Rape compensation cut because she was drinking
A rape victim who was told her compensation would be cut because she had been drinking before the attack has had the decision overturned.
BBC NEWS | UK | Rape compensation cut overturned
But her lawyer successfully argued it was wrong to regard alcohol consumption as a contributing factor in rape cases. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority acknowledged its rules had been applied wrongly in 14 other cases.
14 acknowledged? How many not appealed? How many not heard?
The woman, whose attacker has never been caught, complained to the Metropolitan Police about the way her case was investigated.
Another one not caught, not investigated, not convicted. She had just cause for complaint it seems as officers were disciplined over it. But still the rapist walks free and somewhere a mother, sister, girlfriend or wife can say "Not my bloke, he wouldn’t." But he might, it could be him. We can’t know, he was never caught, never convicted, but someone did it, some man raped and got away with it.
It’s like sharks. I like sharks, they are stunning beautiful fish in the wild but they happen to be predatory and are, as a result, deserving of our respect and wariness. Some may kill humans, most do not. But how to tell the human eaters from the fish eaters? Certain media imagery (see youtube on the right) does exaggerate our fears and as a result shark species are in decline. But back to the analogy - not all sharks will harm people but some might and all are capable - so do we fear, respect them all as a precaution?
