The student who cried "Rape!" so she could get an extension on homework

Link

Quote :

Temitope Adenugba was struggling to meet a deadline at Oxford Brookes University, when she phoned police saying she had been subjected to a serious sexual assault as she slept in her hall of residence.

When officers arrived to take a statement, the 24-year-old pointed at cleaner Kunle Ogunmola and said: ‘Can’t talk here, that’s the man who raped me.’

Mr Ogunmola was arrested, before police exposed her claims to be ‘a catalogue of lies’.

Oxford Crown Court recorder Rabinder Singh said: ‘It’s extremely easy to make an allegation of rape when there’s no foundation whatsoever.‘But it’s likely to have the perverse impact of guilty men walking free.’

So... let's see, she practically destroyed an innocent guy's life and makes it harder for real victims to get justice and for real rapists to be punished... but did she get that extension? Since that's apparently all she cared about.

Quote :

Mr Ogunmola had no access to Adenugba’s room – and mobile phone
analysis debunked her claims he had harassed her with calls. Further analysis showed no DNA link to support her claim.

In court, she admitted perverting the course of justice over the fake claims made in May of last year.

The court heard she had made another false rape claim against a previous partner in October 2006.

A pattern emerges... though that wasn't for the purpose of her not failing her coursework.

Initially found here. Here's another source, if you want it.

in before cyberwulf

Throw it back to rage_free where you found it.

And people say only 2% of rape claims are false. More like 40%-60%. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Some guy named Eugene Kanin did a study that says as much.

I would like it noted that I fucking hate women like this. Way to make the other rape cases look bad bitch.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

I would like it noted that I fucking hate women like this. Way to make the other rape cases look bad bitch.

Yeah, the misogynistic slur totally helps.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

I would like it noted that I fucking hate women like this.

"women" should be "people".

I guess what I find particularly chilling is that she just picked him at random, and that he actually tried to help her out, giving her money to help her get home to her family.

Why is it that cases like this always make the news, yet women getting raped is barely newsworthy, if at all?

For a rape case to show up in the papers, it seems to me that the rapist needs to actually be famous before anyone bothers caring. Then the media can go round with its "I'm sure she was lying" and "but it wasn't rape-rape", and the whole culture of rape apologism is reinforced because hey, bitch is probably lying.

ETA: the source for this story is the Metro, which is part of the same group of papers as the Daily HateMail. No wonder they so gleefully reported this; they're right behind the Tory government plan to grant anonymity to men accused of rape.

ZoZo wrote:

Why is it that cases like this always make the news, yet women getting raped is barely newsworthy, if at all?

I don't think you've thought this statement through. Not a lot of women would want their name to be dragged through the news in regards to being raped (see: Polanski's teen victim from 30 years ago). Also, allegations need to be investigated so that cases like this one in particular don't allow innocent people to be convicted of such a heinous crime. Need I remind anyone of the Fatty Arbuckle trial?

ZoZo wrote:

Why is it that cases like this always make the news, yet women getting raped is barely newsworthy, if at all?

Sensationalism.

Good grief. It's disgusting, taking advantage of other people's misfortunes to GET AN EXTENSION ON COURSEWORK.

ZoZo wrote:

Why is it that cases like this always make the news, yet women getting raped is barely newsworthy, if at all?

Huh. Depends where you live, I guess. In Romania, I see rapes reported on the news all the time, even when the rapists aren't famous. Sometimes they even get commentary from the victim (though her face is always blurred).

Azzandra wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Why is it that cases like this always make the news, yet women getting raped is barely newsworthy, if at all?

Huh. Depends where you live, I guess. In Romania, I see rapes reported on the news all the time, even when the rapists aren't famous. Sometimes they even get commentary from the victim (though her face is always blurred).

Here, it's generally if a famous person rapes someone or of there's lots of gory details they can revel in reporting. Usually followed by a reminder that women mustn't go out alone at night, or they'll get themselves raped, too.

I mean, I'm all for respecting the privacy of the survivor and I'm glad I live in a country where at least she can be completely anonymous. It just frustrates me that so many column inches are given to these sort of rare instances and act as though women lying about being raped is the norm, not an anomaly.

ZoZo wrote:

Why is it that cases like this always make the news, yet women getting raped is barely newsworthy, if at all?

For a rape case to show up in the papers, it seems to me that the rapist needs to actually be famous before anyone bothers caring. Then the media can go round with its "I'm sure she was lying" and "but it wasn't rape-rape", and the whole culture of rape apologism is reinforced because hey, bitch is probably lying.

ETA: the source for this story is the Metro, which is part of the same group of papers as the Daily HateMail. No wonder they so gleefully reported this; they're right behind the Tory government plan to grant anonymity to men accused of rape.

Rape cases and charges show up in the Rapid City paper all the time. Like, I can't go a day or two without reading about one of them. But then, according to the FBI, Rapid City is the rape capital of North America. That was a while ago though, so the figures may have changed.

Part of why this case made the papers is sensationalism, as Penguin said, and part of it is because such an obvious case of lying about it never happens. It's like a plane crash--planes rarely crash and are often called the safest way of travel... yet we don't hear about the hundreds and thousands of planes which land safely. We hear about the crashes.

Maximilia wrote:

It's like a plane crash--planes rarely crash and are often called the safest way of travel... yet we don't hear about the hundreds and thousands of planes which land safely. We hear about the crashes.

This, pretty much. The events that get attention are those that are anomalous. The old joke is that "Dog Bites Man" is not a headline, but "Man Bites Dog" is. Except for murder, most crimes have to have a sensational element in order to get covered. One unfortunate consequence is that people tend to remember these events and to believe them more common than they really are. People think plane travel is more dangerous than it really is, that cops are more likely to be redneck bullies than they really are, or that... well, we can all think of examples.

