August 6, 2024 - 2:30pm
Ministers are talking tough. “Be in no doubt: we will get you,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared at an emergency press conference at the weekend. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper backed him up. “There will be people who were thinking they were going on their summer holidays this week, and instead they will face a knock on the door from the police,” she warned, promising “swift justice” for rioters.
If only they were addressing the thousands of men who rape women or beat up their partners in this country. Few perpetrators will ever have to face a police interview or see the inside of a police cell, even though violence against women is a “national emergency”, according to a report by police chiefs only last month.
Ministers didn’t channel Dirty Harry in response to that report, reminding us that there are two kinds of emergency. Women have been struggling with one for decades, watching in impotent rage as recorded levels of sexual and domestic violence have risen. Ministers wring their hands and commission yet more reports, but they don’t make promises about “swift justice” or condign punishments for men who subject women to horrific sexual violence.
They certainly don’t tell rapists “We will get you.” Why would they? We all know it’s not true. In the handful of rape cases that do result in a prosecution, the delays speak for themselves. An analysis of 211 rape trials in the second quarter of last year showed that the average length of time between charge and completion was 558 days. That’s more than 18 months, just to be clear.
The wait for justice places an intolerable burden on complainants, who have to prepare for the ordeal of hostile cross-examination and may even find themselves threatened by the defendant or his mates. No wonder that so many victims — almost 70%, according to official figures — drop out of investigations, unable to live with such lengthy delays.
Then there is the other kind of emergency, the one that gets on TV. Despite the dramatic pictures of disorder across the country in the last eight days, the figures are relatively small: just over 420 people have been arrested so far, for offences such as using threatening words and behaviour.
No one is suggesting that people who set fire to police cars or threaten immigrants shouldn’t face the consequences. But 889,918 domestic abuse offences were recorded by police in England and Wales in the latest year for which figures are available. And few of the alleged perpetrators will find themselves rushed into court, assuming they ever get there at all.
The response to the riots — not just tough rhetoric but 24-hour courts and immediate custodial sentences — speaks volumes about priorities. Obviously it’s easier to prosecute a case where photographic evidence is available, but what happened to the prisons crisis? Last month, Government ministers were saying they would have to let non-violent offenders out early because the system was bursting at the seams.
Suddenly, however, they’ve been able to find an extra 567 prison places to cope with suspected rioters who will be held on remand. “The police, courts and prisons stand ready and you will face the consequences of these appalling acts,” Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced yesterday.
The message for rapists and abusers hasn’t changed, however. It’s pretty much “as you were”. Damage to property evidently requires a more draconian response than pain and injury to women’s bodies.
Joan Smith is a novelist and columnist. She was previously Chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board, and is on the advisory group for Sex Matters. Her book Unfortunately, She Was A Nymphomaniac: A New History of Rome’s Imperial Women was published in November 2024.
polblonde
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYou are not being governed; you are being ruled, though I doubt that this is a surprise. Hard to imagine why people complain about a two-tiered system when grooming gangs and rapists get a pass but thought crime is treated as an existential threat.
It’s a classic Marxist construct. Muslims, other racial and sexual minorities, and their leftist fellow travelers are the new proletariat. They are the favored class. The rightful inheritors of society. White Britons who are not 100% woke are the bourgeoise, the Kulaks.
Nothing the proletariat does is a crime. The mere existence of the bourgeoise is a crime, never mind if they try to fight back.
Of course the proletariat need leadership from the Party cadres, who just happen to be over-educated, and lily-white, yet somehow exempted from white guilt. Just like the Communist Party was exempt from prohibitions on amassing wealth and privilege.
When the Woking Class elite identify certain groups as ‘victims’ – the ‘Oppressed’ – they are protected by the application of laws that have been inverted against the ‘Oppressors’ by warped human rights orthodoxy. If you are the ‘Oppressor’ (e.g. Whites – especially males) are, by Woke judgement, guilty unless proved innocent (slim chance) and can never be a ‘victim’ in any circumstances.
Bang on. History has shown that the logical trajectory of Marxist ideology is genocide. The supposed oppressors don’t go away so they make them go away.
Whilst I fully support Joan in calling out rape, she always talks about it generically rather than specifically calling out the horrendous abuse by certain elements of the Pakistani community and the deliberate failure of police forces to do anything about it. Those who complained to the police about what was being done to their daughters were more likely to be arrested than the groomers and rapists.
Sadly rapists and wife beaters are found in all sections of society. John Worboys, Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Ian Watkins et al. No one group of people can turn around and say ‘we don’t do this’.
The difference is it was not done on industrial scale and with support of the rapists community.
My first reaction is “pure whataboutery”.
It’s not either/or here. These are both serious classes of offences and need to be prosecuted where possible.
