCTV evidence, and it utterly refutes the girl's claims.
She was not compelled to go with him, she was not dragged, drugged, carried, or otherwise forced out of a public house and back to an hotel. Shortly, the police find an independent witness, a German tourist who speaks no meaningful English but who heard what might be described as an altercation between the two. The girl was annoyed rather than frightened. This was very likely because having drunk so much he couldn't perform. There is no suggestion by either party that money changed hands.
Granted this was an extremely sordid encounter, best not to go into the forensic details, but the reason the girl made the allegation is clear, she told the police she felt dirty, a case of instant regret sex. She had just met this guy, he was quite a bit older than her, and drunk. Why would she allow him to take her to bed? The bruising she experienced vanishes rapidly; not mentioned here is the possibility or even the likelihood that this bruising was self-inflicted.
Nowadays, as under pressure from the sexual grievance industry the police and CPS place a lot of emphasis on complainants being too drunk to consent, there is an amusing possibility here; she'd had two drinks, he claimed to have had nine. So did she "rape" him?
As one female detective points out, clearly something happened to her - that something being she withdrew her consent retroactively. How could any jury convict in view of her demonstrably false claims? Fortunately, it doesn't get that far, the CPS decline to charge him.
The same detective says that whenever a case is discontinued it is not because we don't believe "the victim", it's because we don't have enough evidence. In other words, women never lie. How did she ever make detective with that attitude?
At the end of the documentary we are told that 9 out of 10 rapes go unreported - total nonsense; and that "only" 6% of reported rapes end in conviction - a total distortion.
Not a bad documentary, but the narrative is all wrong. Wake up and smell the cocoa.
