The Rights Of Man

RAPE ANONYMITY DEBATE HEATS UP AND A FEW MORE VOICES EMERGE

At the weekend, the site highlighted how a few male MP's had publicly supported the Coalition Government's proposals to support anonymity for rape defendants, even though the way the Parliament debate had been covered by the media you would have thought that no MP had supported it (Sky, Daily Mail, Independent, Guardian and Telegraph). Talking about dancing to one tune.

However, a few more have emerged, Jason Duncan who was a victim of a false accusation was interviewed and Mark Brooks from the ManKind Initiative was on Radio 5 on Saturday night (1 hour 42 in).

Posted by Skimmington

PARLIAMENT DEBATES RAPE ANONYMITY

Tomorrow, Parliament discusses the issue of making rape defendants anonymous unless convicted, an important issue for male equality and an issue covered on this site at length. It looks like starting at about 11.30am

The debate will be able to be viewed live on Parliament TV.

This is the test to see whether the Coalition Government believes that equality also applies to men.

It will be the first test to see whether it will stand firm against the hysteria of the anti-male vested inestres that infest our country. If it fails, it will never stand up to them again and another Government will have let men down.

Comments on the debate welcome on the site please.

Posted by Skimmington

ANOTHER FALSE RAPE ACCUSATION AND DOUBLE STANDARDS REVEALED IN CLIVE BISHOP CASE

As the campaign continues on whether to deny equality in justice by granting anonymity to defendents in rape cases and the fear that the Colaition Govenment will backslide under the weight of hysteria from their anti-male feminist opponents, this site will publish immediately each time it comes across a story about a false accusation.

Today, the papers reported the story of Temitope Adenugba who was sent to prison for 18 months for falsely accusing a male cleaner of raping her. The poor chap was named. Silence from Caroline Flint.

Then we see the case of Clive Bishop where the weasely Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority appealed against his claim for compensation following being faslely accused of rape (link). Could you imagine the outcry if the genders were reversed?

However, this research by the False Rape Society is significant.

Posted by Skimmington

UPDATE ON THE BRITISH AIRWAYS AND ITS SEXIST POLICY

The site commented last week on hero Mirko Fischer and it was gladdening to see that Libby Purves, columnist for the Times agree (no link available as The Times now has a paywall) explaining how it demeaned men everywhere. As did Rosie Murray-West in the Telegraph.

A reader wrote to British Airways last week stating that they would hear from his solicitor if they tried to move him in the same way they tried with Mr Fischer. He has asked that the reply is published which proves that British Airways are having to review it but also shows the contorted and convoluted way they try and defend the undefendable.

 British Airways

I am sorry you are dissatisfied with our seating policy for unaccompanied minors.  We carry tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors every year and take great pride in the service that we provide to them and their parents.  We have offered this service on all flights for many years for children aged between five and 11 years old, who are travelling alone.

Parents look to us to ensure the welfare of their children when they are travelling unaccompanied, who can be as young as 5 years old.  Given that some of these flights last up to 13 hours and are overnight, we take the responsibility of caring for these children, whose safety and security has been entrusted to us, extremely seriously.

There is a specific seating department, which oversees the booking and places the child in an appropriate seat.  To minimise risk to the child, whenever possible we do not seat unaccompanied minors beside adult male passengers.  On some services, this will be in a specially created Unaccompanied Minors zone within a short distance of the cabin crew in the galley. 

This procedure is not meant to cause offence to our male passengers, nor is it meant to imply that all men are a danger to children.  It is there as a precaution in the best interests of the welfare of our young passengers flying alone and will also protect male passengers from being the subject of false accusations.  However following recent court action taken by one of our passengers, this policy is currently under review.

Please be assured customer feedback such as yours is important to us.  We do hope that despite your current sentiments, you will give us an early opportunity to better serve you next time you travel with us.

Best regards

British Airways Customer Relations

Posted by Skimmington

 

GOVERNMENT MUST NOT BACKSLIDE OVER RAPE ANONYMITY

Ever since the Coalition Government announced its policy of giving rape defendants anonymity unless found guilty, they have been hounded and hounded by the anti-male feminists who do not want the Government to bring in this provision. Even to the point where hilariously Caroline Flint MP said this measure was the enemy of justice, even though the measure is the friend of equality. Also listen to her interview on the Today programme.

