Tim Worstall

Kenyan Rape Claims

This is going to cause some ructions.

The investigation by the Royal Military Police (RMP) has concluded
that there is not one single case to answer out of 2,187 reported
rapes. A team of 12 to 18 investigators spent ten months in Kenya
between October 2003 and July 2004 and interviewed all 2,187 claimants,
most of whom were Masai and Samburu tribeswomen from some of the most
remote areas, where about 3,000 British servicemen train every year.

Working with local interpreters, the investigators deemed only
281 cases worthy of further examination. These fell apart on closer
scrutiny and during follow-up interviews with other local people and
former members of the Army in Britain.

“No corroborative evidence which will stand up in a UK court
of law, and which might lead to a successful prosecution of any named
individual, could be found to support any of the rape allegations,” a
source linked to the investigation said.

The evidence appears not to have been all that good (to use a little understatement there):

The inquiry uncovered dozens of forged entries in police files about
the alleged incidents, some of which dated back 55 years. “All entries
relating to the alleged rapes had been fabricated, some of them some
considerable time afterwards,” the source said. The forgeries, some
astonishingly clumsy, at time almost farcical, were uncovered by
British scientific experts working with Kenyan counterparts, who
concurred with the findings.

A “chief” named in one submission turned out to be an askari,
or local security guard. In another, a “British army commander” to whom
one incident was allegedly reported, was identified as an army engineer
installing a borehole. In many cases the army units were not present in
Kenya at the time of reported incidents.

“We are not saying women were not raped, just that there is
nothing to show they were by British soldiers,” another investigating
source said. “What we are able to show is a doctoring of evidence. The
evidence is simply not credible.”

But, surely, if women have reported that they have been raped, then they have indeed been raped and it is simply a product of the hateful patriarchy to insist that there be evidence?

Geek points for the first sighting of that argument, I’m sure it’ll surface somewhere.

In

6 responses

  1. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    “But, surely, if women have reported that they have been raped, then they have indeed been raped and it is simply a product of the hateful patriarchy to insist that there be evidence?”
    What’s your problem? The investigators looked for evidence and didn’t find any. Case closed. Are you saying we should ignore women when they say they’ve been raped? On any other subject that would inspire endless “truly, the state is not your friend” posts, but apparently this is different for some reason.
    Tim adds: No Jim. I’m interested in what others might say about the same story. That’s why the geek points on offer, when some crazed feminist uses that logic to attack the current decision.

    Reply
  2. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    this is a really sleazy way to argue, Tim; you’re pretending that a straw man argument isn’t a straw man. I might as well put up a post saying “geek points for the first reader to spot Tim Worstall fucking a goat, because I’m sure he’s a goat-fucker”.
    Tim adds: Good Grief! How did you find out?

    Reply
  3. cuthhyra Avatar
    cuthhyra

    I assume the post is obliquely refering to the practice of stating that a low rape conviction rate implies that there are rapists ‘getting away with it’, rather than that the evidence is actually insufficient or even actively forged.
    Does it not seem likely that certain pressure groups would be up in arms if police and courts in Britain found 2,167 charges of rape to be false? Stories like this; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4296433.stm, that suggest a low percentage of rape allegations leading to convictions is in and of itself an issue.

    Reply
  4. Andrew McGuinness Avatar
    Andrew McGuinness

    Accusations of rape are generally very hard to prove – or to disprove.
    I’ve written about this quite extensively – see here and here for instance.
    A lack of evidence that will hold up in court does not mean that the cases were false – it just means they might have been.
    On the other hand, no evidence is no evidence – you can’t (and shouldn’t) take action against individuals without proper trial and conviction.
    The wider question is whether anything can be or needs to be done to protect local civilians, and a lack of court-quality evidence is not necessarily enough to show that nothing needs to be done.
    As I wrote two years ago – about a different but similar case –

    If you are putting people in positions of power over foreigners, either as invaders, peacekeepers, aid workers, missionaries, or local business managers, and you do not hear that they are abusing their power in this way, you should not believe that this is to be expected from the good people you are using. You should either congratulate yourself on the unusually effective systems you have put in place to prevent it, or you should assume it is going on and you just haven’t found out.

    Reply
  5. The Wheel Avatar
    The Wheel

    Jim is dim.
    And dsquared’s response is bollocks. The argument Tim makes fun of is an argument that does get put about (albeit not quite so crudely).
    Anyway, Tim didn’t accuse any person of using this argument, whereas the accusation that Tim is a goat-fucker — true as it may be — makes a specific allegation against a particular person.
    And left-wingers make this sort of point all the time. Does dsquared bother writing to them to point out to them that their argument is “sleazy”?

    Reply
  6. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “Geek points for the first sighting of that argument, I’m sure it’ll surface somewhere.”
    Most probably in Julie Bindel’s next column for CiF….
    “…left-wingers make this sort of point all the time. Does dsquared bother writing to them to point out to them that their argument is “sleazy”?”
    Heh! What do you think….?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading