Survive's Campaign for Justice

24th May 2000

Once again Jack Straw has decreed that Mike Tyson, a convicted rapist can enter the UK. This is the second time despite public outrage against the first desicion he is allowing it. He is permitting this simply because Tyson is famous.

Below is a letter that Paula, one of the ladies that helps me moderate the mailing lists, has written to her MP, and everyone else she can think of who may be able to help. I have included it here to show the passion and feeling she has about this, and i think i can safely say most of the people on the UK lists share.

Paula doesn't mind if you use parts of her letter to help in the writing of your letter to your MP. It is important to let out voice be heard over this, so i encourage everyone who reads this to write or mail your MP and let them know exactly what you think about this whole situation.

If you aren't sure who your MP is, click here to look them up.

Dear Ms,

I find myself writing to you once again although this time it's not about section 2a - you'll be getting to know me quite well at this rate!

I am writing to you to voice my concerns about the decision to allow Tyson into the UK, against our laws, in order to fight in glasgow next month. When Jack Straw made the controversial decision to allow Tyson in to fight in Manchester in january, I was horrified and very angry; but reasons, however poor, were given for the decision. My partner wrote to the Home Secretary about it and received a reply today, which gives excuses for the decision in january but makes no mention of the latest decision, and that reply states that the rule about convicted criminals' entry into the UK can be waived in "exceptional circumstances". It also states that the decision in no way means that Mr Straw condones sexual violence against women, but it would seem to me to be a little unrealisticto preach about how wrong such violence is and at the same time bend the rules for a convicted rapist.

I find myself unable to understand the decision to allow him to fight in Glasgow. We were told in january that the decision was taken so that some poor customs official did not have to face the problem on Tyson's arrival; although that does not explain why the decision had to be that he could enter in spite of our laws. We were also given the justification that it would cost Manchester a great deal of money if the decision were to refuse his entry, because businesses had already spent a great deal on the promotion. I suppose it is not useful to dwell on issues such as whether those businesses should have spent so much money on it in spite of it being against the law, or whether business is more important to the labour government than people; but useful or not such questions arise in my mind.

However, such justifications do not apply to the Glasgow fight; there is no apparent justification whatsoever. The promoters now know the law and therefore are foolhardy if they spend a great deal of money on the fight without knowing whether or not it can take place. And the customs official argument no longer applies either. It seems to me that there is no justification for this exception to the rule, and the message is therefore that violence against women does not matter, and matters even less if the perpetrator happens to be rich and famous.

My partner and I have both been raped; I was raped as a student on my year abroad, and she was rpaed right here in the centre of Edinburgh just over two years ago. She reported her situation to the police, and they found the rapist and charged him, but because the balance of evidence was not quite right, the procurator fiscal decided not to go to court and so her rapist walked free and could still be attacking women on the streets of our city. There was plenty of evidence in the case, but the balance of evidence was not quite right. So in spite of what she went through, and in psite of the fact that the police had two pieces of circumstantial evidence and one piece of forensic which proved this man raped her, it was not enough to convict and he is free to repeat the crime.

We also moderate email mailing lists for people who have been raped or sexually abused; and the outrage on the lists is high given that the labour party has completely dismissed this type of crime. We are already at a disadvantage as rape survivors; many people still hold an outdated view, coloured by the ancient story of Potiphar's wife, that women accuse men of rape simply to get men into trouble and to save their own reputation. It's ridiculous - in this day and age a woman is free to sleep with anyone and does not need to protect her reputation; and besides, anyone who has been assaulted sexually knows exactly how hard it is to tell anybody at all about it because of the sense of guilt and shame that accompanies it, not to speak of the inability to trust to people. Many of us cannot even tell our families about our attacks; how much harder it is to tell the police, and go through the horror of their questioning, and in the very unlikely event that you get to court to then be treated as the criminal and not the witness, having waited over a yesar at least to find out if you can even go to trial... The chances are less than a million to one that a woman who says she has been raped is making it up. And having gone through all that, if you manage to achieve the impossible and get a conviction, what does a rapist serve? The average seems to be about three years. I know people who have spent longer in jail for selling cannabis; but then drugs are an economic issue and so more important to our society than sexual violence.

