Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Myths and Legends: The Reality of Rape Offences Reported to a UK Police Force
I think the findings from the academic study excerpted below speak for themselves. They show that, contrary to feminist hysteria, rape as it is conventionally imagined is exceedlingly rare in the UK. Such unpopular findings are probably why the paper has not made it into the journals but has remained a conference paper only. It is however available online from Research Gate or from the authors
By Genevieve Waterhouse, Ali Reynolds & Vincent Egan
The ‘real rape’ myth involves a stranger attacking a woman alone at night in a secluded outdoor area. It often includes violence, the victim sustaining serious injuries and a weapon (Du Mont et al., 2003).
The present study analysed the frequency with which each aspect of the myth occurred in rapes reported to a police force in a typical British region over two years.
Although nearly a third of rapes were committed by strangers, most of these offenders had spent some time with their victim (e.g. had been drinking with them prior to the attack). When the offender had met the victim before the offence, they had most frequently met in a pub, club, or in a town centre (40.5%), followed by in the street (19%) or through friends (12.1%).
Of 400 cases, none fit all the ‘real rape’ myth criteria. Only two cases in which a weapon was used were carried out by a stranger to the victim; one of which fits the myth except for that the victim sustained slight (rather than serious) injuries. The only correct characteristic of the ‘real rape’ myth was the timing (when the time of the offence was recorded, it was often between 11pm and 5am) and that when stranger rapes did occur, they were more likely to take place in the open-air and lead to the victim sustaining slight injuries.
Thus, the ‘real rape’ myth is a particularly inaccurate portrayal of the ‘average’ rape reported to the police in this sample. Stranger rapes were more likely to involve the victim drinking alcohol, the victim and offender having spent some time together, a young female victim and an older male offender. Additionally, they often occurred in the victim’s home.
This suggests that stranger rape may have a connection to the night-time economy, rather than the ‘stranger-in-the-bush’ scenario. However, both domestic and acquaintance rapes were reported more often than stranger rapes.
CONFERENCE PAPER · SEPTEMBER 2013
'KFC sacked me for wearing a POPPY': Fast food worker claims he was fired after refusing to remove remembrance symbol for health and safety reasons
A father-of-one claims he was sacked from his job at KFC after refusing to remove a poppy from his uniform because it could pose a 'health and safety' risk.
Stephen Colquhoun, 23, said he made a donation to the restaurant's poppy box and attached the commemorative flower to his shirt but was told by his manager to remove it.
The fast food worker, from Drumchapel, Glasgow, refused to take off the remembrance symbol and claims he was dismissed from the KFC branch in the city's Renfield Street.
He told the Daily Record: 'At first I thought he must be joking, but he kept on demanding I take it off.
'Eventually I told him he'd need to sack me because I wasn't taking it off. At that point he said to me, 'Fine, just leave now', and I left.'
He added that he thought it was a 'disgrace' he was told he couldn't wear the poppy, adding: 'It should be everyone's right to show their respect for the war dead if they want to.'
Mr Colquhoun said his name had been taken off the work rota following the dispute, so he presumed he had been dismissed from his position.
KFC said poppies were banned from the kitchen areas of its restaurants over health and safety reasons and said it was investigating the matter.
A spokesman said: 'The poppy appeal is a great cause and many of our restaurants support it through donation boxes including the Renfield Street restaurant.
'Wearing any type of badge or pin while working in a kitchen poses a foreign body risk so isn't allowed for health and safety reasons.
'The team member has not been dismissed but we are currently looking into the matter.'
Merkel’s open invite to ragbag of fanatics
THE bookies are backing German Chancellor Angela Merkel for this year’s Nobel Peace prize for welcoming the Islamic invasion of Europe.
She initially estimated that Germany could host about 800,000 of the so-called refugees but it would appear that with no controls, that number is likely to be closer to 1.5 million.
The majority of those who have surged northward seeking homes in nations with the most generous welfare programs are not genuine refugees. They have not come from refugee camps, they have destroyed their identity documents, and they aren’t even Syrian, though that’s where the current Islam-induced crisis is raging.