Against this onslaught, the Government is in danger of being faced down by the enemies of equality and men. A flavour of the backtracking can be seen in Parliament on 15th June where the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke MP, backslides and says nothing is certain. This follows David Cameron's backsliding as well as Clegg's, even though this is essentially a Lib Dem proposal. Clarke's backsliding was covered by the BBC and Daily Mail.

All this flies in the face of the continual damage down to innocent men covered in length here and the constant flow of stories about false accusers (Bernadette Core and here) and even the repercussions of the awful ordeal that Warren Blackwell went through where the police, brainwashed by the anti-male politically correct mafia , prosecuted him and ended up sending him to prison (Daily Mail and BBC) despite the evedience. Maybe Caroline Flint ought to listen to him.

Still others are doing their bit. The ManKind Initiative have written to the Government asking them to stand firm as has Thomas Byrne who also has set up a Facebook Group (if there are others that have written please tell the site).

Since the Coalition Government put forward this policy, the anti-male groups have gone into overdrive and the Coalition has been left floundering and is at risk of losing its nerve. Even the Independent reported they were looking at extending the anonymity issue but this has been met with the usual onslaught.

If the Coalition Government truly believes in equality, it has to face down the opponents on this issue.

If it does not, then the signal is that men will end up with the same rough deal dished out for 13 years by the Labour Government. It will mean that every time they put forward an measure that gives equality to men and women, they will cave in by being shouted down by the anti-male Marxist Feminists like Flint, Harman, the Fawcett Society and everyone else in that camp.

Posted by Skimmington

MIRKO FISCHER IS A MEN'S EQUALITY HERO AS BRITISH AIRWAYS CONTINUES ITS SEXISM AGAINST MEN

Every year or so, someone has the balls to publicly take on the anti-male establishment that we all suffer under and Mirko Fischer is one such hero. Down the years we've had people like the late Brian Law and Ertin Pizzey and now we can add Mirko Fischer.

This web-site has covered for some time the sexist and dangerous policies carried out many airlines including British Airways, Qantas, Air New Zealand who designate that men cannot sit next to children if the child is not theirs and is not accompanied by a related adult. Not only is this sexist because it only applies to men but also dangerous and offensive because the airlines tacitly believe that every man is a likely paedophile. Even the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has been a victim of it (link).

When the story first broke in January (attracting 460 comments in a debate in the Daily Mail) you would have thought that British Airways would just put their hands up, pay up and change their policy.

They didn't and even though he has won, you would think they would now change (BBC).

But still no, so infested in society's psyche that men cannot be trusted (it is why there are so few male primary school teachers) British Airways only admitted discrimination in the case of Mirko Fischer rather than say their whole policy is wrong.

It means right now in a plane in the air, British Airways could be sexually discriminating against a man and tacitly accusing him of being a paedophile by asking him to move because he is sitting next to an unaccompanied child (it is not he who has chosen the seat of course).

It also show the endemic and casual sexism against men that largely goes unchallenged. This is the same causal institutional sexism that allows the Government to propose bringing forward male retirement age by 8 to 10 years but only a women's by 4 years (it has not given a date yet). 

The other point of course is the pathetic silence from organisations like the Equalities and Human Rights Commission who have said nothing on this case. The Commission is supposedly meant to be about supporting equality for men and women, so it should be writing to the Chief Executive of British Airways demanding that they end this policy. But there is nothing but silence but like British Airways, the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not believe in equality if it means equality for men.

Posted by Skimmington

PEOPLE WHO EAT LEEKS ARE NO BETTER THAN PAEDOPHILES

This site recently revealed details of an Early Day Motion which opposes anonymity for those falsely accused of rape. Such an offensive an illiberal proposal was produced by Labour's Fiona MacTaggart and it would very much appear she's able to give Harriet Harman as run for her money in the New Labour misandry contest.

In addition to a contempt for victims of false accusations, MacTaggart also fits the feminist stereotype of inventing statistics to suit her arguments as we discussed previously. However we can also reveal the MP for Slough also has some particularly distasteful not to mention preposterous views on men who pay for sex.

