Been falsley accused of rape in the uk and the person doing it

Screens can be tampered with, not sure how seriously they are taken

This case seems like it'll be strictly a case of your word against her, so your best bet is to find witnesses that can attest that you're a good person, and ones that can attest she is a terrible one. What will give validity to either of your statements will be how easy it is for the lawyers / judges to find shit on you.

Does two years exceed the statute of limitations in the UK?

Who took your phone? What screens? I assume the alleged rape happened many times in a private place? If she had no sign of violence done to her it would be hard to prove. Why come out after 2 years the officials would question. My biggest fear in your place OP would be that it goes to trial and somehow in brexitland you get registered as sex offender during it all.

Also OP and other guys. Do. Not. Stick. Your. Dick. In. Crazy. Repeat it one more time!

>>18282359
>Repeat it one more time!

Uhhh uhhh but muh dik! *hits self in head*

>>18282348
>ive sent screens i found to the police of her around that time literally saying she just does it to get me in shit, will this be clear enough evidence her word cannot be trusted?
No. Obviously it won't help her case, but it won't get it thrown out either.

>i want this to be proven false so i can get my phone back
I can absolutley gaurentee you that you won't get it back, ever.

>>18282354
>Does two years exceed the statute of limitations in the UK?
We don't have statute of limitation clauses here.

I don't know about UK laws, but despite what 4chan might tell you, rape cases are especially hard to convict. Unless there is violence or physical proof involved, most of it boils down to "he said, she said", and those situations often end in the defendant's favor. This is why there are so many unreported rapes a year; many women don't bother because it's a humiliating ordeal that often leads nowhere.

The government doesn't just throw every lad in jail at the assertion of random women. Especially if you have the texts. A locked message from her would be better than a screenshot, but it's certainly a boon.

>>18282348
I can't help you get your phone back, but I can all but guarantee you that you won't be charged and certainly won't be convicted. Like, freaky shit happens, nothing in life is guaranteed, but this is about as close as you can get. Shitty situation, sorry, but you're in no actual danger.

Sorry about your phone but do try to keep this in perspective. It could be an awful lot worse.

>>18282369
>*hits self in dick*
FIXED.

>>18282394
If you are in a married status, lets say in UK, does that in any way change the likelihood of being convicted of rape to be less likely?

>>18282394
>The government doesn't just throw every lad in jail at the assertion of random women
Tell that to my mate that had to sit in jail for 2 days because his crazy GF reported him of a rape he never committed

>>18282377
>We don't have statute of limitation clauses here.

So you can rape someone 30 years ago and it's just as legit as if someone went right to the station with a prolaped pooper?

>>18282425
Your mate had 2 days in jail for sticking it to crazy. Sounds rightful to me. Also, that sucks. The system still has a lot to do before rape laws and sentences become developed enough. These are the babysteps...

>>18282431
Yeah, this sounds stupid. I think even though there's no statute of limitation, the age of the crime is still taken into account. alleged rape 1 day ago is more legit than 2 years, I'd say.

>>18282348
Depends on the judge.

The burden is on her to prove the allegations. Truth is youll see two stories online.. The guy who got convicted because women can get away with anything, and feminists getting super riled because a rapist went free.

I imagine the latter is more common. Rape is a subjective and hard thing to prove, and judges have generally seen the spiteful ex a hundred times.

Also if you were together at the time shes claiming, implied consent is a thing.

>>18282488
Erm, no, implied consent is not a thing.

regards to marriage status
consent is not implied in any capacity since the 1993 revisions

regards to the charges
in the UK the CPS bring cases against people, not the police or courts or DA or anything, it's a separate institution dedicated to that effect

the police can arrest and detain you if they think you have committed a crime that would characterise you as a general threat to the public including serious indictable offences such as murder, you can spend cell time (up to 3 days, or 30 in extenuated circumstances), but desu i doubt they'll do this given the age of the allegation

in the UK, the CPS must prove Guilty Mind and Guilty Act to a degree that is beyond reasonable doubt of a person of capable and sober mind, there's a lot of evidence against her allegation that would make it flimsy in court, including those texts

please note that the texts have the utmost pertinence to the courts. they do hold some value to the police, but this could go either way. if you're lucky they will take the texts as evidence against her for perjury and arrest her for attempting to pervert the course of justice. if the police do not consider them pertinent, don't threat, it's the CPS that are trying you in court, not the police

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/42

i recommend you read some of this if you're scared of jail time

the judiciary in the UK are not as reactionary or political motivated as those in other countries like the US, they aren't pushing conviction rates for a DA or statistics.

there's no statute of limitation on serious offences such as these, but it would be implausible for her to gain any medical ratification for her allegations. again this makes them flimsy.

do yourself a favour, contact a solicitor, have a preliminary, it'll cost you a couple hundred, prepare yourself with every bit of info you have when you go in there and present everything to them.

>>18282425
>2 days in jail
I've spent longer than that for non-moving traffic violations you fucking pussy

>>18282536
"golly gee wiz mister thanks for the help!"

see i'll do your job again op, fuck you'd better read this shit or i wasted my time giving you knowledge

OP hre sorry for no replies 4chan keeps giving connection error only on this thread.
Thanks for all the advice chaps, One other Question.
When this is found to not be true, can I then counter claim and sue for defamation of character? I have two close friends left out of everybody since this allegation as she told everyone i had been put in a cell for rape.