The link claiming that “domestic violence keeps on rising” (to the ONS) shows that it does not – the level was unchanged between the two most recent years reported. Is this a deliberately fake claim or just sloppy journalism ?
Undercutting all this – though not directly stated this time – is the assumption that all (or most) rape complaints are a) valid and b) could lead to reliable convictions. We’ve seen too many examples in recent years of just where over-enthusiastic attempts to pursue rape prosecution targets get us (e.g. CPS lawyers deliberately withholding evidence which proved the innoncence of defendants). We’ve also seen several false claims resulting in prosecutions. Call me old-fashioned, but I’m still a believer in innocent until proven guilty – and that guilt must be reliably proven.
Some crimes are harder to reliably prove than others. That’s just how it is. We shouldn’t be trying to corrupt the legal system to try to “correct” reality.
Liked because this is a reasonable point – rape is harder to prove and therefore conviction rates will be lower than for other crimes.
However, that (correct) observation rather backs up Smith’s point: if the probability of a rape conviction is low, then – for the purpose of disincentivising this crime – punishments should be more severe to maintain the same (preferably low) rate of offending as for crimes where conviction is easier.
ie:
Probability of conviction (high) x Penalty (severe) = high risk activity for criminal
Probability of conviction (high) x Penalty (low) = medium risk activity for criminal
Probability of conviction (low) x Penalty (low) = low risk activity for criminal
Also, as I understand from studies of (stranger) rapists in the US, many are risk averse (“picked the drunkest girl at the party”) so harsher sentences may have a good chance of deterring them compared to crimes committed for ideology or by the mentally ill.
This makes sense. I’m not sure whether JS wrote the strapline but it’s actually the pursuit and prosecution of rapists that she’s at least as concerned about as the sentencing.
This is a fair point as the article (although I still have some issues with it) is more reasonable than the headline, which appears to have changed if I’m not mistaken.
Headlines are written by sub editors, and I suspect their brief is to attract attention, not to accurately abstract the article.
Exactly. ‘few of the alleged perpetrators will find themselves rushed into court, assuming they ever get there at all.’
JS isn’t saying every man accused of rape should never be believed, or never see the light of day again. She’s suggesting that the crime of rioting shouldn’t be regarded as so much more serious than raping by the powers that be. I think most of us, including JS, know why it is.
As a few other commenters here have pointed out, we also know that it’s entwined with issues of class & race & and who is valued more highly by society. Working class white rioters= bad; their grievances, irrelevant. Working class white rape victims= probably bad & irrelevant &/or both. The ‘Me Too’ stratum of society got a whole lot of visibility and outrage for much less than some of the heinous crimes some of the most vulnerable girls & women in the uk have experienced in recent decades.
A few commentators have been quick to point out that alleged rape, if untrue, can ruin a man’s life. Absolutely. But there has been a string of actual, proven rapes eg perpetrated by grooming gangs – with DNA evidence, & even a dead foetus – where the consequent jail time has been risible, even non-existent. There was also recently a case in Germany where a minor was gang-raped & only one of the rapists received a custodial sentence – again, even with DNA evidence from her body proving their crimes – and an outraged member of the public who called one of the unjailed men a ‘shameful pig’ sent to jail for a weekend instead. Because apparently, in the west these days, being seen to be ‘racist’ is more serious than being proven to be a rapist.
I’m assuming you mean that this happened in spite of them being found guilty. So they got a sentence of some kind which was not custodial. Just for clarity.
Good post. And you pick up on one of the most striking things about current narratives in this area, and others, the absence of any consideration of the relevance of social class, as if Tony Blair magicked it away years ago.
Yes, in spite of. The rapist was given a suspended sentence and no prison time because he was under 20. The victim was 15.
‘German woman given harsher sentence than rapist for calling him pig’: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/28/german-woman-given-harsher-sentence-than-rapist-for-calling/
If the author had made the points you have made in your post, I would not have been so critical. Because you have raised points directly relevant to what is going on in Britain’s streets, directly relevant to the unfairness of sentencing and to the role that attitudes to class and race play in this.
In my view the author simply used this as an intro before getting on her own hobby horse – and was careful to skirt around issues related to class and race – and elite attitudes to them.
I would say the offense of these riots pale beside the organized gang rape of minors, targeted based on their race and religion. It’s not even comparable.
The Pakistani rape gangs should be doing life in prison. A guy who throws a brick at a riot should get 60 days.
She never said domestic abuse is rising. The link, for 2023, says the figure is 889,918, and that was the number she used.
The conviction rate for rapists is under 1 percent. It doesn’t sound like men should worry if accused of rape.
Presumably you mean the conviction rate for men accused of rape. We simply don’t know what the conviction rate is for rapists.
Actually I think this 1% conviction claim is based upon estimates of rapes committed.