In an interview with the Observer newspaper, the MP stated "I don't think most men who use prostitutes think of themselves as child abusers, but they are". She went on to describe the use of prostitutes as "the most common form of child abuse", though offering no statistics to back up her arguments (invented or otherwise).

MacTaggart's argument appears to be that some prostitutes begin to enter the profession before adulthood and some are cored into it or controlled by pimps/traffickers. This somehow leads her to the conclusion that all men who pay for sex are somehow responsible for all these wrongs rather than the actual perpetrators of the offences. MacTaggart ignores the fact that drug use and/or the prospect of earning easy money are attractive options in the deprived parts of Britain (a country in which inequalities between rich and poor widened significantly under her party's governance). Neither does it occur to Ms MacTaggart that there are a variety of catalysts for girls engaging in harmful practices at a young age, one of the most obvious being the absence of her father again an issue on which her government refused to act). It's also apparent that MacTaggart doesn't bother to make any distinction between children and adults, nor does she actually care about the issue of consent. Contrary to her false claim that 80% of prostitutes are controlled by pimps and work against their will, most are in fact consenting adults.

One adult paying another for sex is in itself an entirely consensual activity. It might be a somewhat distasteful transaction to some, but in a free society adult men and women should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies. It goes without saying that we should crack down extremely hard on violent and controlling pimps, on people traffickers and of course actual child abusers grooming girls for prostitution, but none of these awful crimes form any sort of intrinsic or compulsory aspect of sex work. Whilst there are indeed parts of the country where the grooming of girls for prostitution is an issue, there's actually evidence the Labour government and the police failed to protect the victims of such crimes to the racial component of many such offences.

MacTaggart is perfectly happy to make sexist comments falsely proclaiming three million men to be no better than baby rapists, somehow holding them account for other people's crimes occurring perhaps a decade previously or, as in the vast majority of cases, not at all. At the same time any common link in terms of the identity of actual perpetrators of the crimes she's supposedly so concerned about (other than gender) is strictly taboo.

Similarly off limits is any mention of the fact that women use prostitutes. Why? Well the gender feminists like to pretend women don't commit any sort of abuse and therefore any time a woman pays for sex it must therefore be an entirely consensual act (I'm sure it is in most cases too). However if so many men are voluntarily engaged in such a profession than it surely follows that plenty of women are similarly happy working in the sex industry? (or fully willing participants at the very least). Mactaggart's points are yet another attempt to infatalise women as completely unable to consent to anything or make rational decisions, a view which is actually a huge barrier to women achieving full equality.

If we take MacTaggart's arguments to their logical conclusion and apply it to other areas then it surely means all sorts of other consumers are guilty of serious offences too? Contrary to McTaggart's claims, evidence from arrests shows most people trafficking involves the agricultural sector. Given cases such as this one, MacTaggart presumably feels that all people who eat leeks must be automatically be guilty of violence, abuse and trafficking and they should certainly put a stop to their disgraceful consumption of such vegetables. I expect some of the victims come form disadvantaged backgrounds and were possibly even sexually abused when they were younger so perhaps all Leek eaters are paedophiles too? MacTaggarts system of finding the worst practices in any given industry, assuming they apply across the board and then delving into the victim's childhood to find more issues to which she holds consumers accountable you can link any person to any crime if you try hard enough.

MacTaggart's illogical, not to mention offensive comments aren't all bad though. They actually help us to understand her motivation for blocking measures to help victims of false rape allegations and perhaps those of her Labour colleagues. As with so many other such highly privileged and wealthy gender feminists, she demonstrates no real understanding of the issues. Her "arguments" suggest she has no actual interest in helping rape victims nor protecting prostitutes from dangerous clients and pimps. Anyone wanting to help sex workers would have introduced a New Zealand style system of brothels by now to ensure the workers were all adults, working voluntarily and in safety. Similarly anyone concerned with the plight of the many genuine rape victims out there would be demanding far stronger sanctions against false accusers and the removal of any legislation facilitating or encouraging their crimes, most notably the ability to ruin the lives of their victims before trial. Instead she prefers to brush the issue under the carpet, with her Early Day Motion pretending all accusers are in fact victims who's accusations should automatically be believed regardless of the evidence.

