The Globe and Mail gathered data from more than 870 police jurisdictions covering 92 per cent of the country’s population
www.theglobeandmail.com
Your own article admits that part of the reason for the number variations was literally officers just using the wrong code for a case rather then anything else.
Staff Sgt. Angela McDade, who this week retired as head of the service’s sexual assault and child abuse section, told The Globe that there was not previously a clear understanding of when to classify a case as unfounded. If a complainant decided that she didn’t want to proceed with an investigation, or if she refused to co-operate, the allegation was typically classified as unfounded.
That's not deliberate mishandling that's just filing issues from a department that wasn't aware of how it should have been filed.
In other cases like the L and B case, lack of training and knowledge was to blame for the case in question coupled with a lack of thoroughness rather then anything resembling deliberate malice. Something that has since been corrected I'll note.
Then you have someone upset that the police have the temerity to train people to spot false allegations. Even as they admit in the same paragraph that is has nothing to do with the unfounded rate they're complaining about.
Does your article show that there are failings? Yes. Does it matter at the end of the day? No. Because at the end of the day that's still your best option if you're even remotely interested in actual justice. Albeit I doubt anyone instigating it has any interest in actual justice.
First, the paper doesn't say that she wasn't convicted. Second, you're going to completely ignore all of the examples and evidence gathered in the report just because of the first paragraph?
No she just opens up engaging in emotional manipulation in order to try and trick you into feeling sympathetic for someone who faked injuries and lied to people (including claiming she'd lost a baby because of the abuse) in order to get an excuse for not taking her law exams. "Oh she was separated from her 9 month old daughter and the judge said her actions were "utterly wicked". She even says she's innocent to this day". After this she promptly jumps into a different case where there was actual rape that wasn't identified and tries to equate the two. Totally not trying to imply that the conviction was wrong, why would anyone ever think that reading the paragraphs in question.
If someone is willing to start to pulling stunts like that in just the opening argument on basic, easy to check information, and you know that there's at least one more of it to come in the rest of the text why exactly should I trust the author not to try and fuck with the rest of her examples like that or just take biased statistics that aren't going to be anywhere near as easy to dig up the details for?
I also love how you're willing to take a crazy guy who sends legal scholars aggressive and emotional emails and believes it's some sign of injustice when they don't respond.
First off, I mainly linked him to show that simply looking up the author's name on google brought up results calling her work a hackjob. Secondly, the statements he raises are all true, as evidenced by basic google searches as I've already shown for the first woman brought up. He's already been more honest then your author has. The only complaint that can levied towards him for that page is that his website is hilariously antiquated and that he holds a dim view of the people he sent his email to. And if nothing else his timeline is sourced. Now other parts of his site are a lot less defendable considering the contents but that doesn't really mean much for this section.
Also, as an amusing side note, I've also found
this blog post by Alexander Economou the man who was falsely accused by Eleanor de Freitas and there's some very interesting things about our dear author there. And considering the case happened in 2014 and she's still bringing it up at least as late as 2016 I'm inclined to believe at least some of his statements on the matter.
Dafuq does that have to do with rape accusations?
Gee, what could a case which involved so called witnesses to a crime who happily joined into a popular narrative such as supposed police brutality when there was no consequences for doing so possibly have to do with people online lying in order to join in on a popular narrative like metoo? Could it be that I'm saying that people will outright lie about stories if it fits in their biases unless they risk actual consequences for having done so like what happens in court.
Or to put it really simply: Case where "witnesses" lied about their story outside of court because of ideology, but changed it when in court=What actually happens when online "corroboration" happens only sans the retraction part because it never gets to court.
Kiwifarms is not a reliable source. At all.
...
Read the post I linked you to and realize that what I linked you to is a post with archives of the tweets which have since been deleted. You can complain that the farms are not a reliable source all you like but that means nothing when all I'm using it for is as a convenient way to link you to an archive of the tweets in question. No more, no less. So unless you can somehow muster a complaint about the internet archive, your distrust of the farms is meaningless because they're not the source of the information but a handy gateway to it so I don't have to fill my post with the same hyperlinks you would have gotten from the farms.
Look, I've tried to tell you guys several times that the point of public accusations isn't to cause lynch mobs and so far none of you have given me a serious response. For the last time, if you were the victim of a crime but don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction, what should you do?
Yes it is. There is absolutely 0 other intention behind this garbage aside from instigating lynch mobs and everyone watching this shit play out knows it and has seen it happen in every single case. Unless you've been living under a rock this entire time simply seeing the way these cases are panning out is enough to tell you all you need to that it's happened every single time.
You go to the cops and file a report the moment it happens instead of waiting 20+ years. End of discussion. You don't wait 20+ years then start a lynch mob after the fact which is what actually happens in these cases. And if there isn't enough because you waited decades? Then it sucks to be you. The justice system exists to give everyone a fair trial not serve as a bludgeon for those seeking to accuse others without any evidence.