So 99 guilty rapists go free while only 1 is convicted ?
If that really is the case then a) there’s way more rape happening than we thought and b) there’s spectacular incompetence in the police and CPS.
But how could you possibly know for certain that the 99 unconvicted people really were guilty if there was no trial or they were acquitted ? Or are you just speculating with this 1% number ?
At this point, I’d start comparing stats with other similar countries to see where they stand on this. It’s hard to believe this would be dramatically worse in the UK than in similar western countries.
Besides which, it’s well understood that the mere accusation of rape is often career and family ending for men. Even if subsequently cleared. Men certainly should be worried if accused – especially if falsely accused. Which, as we know does happen.
My experience as a police officer was that four out of five rape allegations was falsely made, to cover infidelity or regret after the event
One was made after a sexual liaison by a bin that didn’t result in an ongoing relationship
Another was made after a regretted liaison with a kebab man
I support the prosecution of rapists but also the prosecution of false allegations as they are so destructive to the innocent party
I presume you meant the liaison was near a bin (wheelie?), not committed by a bin?
Great post.
Women get drunk, sleep with random blokes, regret it, then crie rape.
Because he doesn’t want to date them.
But obviously as per some idiotic women blah, blah movement all women should be believed.
But not one accusing Bill Clinton or other “Lolita Express” passengers.
It’s like there are two tiers.
Of they can snatch up rioters and pack them off to prison quickly, they can do the same to rapists.
Honestly foks. A candidate PM who openly says Davos before Westminster! Did you expect anything else?
The Government: “We’re re going to be tough on these rioters”
Also the Government: “We’re going to release thousands of prisoners early”
Quite frankly, I’ve stopped listening to politicians. They’ve long since stopped saying anything that makes any sense.
Extraordinary ‘two-tiered’ comment here from police after Muslims attack white people…
Supt Emlyn Richards of Birmingham Police said: “I appreciate these are incredibly worrying times for communities. This is a time for communities to unite and support each other and we are working together to make sure communities are fully supported and our response is coordinated, proportionate and responsive.
“We are really proud of the strong links we have with communities across Birmingham, and as always, we have officers ready to police and protect the West Midlands.
“My plea to communities is to be extremely mindful of the incredibly harmful spreading of misinformation on social media at the current time, do challenge what you see online, report where appropriate and consider the source of the posts. Always go to trusted sources for your information which includes news outlets and through our social media channels.”
Oceania not Britain.
The wonders of our forever evolving language.
‘vulnerable’ = thirdworld immigrant (of any generation) with violent criminal proclivities
‘community’ = collective noun for vulnerables
Also see ‘youths’ etc.
“Why are rioters being punished more harshly than some rapists?”Just a guess, because they’re white?
100% correct. If they weren’t white, Starmer would be on his knees, the ‘meedia’ – both leftist and ‘right’ – would be scapegoating white people for causing the riots, Yvette Cooper would be making solemn faces in front of cameras, national ‘soul searching’ would ensue, etc etc,
The British state is diseased with anti-white racism. So the racist anti-white response to racist hate crime on 3 white children is entirely predictable. The state wants white people to sing songs and move on.
All I would say is that those of us who think the riots are counter productive, we have to get involved one way or the other. Maybe even if that means starting a ‘campaign against anti-white racism’ in the workplace, education system, etc. Respectable people must organise in their own way.
Joining the Reform Party will also help push back in this agenda.
The British ‘regime’ is anti-white. That’s not even up for debate anymore. Anti-white policing, anti-white media, anti-white curriculum, anti-white hate crime epidemic, anti-white open border policy. The double standards are planet sized across the board.
I would suggest, stop saying ‘two-tier’ as it’s another euphemism. The correct term is racist policing, racist anti-white policing.
Might I point out that of you’re a male victim of domestic violence from m a female partner then the chance of it y being taken seriously let alone investigated is roughly zero. It was rather telling that the author, as do all female commentators, serm to assume that domestic violence is totally against women by men.
After a white man was attacked and hospitalised with lacerated liver by racists muslims this is the response by police…it really is 2 tier Keir…
Supt Emlyn Richards of Birmingham Police said: “I appreciate these are incredibly worrying times for communities. This is a time for communities to unite and support each other and we are working together to make sure communities are fully supported and our response is coordinated, proportionate and responsive.
“We are really proud of the strong links we have with communities across Birmingham, and as always, we have officers ready to police and protect the West Midlands.
“My plea to communities is to be extremely mindful of the incredibly harmful spreading of misinformation on social media at the current time, do challenge what you see online, report where appropriate and consider the source of the posts. Always go to trusted sources for your information which includes news outlets and through our social media channels.”
Because rapists don’t threaten the status quo?
Well the headline asks a good question – but the article suggests a kind of monomania. Not every single issue in the world has to be made into a wimmins issue. Not every issue in the world needs to be converted into a feminist cause.