MacTaggart's hysterical attitudes to consensual sex illustrate exactly why false rape accusations present such a problem today. Rather than help the victims of such offences who have their lives ruined she prefers to play politics with such issues in order to further her anti-male, anti-sex agenda. Her comments on prostitution are in fact little short of false rape allegations themselves, though aimed at the male population as a whole rather than one specific victim. It's little wonder she's so opposed protecting people from such offences given that she shares so much in common with false accusers herself.

by John Kimble

SIGN THE PETITION SUPPORTING ANONYMITY FOR THOSE ACCUSED OF RAPE

Recently a petition has been established supporting the coalition government's proposals for anonymity for those accused of rape. The policy was democratically agreed at the Liberal Democrat Conference in 2006 and was was also announced as an official coalition policy last month.

A number of gender feminists have come out strongly against protecting vicitms of false rape allegations and it would be a real tragedy is such desperately needed civil liberties legislation was watered down due to pressure from anti-male groups. There's even an Early Day Motion in Parliament against the proposals, with some of the usual suspects opposing protecting such vulnerable men. For more on why such a policy is needed I strongly recommend reading some of our recent articles on the issue or visiting the excellent False Rape Society website.

Please sign the petition and to ask friends and colleagues to do the same.

by John Kimble

TO THE 58 MPS AGAINST ANONYMITY FOR THOSE FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE (PART TWO)

Despite the points rasied in part one of this piece I do very much respect your democratic right to oppose legislation which would restore fairness in rape cases and I realise your actions might not be be exclusively borne out of misandry nor a lack of understanding of the arguments. There are indeed alternative solutions to such a pressing issue which we might want to try first and it's very easy to simply complain about such other person's proposals instead of solving the problem at hand. Therefore would you please let me know what alternative proposals you had in mind to protect the innocent victims of false rape allegations? Also could you please clarify whether you are against anonymity for anyone for all parities or only for the accused?

I expect some of you already have completed significant work to help the falsely accused throughout your careers and have ideas on solving the problem. I've taken the time to produce a set of proposals which I'm sure would provide a workable alternative to anonymity for those accused of rape and help to protect innocent men and women. Please indicate if and when you'd be willing to put these proposals forward in the House and what additional measures you feel would be necessary as an alternative or precursor to anonymity.

1. The establishment of a register of proven false rape accusers. First proposed by Judge David Bryant the register would help protect men men by enabling them to avoid contact with false accusers convicted of this offence. As with genuine rapists, false accusers are often serial offenders or target multiple victims.  An alternative would be to place false accusers on the sex offenders register as their crime is clearly a serious offence of a sexual nature.

2. Requiring malicious false accusers to serve the same sentence they attempted to inflict on their victims. At present false accusers generally receive little punishment if any at all. Even when given custodial sentence is given it tends to be suspended or usually amount to a derisory a few months, sentences which are now generally accepted as ineffective and no deterrent. Such a policy would help to send out a message that false accusation are extremely serious crimes thus reducing false allegations and also removing much of the stigma from victims.

3. False accusers to fully refund the taxpayer all funds lost by investigating their false and malicious claims. Recent cases show false rape cases cost the taxpayer as much as £300,000 each.
In an era of large deficits and cuts, surely reclaiming such monies measure would not only provide a disincentive for inventing rape cases but also reduce the need for reducing services elsewhere? Alternatively, such money could be redirected into protecting and assisting genuine rape victims and catching actual rapists.

4. Requiring the media to give greater prominence to news of rape acquittal compared to reports on mere allegations. At present the media loses interest in rape cases once an acquittal occurs as highlighted in the Stern Review meaning victims of false claims are never able to clear their names.
An additional possible proposal might also stop the media (not to mention MPs) from using loaded terminology such as "victims" nor "rapist" until after a guilty verdict is established and the case has been provedd.

5. The removal of anonymity from false rape accusers when the balance of probabilities show their claims to be false. Some false accusers are able to retains and hide behind  anonymity, even if their claims would appear to have caused the death of their victims.

6. Compensation to be paid to victim of false rape allegations. Such a solution would not only help victims to try to return to normal life but also emphasise their status as victims of a quite horrific crime. Any such settlement also would help remove any stigma associated with the offence.

