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

[Waldo 96]

Failing to do something that someone expects you to so, is not coercion. The persons is taking no action, and isn't trying to influence or affect someone; they're simply not taking action.

[Cyclone 10]

Refusing to do something unless the other does something you wish is clearly coercion.

5 hours ago, makapaka said:

 No because you forgot to include an explanation of how seeking evidence to prove the occurrence of a rape is a hostile act.

 

We both know that there is no evidence to be had on the victims phone.  The only thing the victims phone could ever do is discredit the victim.

 

There is clearly a threat, it's been widely acknowledged now in the media and police commissioners have called the police and the CPS on it.

 

They want it for whatever reason and they are making a threat to not proceed unless they get what they want.

5 hours ago, makapaka said:

they want it to help their enquiry and hopefully prove or disprove

You just answered your own question didn't you.

5 hours ago, makapaka said:

why is the CPS request for this disclosure about disproving the story of the victim

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

5 hours ago, Waldo said:

Failing to do something that someone expects you to so, is not coercion. The persons is taking no action, and isn't trying to influence or affect someone; they're simply not taking action.

Really?

 

That's like saying to a kid 'If you don't tidy your bedroom' you're not getting any tea. Yes, the kid tidies their bedroom but not because they want a tidy bedroom but because they are hungry and want their tea. 

 

They are being coerced into tidying their bedroom.

 

There is absolutely no difference between that and a police officer telling a victim that if they don't hand over their phone they will not persecute the perp.

 

In both cases a threat is being made to force someone to do something that they wouldn't ordinarily want to do. That is coercion and I really don't know why anyone would even deny that it was. 🙄

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Refusing to do something unless the other does something you wish is clearly coercion.

We both know that there is no evidence to be had on the victims phone.  The only thing the victims phone could ever do is discredit the victim.

 

There is clearly a threat, it's been widely acknowledged now in the media and police commissioners have called the police and the CPS on it.

 

They want it for whatever reason and they are making a threat to not proceed unless they get what they want.

You just answered your own question didn't you.

 

No we don't know that at all do we?  You have no basis to make the statement that there is no evidence to be had on a victims phone. None at all.

 

As for disproving the case - do you have an issue with the truth being established?

 

Now - you've still not answered the question - what do you think is the "whatever reason" for the CPS obtaining the phone? That hasn't been answered at all either. Why would the Crown Prosecution Service try and obtain the content of a victims mobile phone to try and discredit the victim? Why would they seek to do that other than if they feel it would assist in securing evidence relating to the crime?

 

Why would the Crown Prosection Service seek to disprove the story of the victim?

Edited May 8, 2019 by makapaka

[francypants 441]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Refusing to do something unless the other does something you wish is clearly coercion.

We both know that there is no evidence to be had on the victims phone.  The only thing the victims phone could ever do is discredit the victim.

 

There is clearly a threat, it's been widely acknowledged now in the media and police commissioners have called the police and the CPS on it.

 

They want it for whatever reason and they are making a threat to not proceed unless they get what they want.

You just answered your own question didn't you.

 

You're totally wrong there. ( Although I'm sure you will argue otherwise as usual )

What if the attacker had contacted the victim previously on her phone  ?  threatened her, harassed her,

verbally  abused her, do you not think that would be useful evidence ?

[Cyclone 10]

Well, it's not evidence of rape obviously, but yes, that might be useful.  You know where they can find those messages though, the phone of the accused, but even more importantly, the network provider where they can't have been doctored in any way, they can't have been deleted, they can't have been faked.

43 minutes ago, makapaka said:

No we don't know that at all do we?  You have no basis to make the statement that there is no evidence to be had on a victims phone. None at all.

 

As for disproving the case - do you have an issue with the truth being established?

 

Now - you've still not answered the question - what do you think is the "whatever reason" for the CPS obtaining the phone? That hasn't been answered at all either. Why would the Crown Prosecution Service try and obtain the content of a victims mobile phone to try and discredit the victim? Why would they seek to do that other than if they feel it would assist in securing evidence relating to the crime?