As survivors of rape, we face all this every day. The despair, the lack of faith in our justice system, feelings of guilt if we can't find the courage to report it, knowing a conviction is impossible even if we do...we live with this every day, not to mention the personal toll of rape. The rapists walk free while we serve life sentences. Even if we cope well with our experiences, we never leave it behind us and we go on having nightmares and panic attacks and relationship problems. And the medical support is also sadly lacking; support is only available in reality to those who report their experience to the police immediately. If you are unable to tell anyone for any length of time, you are unlikely to get any help on the NHS. My partner and i both pay for private therapy to help us come to terms with our experiences; but my partner also has received help form the NHS because the case was being dealt with by the police. I on the other hand have only my private therapist. Before I could afford private therapy i had no support whatsoever, because I get no help from the NHS. I know of many people in the same situation; our friends who have reported the crime do have some support through CPNs and NHS therapists. Those of us who did not report it do not have access to those services unless we reach a crisis point, and personally i think prevention is better than cure.

So you see, most survivors of rape feel that they are somehow forgotten - or even worse, stigmatised - and that their experiences are not considered important. Rapists serve minimal sentences if any, and are given more rights in the courtroom than their victims. They are automatically presumed innocent whilst the victim is automatically presumed guilty. And if they do receive a sentence they sometimes have more access to therapy than the victims do. Rape is a taboo subject and we are discouraged from talking about it; people tell us that we're telling them things that are "too personal" if we talk about it, although they wouldn't expect us to be quiet about being mugged. Add to all this the fact that rape is in itself an act that totally dismisses you as a human being with rights and feelings, that threatens your whole idnetity, and you will see that the rape survivor has trouble accepting that what happened to her is serious and matters to the world at large.

So Mr Straw's decision could not be more damaging to all the rape survivors in this country - and other counrtries too, who are looking to the UK and seeing that we don't consider rape to be an important issue. Mr Straw is something of a hypocrite if he can talk about being tough on crime whilst at the same time giving a message to all the men and young boys in this country that rape is acceptable. And if the government is naive enough to think that that is not what they are doing, they need to open their eyes a little. The law of the UK says that convicted criminals who have served more than 12 months are not to be allowed entry into this country except on compassionate grounds or in special circumstances. Are the special circumstances here that Tyson only raped a woman? That he did not commit a serious crime? That the views of sports fans are far more important to our country than the views and feelings of all the women and men who have been raped or sexually abused? What kind of signal is this giving to our children? We have heard children say that "he mustn't really have raped that woman because if he had they wouldn't be letting him into the country". And even if they accept that he did commit the crime, they think it mustn't be very serious or important. They think it must be okay for a man to do that because Tyson did it, and we've bent the rules for him. I do not want my son to look up to a man like that; but the decision to let him come here anfd fight is encouraging lots of other little boys to look up to him as their hero, instead of the violent, arrogant criminal that he is. We are teaching our children that rape is okay.

I am horrified that this decision has been made twice now, and that the experiences of women such as my partenr and myself are obviously unimportant to this government, whislt businessmen can persuade the Home Secretary to overturn our laws. It simply begs the question why do we have our laws? They are not here to protect us, it would seem.

It would also seem to be a political faux pas on the part of Mr Straw as almost everyone we know has said that they no longer feel that they can trust a labour government. I have been a labour supporter all my life, even before I was old enough to vote, in spite ogf having a tory voting family; but I cannot countenance this kind of treatment. Is anybody prepared to do something about this, and to represent all the people of this nation and not just wealthy businessmen and wealthy famous foreigners?

This whole situation has caused acute distress to my family and to many of my friends.

Yours sincerely,

1 July 1999

A press release from the Home Office today states that despite the number of rape cases trebling between 1985 and 1996 the conviction rates dropped significantly. The largest rise of reports were of cases where the victim knew the attacker.

