Consider this piece from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7496013.stm
What do you see in this piece? Objectivity? Balanced reporting? Gender demagoguery? Go on, pick one. I don’t have time to completely rip this to shreds but I’ll take the following paragraph:
He argues more expertise in the early stages of an investigation would improve the quality of evidence gathered and prevent rapes being wrongly classified as "no crime".
This is very telling. Basically, all accusations of rape are legit. Therefore if at the end of the process the conviction rates are low then that’s just a sign of the bastards getting away with it.
Mr Yates said rape was a difficult crime to investigate given that most cases involved people who knew each other, where consent was the primary issue.
Read: “We are coasting on the popular image of rape being some guy leaping out of the bushes with a knife and horrifically raping an innocent woman with the reality which is that the definition of rape has been greatly expanded to accommodate women who have sex, offer no objection, and then change their minds afterwards. Whilst the bad image of rape is still in the minds of the masses then we can push through any legislation we want to revoke “innocent until proven guilty””.
Are there stats in here about false accusations? Nope.
Also observe the usage of the word “victim”, which is aided by the pictire they chose. They are considered verbatim victims, any honest person would agree that “accuser” or “potential victim” would be better terms. I should mention that here in the UK, the BBC is tax-payer funded through a TV license, lovely.