 

Why would the Crown Prosection Service seek to disprove the story of the victim?

Perhaps because this (as we've told you several times) was a knee jerk reaction to their recent failure to disclose relevant evidence to the defence in multiple cases.

 

I've quite clearly answered all your questions, even the ones where you answer a question with a question.

I know it's an appeal to authority, but I find it comforting that the rape counselling services and the police commissioners have made the same argument as me, and that no-one has made the same argument as you.

 

I'm not sure what you think you're trying to catch me in, but you keep making it clear that the police and/or CPS will search for evidence that disproves an allegation, then questioning the idea that they do that.  Do you have a split personality at the moment?

Edited May 8, 2019 by Cyclone

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Well, it's not evidence of rape obviously, but yes, that might be useful.  You know where they can find those messages though, the phone of the accused, but even more importantly, the network provider where they can't have been doctored in any way, they can't have been deleted, they can't have been faked.

Perhaps because this (as we've told you several times) was a knee jerk reaction to their recent failure to disclose relevant evidence to the defence in multiple cases.

 

I've quite clearly answered all your questions, even the ones where you answer a question with a question.

I know it's an appeal to authority, but I find it comforting that the rape counselling services and the police commissioners have made the same argument as me, and that no-one has made the same argument as you.

 

I'm not sure what you think you're trying to catch me in, but you keep making it clear that the police and/or CPS will search for evidence that disproves an allegation, then questioning the idea that they do that.  Do you have a split personality at the moment?

You haven’t answered a question I have asked prob half a dozen times.

 

You also don’t seem to understand how evidence or absence of evidence can help prove or disprove.

 

No one has made the same argument as me? Apart from the CPS?

 

I’ll leave it there it’s tiresome.

[Cyclone 10]

Or, I understand, but you don't...

 

Tiresome indeed.

[Waldo 96]

On 08/05/2019 at 16:06, Top Cats Hat said:

Really?

 

That's like saying to a kid 'If you don't tidy your bedroom' you're not getting any tea. Yes, the kid tidies their bedroom but not because they want a tidy bedroom but because they are hungry and want their tea. 

 

They are being coerced into tidying their bedroom.

 

There is absolutely no difference between that and a police officer telling a victim that if they don't hand over their phone they will not persecute the perp.

 

In both cases a threat is being made to force someone to do something that they wouldn't ordinarily want to do. That is coercion and I really don't know why anyone would even deny that it was. 🙄

When people are using non-action (or the threat of non action) in order to specifically manipulate someone; I'd say that is coercion; it's  having intent to manipulate, that's what makes it coercive.

 

When that intent isn't there or the supposed coercive party has no vested interest in the outcome one way or the other, I'd argue there is no manipulation, they're  not trying to coerce anyone.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Waldo

[Cyclone 10]

So a threat to not investigate or prosecute if the victims phone is not handed over definitely meets that criteria then.

[Waldo 96]

Oh, was there a 'threat' then?  That's very different (intent etc) to simply saying here are the conditions for us to act on a thing.

 

Is a shop keeper threatening not to give you free stuff if you don't pay for it? Would that also constitute a threat?

Edited May 10, 2019 by Waldo

[Lockdoctor 10]

On 29/04/2019 at 18:47, Mister M said:

Why are the police asking victims of rape to hand over their mobile phones for the police to peruse through?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48086244

 

I've been listening to the radio, police have even been asking rape victims where they didn't know their attackers have in effect had to "choose between privacy and justice". 

It seems to be a backward step to me. 

The police don't always know whether someone making an allegation of rape is  a  genuine victim of rape .  Phones are modern technology just like CCTV and DNA.  I believe there is a recent case where someone was falsely accused of rape and later to be proved innocent after the alleged victim's phone was examined.  It is more of a forward step than a backward step if examining a phone can prevent a miscarriage of justice

On 29/04/2019 at 18:50, francypants said:

Surely if the victim is telling the truth they wouldn't mind police looking for ANY evidence.

I wouldn't mind at all.

Exactly.