Allegations of rape: Why are police asking victims for their phones?

[Cyclone 10]

You've assumed that what they've said is what they actually do.

 

If you believe everything that the authorities say then you'll continue to be a sucker, as you've demonstrated on a number of occasions on this thread.

[Guest makapaka]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You've assumed that what they've said is what they actually do.

 

If you believe everything that the authorities say then you'll continue to be a sucker, as you've demonstrated on a number of occasions on this thread.

As opposed to drawing opinions on a newspaper headline - there’s only one sucker there I’m afraid.

 

you didn’t read the available information - threw out a load of inaccuracies and when proven wrong resort to just saying “well I don’t believe it”

 

I’ve shown you where you are wrong - I can’t make you believe what’s written in front of you - So I’ll leave this thread now . 

 

[nikki-red 307]

The bickering ends here.

[Mister M 1,608]

A case highlighted in today's Independent casts doubt over the legitimacy of the police's need to have the rape victim's personal details. After giving evidence to the police they obtained her attacker's DNA, they needed more evidence to charge him. The police presented her with consent forms enabling investigators to access records from her primary and secondary schools, universities, GP and therapists. They also wanted her mobile phone, but she had changed it since her attack.

The victim quite reasonably asks:

“What could they possibly have found in my school history that could have legitimately cast doubt on whether I was raped by a stranger?”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-medical-records-met-police-cps-a8949636.html

 

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

I guess that is why the police investigate.   Its the whole point.

 

I'm sure the ALLEGED victim can ask many questions about why they want this and why they need to ask that but doesn't mean its the wrong process.   What about the ALLEGED accused, they have rights to defend their case too.

 

The one sided agenda continually pushed by the media and several campaign groups is wholly unjust.

Edited June 11, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

A case highlighted in today's Independent casts doubt over the legitimacy of the police's need to have the rape victim's personal details. After giving evidence to the police they obtained her attacker's DNA, they needed more evidence to charge him. The police presented her with consent forms enabling investigators to access records from her primary and secondary schools, universities, GP and therapists. They also wanted her mobile phone, but she had changed it since her attack.

The victim quite reasonably asks:

“What could they possibly have found in my school history that could have legitimately cast doubt on whether I was raped by a stranger?”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-medical-records-met-police-cps-a8949636.html

 

I would agree that their school history was irrelevant and can’t see why that would  form a reasonable line of enquiry. 

 

Were the school records accessed? 

[Cyclone 10]

Why would a reported rape by a stranger need her phone either, since you've stated that they'll only ask for it when it's relevant...  This is clear evidence that what they say is not what they do.

[Cyclone 10]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49072302

So this is back in the news today with numerous reports of the police abusing the power and cases being dropped when the phone data is irrelevant.  

Quote

Another said police demanded seven years of phone data after she reported being drugged and raped by a group of strangers.

"My phone documents many of the most personal moments in my life and the thought of strangers combing through it, to try to use it against me, makes me feel like I'm being violated once again," she said.

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.

 

Almost like this was entirely predictable.

Did you see the bit in bold Makapaka...  A historic case, before people even had mobile phones, dropped because she wouldn't give up her currently mobile phone!

 

On 11/06/2019 at 20:38, makapaka said:

As opposed to drawing opinions on a newspaper headline - there’s only one sucker there I’m afraid.

 

you didn’t read the available information - threw out a load of inaccuracies and when proven wrong resort to just saying “well I don’t believe it”

 

I’ve shown you where you are wrong - I can’t make you believe what’s written in front of you - So I’ll leave this thread now . 

 

So, turns out that I wasn't wrong...  And you were.  

Quote

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 case was delayed for months as a result.

It's even held up cases where the rapist has admitted it.  You couldn't even make that one up could you.

[Guest makapaka]

28 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49072302

So this is back in the news today with numerous reports of the police abusing the power and cases being dropped when the phone data is irrelevant.  

Almost like this was entirely predictable.

Did you see the bit in bold Makapaka...  A historic case, before people even had mobile phones, dropped because she wouldn't give up her currently mobile phone!

 

So, turns out that I wasn't wrong...  And you were.  

It's even held up cases where the rapist has admitted it.  You couldn't even make that one up could you.

Give it up.

 

It’s the same story as last time re-hashed.

 

youve missed outthe bit where the police say 

 

“We recognise the concerns of some privacy and victims' groups and have been seeking advice from a wide range of groups to help us improve the process. We are strengthening training and investing in new technology, which will help to address concerns."

[Cyclone 10]

Yeah, the bit where they say "we won't do that", whilst they continue doing it.

 

Perhaps you should tell the BBC that they're just rehashing stories though, not me.

 

Did I miss the bit where you said that this wouldn't happen, because the police said it wouldn't.  And yet it is doing, did I miss that bit?

Edited July 23, 2019 by Cyclone

[Guest makapaka]

8 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Yeah, the bit where they say "we won't do that", whilst they continue doing it.

 

Perhaps you should tell the BBC that they're just rehashing stories though, not me.

 

Did I miss the bit where you said that this wouldn't happen, because the police said it wouldn't.  And yet it is doing, did I miss that bit?

Historic cases - clues in the title. 

 

I’m amazed you took the trouble to go back to a thread from over a month ago only to just make the exact same point that “you don’t believe them”.

 

As I said 5weeks ago - If i can’t make you believe what’s written in front of you - there’s not much else I can say.

 

So I’ll leave it again. 

[Cyclone 10]

It's in the news today.  But you don't believe what's written apparently.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Cyclone