"A Question of Evidence? Investigating and prosecuting rape in 1990s," examined nearly 500 cases of rape recorded by the police in 1996. The key findings are:

There are particular difficulties securing convictions in cases where the victim and attaker know each other, despite the increased number of these type of cases being reported. Whereas "stranger rapes" where the victim and attacker don't know each other there is no significanrt increase in reportings.

In 1985 24% of rape cases gained a conviction. Sadly in 1997 that percentage had decreased to just 9%. This decline is presumed to be becuase of an increase in the number of recorded cases where both victim and attacker knew each other. The question of consent in such cases is much harder to prove for both the prosecution and the courts.

The police did not initiate a prosecution in a staggering half of reported cases. In a quarter of reported cases the police recorded a "no crime". This was due to varying factors including those that the police suspected were malicious or false allegations. Also included in this figure were cases where despite official guidance the complainant withdrew the allegation. 31% of cases were recorded as a crime but the police took "no further action" becuase of a lack of evidence or becuase the victim didn't want to take any further action.

A quarter of cases reffered to the CPS for prosecution were dropped by them. The main reason lack of evidence, was accountable for 85% of these, while the remaining 15% was becuase the victim was unfit or unwilling to attend court.

A mere 6% of cases, includign the "no crimes" resulted in a rape conviction. The figure rises to 9% when crimed rapes were included, although some of these convictions were for other serious crimes such as indecent assault rather than rape itself.

The report makes a number of recommendations regarding the processing of rape cases, including that:

The research reinforces the importance of the Government's plans to give more protection to intimidated and vulnerable witnesses. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill is currently before Parliament. The Government is taking forward implementation of these provisions together with the other recommendations in the consultation paper Speaking Up for Justice designed to provide help and support to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses before, during and after the trial.

The Sex Offences Review provides a useful opportunity to consider as to whether there should be any changes to the way rape is defined.

The police should only "no-crime" cases in accordance with official guidance.

The police should receive appropriate training in how to deal with the issues raised by rape cases. They should also be less ready to drop cases which may initially appear unpromising.

There needs to be improved communication between the victim, police and CPS.

There is scope to improve prosecution standards by making sure that prosecution barristers' pay is broadly similar to defence barristers pay.

There needs to be further study into why so many complainants withdraw, and why so many rape cases are dropped.

Friday 2nd July

Following the press release from the Home Office about the decreasing convictions for rape. There is a view that is going to be discussed that perhaps one of the reasons is that juries in a rape trial fail to convict someone accused of "date rape" becuase of the severity of the sentence.

I for one was appaled and deeply upset that they could consider date rape..or being raped by someone you knew a lesser crime with a lesser punishment than someone who had commited "stranger rape".

The BBC News Website ran a news item based on the Home Office Report called UK Date rapists could get shorter sentences. This is where i first heard of the report and it's implications.

The BBC also ran a poll on the BBC news website which asked "Does date rape warrant a lighter sentence?" Most of the people who left comments clearly were disgusted that it could warrant a lighter sentence. Most people were of the oppinion that rape was rape and that as such deserved the same punishment.

I for one feel that it is time people who have been raped should have a say in what happens as far as the justice system is concerned. I also feel that it is time that people are made aware of the devestating effects the crime of rape can have on peoples lives.

For too long rape has been a word that has been whispered behind closed doors like it is something to be ashamed of. How can we encourage people to come forward and speak up if they see it as something bad, or something they should be ashamed of admitting happened to them.

We need to educate people; we need to remind people that the crime was done to us, we had no say in it, it was not our fault, we did nothing to encourage it, we were just innocent victims of a heinous crime.

As long as rape is a taboo subject we will feel inhibited about speaking up, we will continue to suffer in silence. It is time to change that. It is time to make people realise that we aren't ashamed, we need support, we need changes in the laws to make it easier to report and convict a perpetrator.

I am in the process of collecting information from various agencies accross the UK so that your voice can be heard, and you can make a difference.

If you would like to know more and would like to become involved in this campaign please join the survive-justice mailing list.

Click to subscribe to the survive-justice mailing list

I will keep updating this page as i receive more information, so if you don't want to commit yourself to a mailing list, you can keep up to date by coming back to this page and checking for regular updates.

Last updated 5th July 1999