@11, we can both agree this is a very good thing.

That message is getting through to the judiciary, at last, as yet another of those ‘rare’ cases shows:

“A judge told a nursery assistant who falsely cried rape three times she had to be jailed for four months because she made genuine sex attack victims look like liars.”

Its 3 (or 6)% of cases are PROVEN to be false, just as its 6% are PROVEN to be true. The 88% in the middle is open to question. Given that rape is binary (sex either happened or it didn’t, and if it did happen she either consented or didn’t) that 88% must be split into two on some ratio. The size of that ratio is the bone of contention.

What little studies that have been done on the subject conclude that between 25 and 40% of rape allegations are false – ie never took place or consent was given.

That is the issue that needs addressing – if women did not make false allegations, it would be much easier to prosecute the guilty parties who are currently getting off scot free.

Careful what you say, Mr Worstall – sub judice, etc.

However they appear to therefore conclude that none of the remaining cases where there is insufficent or even no evidence to prosecute an alleged rapist are also false, which seems a bit of a presumption to me.

Possibly because it wasn’t done in-house and manipulated by politicians?

The data you’re looking for is in the Home Office report on attrition in rape case – http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf.

Somewhat unusually for recent times, that’s a damn good piece of research that genuinely does highlight the complexities of dealing with rape allegations.

Perjury cases are extremely rare anyway, and in the majority of false cases the deception is uncovered before the case gets to trial, which makes the appropriate charge one of wasting police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

No, I’m not holding my breath either.