>tl;dr
Never EVER be with crazies my fellow anons. Stick to your animu girls because they won't pull this shit

>>18282706
>counter claim
this isnt a counter claim

what you are talking about is straight up suing them

her bringing allegations of rape charges against you through the cps will be heard in a Crown Court on behalf of HRM the queen

when you sue someone it goes through a county court

this is important because if you're issued a public defender, and i recommend you don't and you get a real lawyer, then if you want to sue her, they won't be your lawyer

it is a separate, different, and longer legal process to bring about a civil case against someone like this, and requires you to prove on the scale of probabilities that the appellant has affected you the claimaint in your outlined ways ergo defamation of character nuisance emotional distress

tl;dr getting money out of this goes through a completely separate court system and hearing

>>18282536
>implied consent not a thing.

Yes.. It is.. Maybe i was too vague.

It is when you consider the difference between me being denied for sex by a friend ive never had sex with or dont have an established sexual relationship with who says "shes too tired" and then doing it anyway. Thats clear rape.

Or my gf of 4 years i share a home and bed with who says "no im too tired" and i do that anyway.

Thats where it gets grey and thats where implied consent lies. It would be absolutely ridiculous if i was charged with rape over the latter. I would understand if my gf was a little annoyed by my actions in this case.. But to reasonably claim she was raped and suffered major emotional scarring in the process? Thats extremely silly.

Theres also the fact i dont have to ask my gf for sex or work on it or wine and dine her. And the fact shed probably be put off if every single time i said "would it be ok if..." like yes fucking obviously i can. She also likes sudden impulsive forced sex. The consent in our relationship is always implied, as it is in most if not all relationships.

OP was in a relationship with his ex. There is a sense of implied consent. Its not black and white as i said.. Its grey. And thats where the court case would see it.

Hard to get a judge to agree you were raped while involved in an established sexual relationship. Especially when people do exist who try that shit to scorn and hurt their exes.

>>18282353
Please, they will absolutely be able to go through his digital correspondence with the chick

>>18282762
OH SHIT sorry my bad i almost thought the law wasnt your opinion lol how stupid of me

it's not a thing dingbat

consent can be withdrawn at any point of the act, it is not implied consent. there are shit loads of cases of people who didn't resist, where it was argued implied consent, but they were still raped through duress or other means.

what you are referring to is more pertinent in civil disputes, where someone withholds sex from their partner as a ransoming tool. it is not implied *consent* involved here, but the implication of what a normal relationship in society entails, and what reasonable expectations can therefore be brought about as a result. someone be divorce another with lesser impunity if their partner has withheld sex from them in this regard.

with your *spontaneous sex* instance, you are looking at the mens rea associated; this is to say someone did something with some form of intent. you can use the mitigating element of a relationship, but this alone does not dismiss the claim, merely lessen the impact. if she springs sex on you, and you say stop, and she doesn't, you can take her through criminal proceedings for rape. no implication of consent need be considered.

>>18282783

The law is there to protect legitimate victims in abusive relationships.

There are also plenty of examples where actual rapists in clear cases walked. The law isnt absolute. The judge has final say.

As i said. Its grey. Implied consent is not a thinf by law but its a thing by principle. And its important. Because in the event of a nasty breakup involving a spiteful partner the other partners life could be ruined.

And it DOES happen.

And the judge wasnt there. Same allegory. If my gf said no. Like really said no. Angrily said no and violently resisted, id agree with you.

But the judge doesnt know what happened. Its a hard choice to make. Charge someone with rape because the plaintiff acted like their whole world is crumbling down over a stupid little thing?

Im not talking what the law is with you. I fully understand youre showing me a law and that its a fact. But it isnt so cut and clean.


Also pro tip.. I used to sjw as hard as you.

Your language bleeds arrogance. No one changes their mind when you talk to them like that. In fact many a study shows they in fact dig deeper in their beliefs and ignorance.

So if youre solving nothing and still writing long winded sarcastic responses, what youre doing is one thing and one thing only. Self indulgence.

Dont be that person.

>>18282808
i dont care what you think
i'm giving op some advice to keep him out of trouble, so that in the worst case scenario, he can actually defend himself legally

also, again, beyond reasonable doubt
it's not automatic yes or no
shit if you really want to, in these cases you can demand a jury (op don't demand a jury it will fuck you over)

and we're onto the personal remarks, good shit
maybe you shouldn't opine on things you have absolutely no knowledge on
i'm not a solicitor, barrister, legal professional of any sort. it's just to op's convenience i studied 3 years of law, and have enough knowledge to point him in the vague direction

you, on the other hand, seem to know absolutely nothing beyond spewing your own moral rhetoric as some sort of fact. but i'm the arrogant one right?

>keep repeating something wrong
>gets shown its wrong
>demands to be right
>WHY ARE YOU BEING FACETIOUS TO ME
i hope you are capable of grasping why i don't really care if you value what i'm saying or not, i just want you to stop gaslighting with your misguided disinformation