If punishments handed out are disproportionate then that is an evil in itself, without it being framed in this way.
For those who are curious, this “every issue is really about me and my issue” narcissism may not be coincidence. Recent psychological research has found a link between feminist activism and narcissism.
https://www.psypost.org/narcissists-may-engage-in-feminist-activism-to-satisfy-their-grandiose-tendencies-study-suggests/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04591-4
Another Psypost article!
Seriously, I’ve not read a single essay on this site on the topic of rape which you haven’t shoehorned into an opportunity to bash women. Perhaps there is more to this “every issue is really about me and my issue” pop psychology than I’m giving credit for.
Just being honest for a moment. Even at this point did you not start to think: if aliens landed in the middle of London and started exterminating the population with ray guns, some of the authors on Unherd would still somehow make it all about feminism and feminist issues.
Or would you be nodding your head in agreement as they complained that the government seemed to be prepared to fight against aliens while male abusers had been getting away with it for decades.
I didn’t because I see the spark for the riots as being against violence against girls, though JS could & should have stated this explicitly.
Look, I’m utterly fed up with progressive feminists who have turned feminism on its head (it used to be about protecting women & girls, now it is often the opposite) & I have zero patience for misandry. But there are still some good feminists out there drawing attention to issues that no other people – neither women nor men – are.
They deserve our support, not derision. It strikes me as a thankless task being a real feminist (not a pretend, lefty virtue signaller) in current times.
I think we’ve exchanged some olive branches here. We probably disagree less than it might seem.
I’ll still be critical when I think it is warranted – please do the same – and I still think there is valuable work to be done on what motivates some activists. Not least because their hard line, authoritarian approach and hateful rhetoric alienates people who would support more moderate and reasonable positions.
But please accept my comments as being in good faith. And much thanks for your comments and clarification.
Yet it’s only feminists & ‘wimmin’ who flag up such evils if they pertain mostly to wimmin, while men such as yourself remain not just silent about said evils, but actively, vocally incredulous, denialist & even outraged at the temerity of the flagging up.
Monomania indeed.
Nobody is silent. Everyone thinks that rape is an evil. Nobody thinks that domestic abuse is a good thing.
But we’ve just had rioting on the streets of Britain. It’s an issue of concern enough in itself. There is something very odd about it being used as a segue into yet another repetitive feminist rant – as if nothing else in the world really matters. Does it really not strike you as bizarre!
You’d be surprised at how much silence there is around rape and how few take it seriously. That’s the whole point of JS’ article: if it were a crime that was taken really seriously, it would be pursued & punished seriously.
We had police & even mps apparently covering up the grooming gang rapes, which I’m told continue to this day:
https://youtu.be/zNeY-iWbamc?si=8HpwwVhRZJUtDPgx
Just look at the sentences meted out to the _proven_ rapists: do they correspond sufficiently with ‘evil’ in your opinion?
I agree in relation to the grooming gangs. This was an open secret before it actually broke as news, and there were plenty of feminists amongst those who kept their silence.
I think we agree in wanting heavy sentences for proven rapists regardless of ethnicity.
And also on the falsely accused. Lest we forget.
Where is j watson when you need him to explain why, under Starmer, all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, eh?
It’s crime against the state versus crime against the person – only one is considered important by these authoritarians.
Because rape is not a threat to the comfort of the government.
All crimes are viewed equally – but some crimes are viewed more equally than others.
Eg. Rioters Vs. “modern” slavery.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c724prnd489o
These protests have been sparked by the litany of violence -including towards women and girls -perpetrated by recent immigrants and the importation of men into the country who do not respect women and who think sexual violence is ok. The murder of the lady in Suffolk and the Southport stabbings were the final straw. These reasons – and their solutions- must be part of the national debate. Instead, Starmer implies it is all due to far right thugs. And so the dissent will continue.
Look up the term ‘anarcho-tyranny’ and then compare that to the totally capricious selective justice meted out by the authorities in many Western countries in the last decade or so.
Might I be the first to say? — Britain, here is your January 6. People who participated in the “riots” will be pursued, prosecuted and jailed, even if their actions were peaceful. Robinson (or perhaps even somehow Farage?) will be Trumpified through Labor lawfare. Your media will wring hands about threats to Democracy…. and so on.
A man has been sentenced to 3 years imprisonment today for an offence carried out less than a week ago. It’s hard to believe there has been time for him to find suitable legal representation (no, the duty solicitor is not good enough if you’re facing a lengthy custodial sentence) and prepare a proper defence.
Justice rushed through is justice denied.
Special courts, no juries, new special police forces. Ironic coming from a man who spent his life supporting ‘human rights’. I guess he was picking up tips from the bad .guys.