Drabbler wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

It's like a plane crash--planes rarely crash and are often called the safest way of travel... yet we don't hear about the hundreds and thousands of planes which land safely. We hear about the crashes.

This, pretty much. The events that get attention are those that are anomalous. The old joke is that "Dog Bites Man" is not a headline, but "Man Bites Dog" is. Except for murder, most crimes have to have a sensational element in order to get covered. One unfortunate consequence is that people tend to remember these events and to believe them more common than they really are. People think plane travel is more dangerous than it really is, that cops are more likely to be redneck bullies than they really are, or that... well, we can all think of examples.

I think my issue is more with how these cases are reported; perhaps I haven't been making this clear enough. Perhaps I'm asking too much, but maybe, just maybe, pointing out somewhere in this article how rare such instances are. Particularly as it would counterbalance this quote:

Quote :

‘It’s extremely easy to make an allegation of rape when there’s no foundation whatsoever.

That just implies that this sort of thing is a rule, rather than a massive exception.

Oh, and I also think reporting on plane crashes should point out such things are rare. People aren't stupid, but when faced with news that only reports exceptions, it's easy to think with the availability heuristic.

Anyway, I just did a silly thing and looked at the comments under this article. I want to punch this commenter on the nose:

Quote :

Can i guess she is also not from this country as it doesn't state this in the article? If not deport her, we can do without people like her wasting police and courts time at the tax payers expense.

ZoZo wrote:

ETA: the source for this story is the Metro, which is part of the same group of papers as the Daily HateMail. No wonder they so gleefully reported this; they're right behind the Tory government plan to grant anonymity to men accused of rape.

You realize that, given how life-destroying a rape accusation can be (for those individuals lacking dual citizenship and the wherewithal to flee the country,) this is not a totally unreasonable step?

"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZZZZZ" typical Gaijinguy.

Zoey wrote:

ETA: the source for this story is the Metro, which is part of the same
group of papers as the Daily HateMail. No wonder they so gleefully
reported this; they're right behind the Tory government plan to grant
anonymity to men accused of rape.

Considering the alleged victim gets anonymity and all sort of other perks that victims of any other crime don't get, why not give the accused the same anonymity?

It's one thing once he's convicted, but there's nothing to be gained by knowing the name of the accused before the verdict.

Also, do you failures have any real newspapers? Or are you just so far up your own ass with you're assbackwards feminism that you think anything that isn't NOW's newsletter is illegitimate? Really, every time a story you don't like comes around it's "lololololololololDailyFail."

Even if it totally isn't the Daily Mail.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

bleachedblackcat wrote:

I would like it noted that I fucking hate women like this. Way to make the other rape cases look bad bitch.

Yeah, the misogynistic slur totally helps.

Sorry, I just get beyond pissed when stuff like this happens.

gaijinguy wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

ETA: the source for this story is the Metro, which is part of the same group of papers as the Daily HateMail. No wonder they so gleefully reported this; they're right behind the Tory government plan to grant anonymity to men accused of rape.

You realize that, given how life-destroying a rape accusation can be (for those individuals lacking dual citizenship and the wherewithal to flee the country,) this is not a totally unreasonable step?

It's a terrible idea for plenty of reasons:
1. Rape conviction rates are low enough as it is, and reporting is very low. Many women who have been raped don't go to the police for fear of not being believed. Do you think a law that essentially states "she's probably lying" is going to improve that?
2. Why single out rape? Why not grant anonymity to murderers or terrorists. Or even other sex offenders? Anonymity for paedophiles? I bet it sucks just as hard to be falsely accused of any of those.
3. Relatedly, the rates of false reporting of rape is about the same as for any of those crimes.

It just makes no fucking sense.

ETA: Mikey, my love, you're on your way to constructing an argument. I'm so proud of you

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Considering the alleged victim gets anonymity and all sort of other perks that victims of any other crime don't get, why not give the accused the same anonymity?

To increase reporting rates. Rape is wildly underreported.

Quote :

It's one thing once he's convicted, but there's nothing to be gained by knowing the name of the accused before the verdict.

See above, my dear. The accused is named in other crimes.

Quote :

Also, do you failures have any real newspapers? Or are you just so far up your own ass with you're assbackwards feminism that you think anything that isn't NOW's newsletter is illegitimate? Really, every time a story you don't like comes around it's "lololololololololDailyFail."

Even if it totally isn't the Daily Mail.

We have a few that actually report the news, but they're boring to read.

I'm not opposed to granting anonymity to anyone who has not yet been convicted.

ZoZo wrote:

Quote :

It's one thing once he's convicted, but there's nothing to be gained by knowing the name of the accused before the verdict.

See above, my dear. The accused is named in other crimes.

So are the names of the victims.

Nobody's walking around saying alleged robbery victims deserve anonymity.

What we have is a system that protects people who, nearly half the time, are bullshitting while leaving innocent individuals open to being dragged through the mud. Under reporting of rape is no excuse for that.

ZoZo wrote:

Quote :

It's one thing once he's convicted, but there's nothing to be gained by knowing the name of the accused before the verdict.

See above, my dear. The accused is named in other crimes.

Pardon my ignorance, but how many of these other crimes have a habit of causing people accused of them to be lynched in the street and having there lives ruined if proven innocent (or not proven guilty if you will) and not famous.

Also, how do we know that alot of rapes arn't reported, if they arn't reported? Where do we get the numbers from?

Hey guys let's give alledged pedophiles anonymity as well.