7. A full overhaul of the way false rape data is collected and presented.  False rapes cases should surely be categorised completely differently to actual rapes in crime surveys rather than muddled together, thus preventing gender feminists from using false rape claims as evidence of a lack of success in prosecuting genuine rapes. Such dishonest behaviour by the rape lobby is likely to put of genuine rape victims from coming forward as was the case with the exaggeration of low conviction rates.


Many thanks for your interest in the serious issue of false rape allegations and for taking the time to read this document. I look forward to your response.



John Kimble

TO THE 58 MPS AGAINST ANONYMITY FOR THOSE FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE (PART ONE)

Dear Madams/Sirs

I note with interest you all took the time to sign Early Day Motion 105 opposing anonymity for those accused of rape. Incredibly for some of you (such as certain sponsors) it's the only Early Day Motion motion you've actually supported so far during this Parliament, so it's clear some of you feel very strongly about such issues.

There are also a number of incredibly serious flaws with the motion you have signed up for which were highlighted by the excellent False Rape Society. A revised version of their points with cited examples is enclosed below and I hope you perhaps reconsider your position upon reading them: 

I. The Motion Is Unconscionable Because It Fails To Acknowledge The Damage Of False Rape Claims To Innocent Men
The motion is unconscionable because it fails to acknowledge the harm to innocent men accused of false rape claims. It fails to recognise that rape is perhaps the most loathsome offence in the entire criminal law canon; that in some cultures, rape is regarded as more offensive than murder; and that rape is universally considered worthy of the most severe societal censure and condemnation.  Worse, because of the nature of a rape claim, where the only physical evidence of an alleged criminal act is often precisely the same physical evidence of an act of love, a false rape accusation is almost impossible to disprove.  Even when falsely accused men are cleared of rape charges, they often spend the remainder of their lives tainted as the possible perpetrators of the most loathsome crime known to mankind.

False accusations of rape have severely stigmatised more human beings than false accusations of any other crime. The public scorn from false rape claims has caused innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves; to be beaten, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. They lose not only their good names but often their jobs, their homes or businesses, and their relationships and marriages. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain gainful employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and discovering the horrid accusation even foxing victims to obtain new identities and flee the country.

II. The Motion Is Premised On A Bias That Rape Accusers Are Rape Victims

The motion manifests a disturbing and telling bias that presumes a defendant is guilty of rape based solely on an accusation.  This is evident by its failure even to acknowledge the reality of false rape claims, and in its express language. Specifically, it asserts that the Government's proposal "sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed."  (Emphasis supplied.)

By branding an accuser a "victim," the motion impliedly asserts that a rape accusation is true based solely on the allegation, before a scrap of evidence is admitted at trial, much less an adjudication of guilt is handed down.  Such a description is grossly unfair to the presumptively innocent who are accused of such crimes since, by necessity, they must be guilty of rape if their accusers are, in fact, "victims." This description also trivialises rape by including among its victims women who might only be false accusers.

III. The Proposal Does Not Send A Message That The Rape Accuser Isn't To Be Believed.
The assertion that the government's proposal "sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim [sic] is not to be believed" is factually erroneous.  The proposal sends no such message any more than anonymity for rape accusers sends a message that rape accusers are to be believed over the men and boys they accuse. 

The message conveyed by anonymity for rape defendants is that the harm of publicly identifying innocent men who are falsely accused is severe and unconscionable, not that women are liars.  It is a gross stereotype to insist that the general public is so obtuse that it will make such generalisations about rape accusers and rape defendants.
 
IV. Granting Anonymity Will Not Unduly Inhibit The Prosecution of Serial Rapists
The assertion that the government's proposal "could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists" is a snare and a delusion.  The proposal does not prevent the naming of serial rapists, it would simply forbid publicly naming men who have only been accused but not convicted of rape.  A suspect would be identified if he is convicted.

Moreover, anonymity will not inhibit the prosecution of serial rapists. The vast majority of rapes are committed between acquaintances where the identity of the perpetrator is not at issue.  The number of cases where rape victims might be helped to identify their rapist by seeing a man's picture on the television news is minuscule.