Germany is dealing with its ghastly past, showing some remorse for the Holocaust inflicted by its Nazi rulers, wishing to be seen to be extending a hand to people in need.
But the warm wet multi-kulti feeling is starting to drain away as services collapse under the pressure and there is a slow realisation that more than 3000 people have died this year trying to reach the Euro welcome mat.
The numbers of Green-Left Germans who were handing out toys and water to the few women and children who reached their nation are beginning to thin as less inspiring hordes of strong young men pour off the buses and trains from the south.
Even Merkel is beginning to think enough is enough and has told EU foreign ministers and their counterparts from Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Balkan countries worst affected by the exodus from Syria that Europe’s asylum rules are “obsolete”.
That will not be news to realists but it is something of a slap in the face to the EU’s gormless multi-kulti bureaucrats who have stood by for decades as Islamists established enclaves in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, the Netherlands and Britain in which crimes against women flourished and extremist teachers preached hatred of the West which sheltered them.
Even so, Merkel has still not drawn any lines — possibly realising that US President Obama’s all too frequent claims to have drawn red lines aimed at constraining Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad only fed more lines to comedians.
Feeling the backlash within Germany, still settling down after the reunification of East and West Germany 25 years ago, Merkel admitted in a historic understatement that the challenges will “be difficult” as German authorities said they had registered about 577,000 asylum-seekers in the first nine months of the year, just a third of whom claim to be Syrian.
In a joint statement with French President Francois Hollande to the totally ineffectual but grievously meddling European Parliament in Luxembourg, Merkel called for a “new procedure” to redistribute “asylum-seekers” through the 28-nation EU.
This won’t deter the "coming-ready-or-not" mob surging into the sunny uplands of the welfare states; they know which nations’ welfare systems offer the most benefits and they have shown extreme determination to reach those that have the best deals.
Europe’s migration disaster has again highlighted the age-old problem of letting well-intentioned but unmitigated dopes determine policy.
Just as the luvvies ululated their delight when the Arab Spring dawned — before the celebrating mobs in Libya and Egypt showed their true Islamist colours — and now show some regret at ushering in extremist forces like IS, al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, Merkel has had some second thoughts.
The original Dublin process, which forces Italy and Greece to process most migrants, “started from good intentions … but the challenges raised at our borders are from now on untenable”.
“It is exactly now that we need more Europe. We need courage and cohesion, which Europe has always shown when it was necessary,” she said.
The last time “courage and cohesion” worked in Europe was when Britain bravely kept the Nazis corralled on the Continent until the US was propelled into WWII by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
Merkel’s “more Europe” policies have only served to lure freeloaders in the past. Unless Europe can free itself of them, it is doomed.
France’s Hollande was more realistic, admitting that the EU failed to respond swiftly to the upheaval of the Arab Spring.
“I acknowledge that Europe was slow in understanding that tragedy in the Middle East or Africa could not but have consequences for Europe itself,” he said.
Injecting a note of sanity, he warned that regional conflagration in the Middle East could affect Europe if the world failed to stop the slaughter in Syria.
“What happens in Syria concerns Europe, what happens there will determine the balance of the whole region for a long time,” he said.
“If we leave these religious clashes between Sunnis and Shi’ites, they will grow. Don’t think we will be sheltered, this will be a total war.”
Europe is showing signs of slowly understanding the lesson that both former prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott understood full well. Borders must be secure if citizens are to be protected and lives are not to be lost to people smugglers.
Thanks to Europe’s hospitable open borders, the member nations of the EU now face years of deadly Islamist extremism from some of the very people to whom they offered refuge and sanctuary.
Merkel should note that those who awarded Obama his Nobel Prize have already expressed their regret.
Why the UK’s Nobel Prize winner rejects foreign aid
Angus Deaton has made powerful arguments against foreign aid that expose our Government’s shallowness in the matter
Britain has just collected another Nobel Prize, courtesy of Angus Deaton, the Scottish-born economist. A brilliant thinker, he is the author of several breakthroughs in the way economists look at the world. His achievements are not merely about technical microeconomics, including areas such as consumption, poverty and welfare. As befits a great scholar, he isn’t worried about holding unpopular opinions: he is one of the most persuasive opponents of foreign aid. Why? He thinks that foreign aid - for the purposes of development, not to stave off humanitarian health catastrophes or other such emergencies - does more harm than good and hurts, rather than helps, the poor.
It is impossible to read his powerful arguments without realising just how flimsy the Tory obsession with spending 0.7pc of GDP on foreign aid really is. Deaton, unlike those who support the government’s position, masters the extensive economic literature on the subject. His takedowns of the theoretical and empirical evidence in favour of the current consensus are wonderful to read; and they expose our government’s shallowness in the matter.
“Development is neither a financial nor a technical problem but a political problem, and the aid industry often makes the politics worse”, as he put it cogently in an article.
So what were his solutions? “Reducing aid is one, but so is limiting the arms trade, improving rich-country trade and subsidy policies, providing technical advice that is not tied to aid, and developing better drugs for diseases that do not affect rich people”, he wrote in a syndicated column.
He also supports tearing up trade barriers, a liberal migration policy and making it easier for poor countries to share in inventions and new management techniques. He explains that there is no evidence that aid ever boosts growth and that in fact it damages the key legal and political infrastructure - property rights, a proper legal system, a decent, non-corrupt system of government - that is essential for economies to take off. To him, the problem with aid is that it undermines the development of “local state capacity” and makes failing governments even less accountable. He is especially scathing in his condemnation of Western financed population control, which he sees as imperialistic.
Sadly, his scholarly, fascinating fact-based destruction of the case for state foreign aid is not part of Britain’s national conversation. Instead, loudly spending taxpayers’ money on overseas assistance is now seen as a form of virtue-signalling by the Tories, a mean to (supposedly) decontaminate the brand as it is perceived by prosperous, middle class voters with liberal tendencies.
I don’t want to misrepresent Deaton’s views: he is not a free-market libertarian, and believes that there is much the government can and should do. He is, in my view, wrongly worried about the fact that some people have become very rich - though at least his argument has nothing to do with envy, and is instead partly about the danger of small groups capturing and perverting political institutions. It is obviously wrong if anybody can write the rules in their own interests, rather than in the general interest. But in my view this actually reinforces the case for trusting the market as much as possible to organise society, rather than politicians.
I also disagree with Deaton when he worries that the rich can afford to buy private healthcare and education, thus opting out of public services, and deduces from that they will have less incentive to improve state schools or make sure that banks are managed safely. I would love to live in a world wealthy enough that the vast majority of the population could afford to purchase their own education and healthcare; and the rich actually have as little incentive as the middle classes to see the banking system badly run. They have the most to lose from a financial collapse and the ensuing revolution. I also don’t buy the argument that those who have more are not interested in helping provide a safety net for those who have less.
But his understanding of government failure, in the West as well as in the emerging world, makes him a superior analyst and one who is worth reading closely, even when one disagrees with him. His The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality, out recently in paperback, is a highly accessible statement of his views. I recommend it to anybody who wants to understand more about international affairs and how to solve the scandal that is global poverty.
Deaton’s triumph reminds of us of Britain’s enormous scientific and intellectual achievements - but it also acts as a warning that we need to up our game. The UK remains second-placed in the Nobel prize league table, with 94 UK-born laureates to date, against 257 US-born winners, according to a map from the Nobel Foundation. We remain ahead of Germany at 80 and France at 53. It’s not just the UK-born: Tomas Lindhal, the Swedish cancer specialist, a winner of this year’s chemistry prize, has been based in the UK since 1981.
But Lindhal is an exception, and Deaton’s prize highlights a crisis: he works at Princeton, where he has been based since 1983. Britain’s best academics increasingly work in the US; the same is true of the UK’s best PhDs. Britain is continuing to suffer from a scientific brain drain which shows no signs of reversing. Even our best universities are continuing to fall behind: when it comes to research, institutions like Stanford in California, MIT or Harvard have become astonishingly successful. The nexus between Stanford and Silicon Valley is a perfect case study in how business and academia should cooperate. If we want to stay ahead, we urgently need to learn from the way things are done in the US.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.