It is well to note that many accused rapists are already afforded anonymity by the UK news media: teen boys and certain men whose identities cannot be revealed without necessarily revealing the accuser's identity. It can scarcely be denied that some teen boys and some men whose identities are already shielded must also be serial rapists.  Nevertheless, the identities of accused males who fall within these two classes are shielded because, as a matter of public policy, the benefits of shielding their identities is deemed to outweigh publicising them.  That is so despite any inhibition of the effective prosecution of serial rapists.

Would anonymity for men accused of rape hinder police investigations any more than anonymity for rape accusers hinders police (not to mention innocent men) from learning that a rape accuser has made false rape allegations in the past? The question scarcely survives its statement. Yet, society grants anonymity for women who accuse men and boys of rape because such anonymity is thought to serve other useful purposes, just as anonymity for men would serve important purposes, even if police might prefer to have them publicly named.  The interests of law enforcement should never trump the interests of innocent men in not having their good names destroyed by rape lies.

V. The Proposal Will Not Reverse the Progress Made For Rape Victims, It Will Benefit Rape Victims
There is no basis whatsoever to believe that women will not come forward if the men they accuse are not publicly named.  The one has nothing to do with the other. For example, there is no basis to believe that fewer women come forward when their rapists are teen males whose identities will not be made public, or when their rapists are men whose identities can't be revealed because such revelation would necessarily identify the women. 

Moreover, justice for rape victims does not depend on the public shaming and humiliation of the presumptively innocent, much less the public shaming and humiliation of countless innocent men who are snared by false rape claims.

In fact, it is likely that more women would "come forward" if the men they accused were anonymous. When a woman accuses a male acquaintance of rape and he is publicly identified, it often isn't difficult to infer who the accuser is. It is reasonable to assume that most rape victims would prefer not to have their identities revealed by inference when they accuse an intimate acquaintance of rape. Additionally, any reduction in false allegations form the legislation with strength the position of genuine rape victims

VI.  More Research Would Not Be Helpful
Various studies have been conducted on false rape claims, and every single one that was not conducted by interested and biased persons have revealed that false rape claims are a serious problem. But as discussed in the next section, the exact percentage of false claims is neither known nor knowable, and no further studies will ever pinpoint that percentage with exactitude.

The majority of persons backing the motion opposing anonymity belong to the party that has been in power for the past thirteen years. In all that time, that party was content to not examine the issue it now claims requires more study, for reasons patently political. 

Further studies will shed no light on any issue of material importance.  Publicly naming men accused of rape causes serious problems for countless men who turn out to have been falsely accused.  No further studies will either lessen or justify their pain.

VII. The Motion Ignores That False Rape Claims Are A Significant Problem
The motion ignores the fact that the overriding evidence suggests that false rape claims are a significant problem, and that the victims of false claims are not rarities. No one knows for certain the percentage of false rape claims. A leading feminist legal scholar recently acknowledged: ". . . the statistics on false rape accusation widely vary and 'as a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.'" A. Gruber, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 581, 595-600 (November 2009) (citation omitted). 

But it is erroneous to assert that only a tiny percentage of rape claims are false because no one can make that assertion with any degree of certainty.  The prevalence of false rape claims is neither known nor knowable. Here is why: for every rape claim reported, only a relatively small percentage can be definitively called "rape." This is beyond dispute.  Approximately fifteen percent end in conviction and of those we know that some innocent men and boys are convicted. We also know that some claims reported (the numbers vary depending on the study) are outright false. But in between the claims we are reasonably certain were actual rapes, and the ones we are reasonably certain were false claims, is a vast grey area consisting of a group of claims that cannot properly be classified as "rapes" -- because we just don't know. That's the nature of a rape claim. The claims in this vast grey middle area often suffer from evidentiary infirmities. For example, for some such claims, while the claimant herself might think a rape occurred, her outward manifestations of assent did not match her subjective disinclination to engage in sex, so it wasn't rape.

Regardless of what the actual number might be, every impartial, objective study ever conducted on the subject shows false rape claims are a serious problem. As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false (without the use of polygraphs). In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64. See also, "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers -- as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that the exact number of false claims is elusive but "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half" of all sexual assault claims "are false . . . ." (Page 374.)