Earlier this month, False Allegations Watch (FAW) published a joint open letter to the Prime Minister from some of the leading organisations in the field of false allegations and the wrongful convictions that flow from them. The organisations were FACT, FASO (False Allegations Support Organisation), FAD (Falsely Accused Day), Falsely Accused Letters to the Establishments, MeTooFalselyAccused and Fighting for the Falsely Accused. We also published a reply from the Home Office in response to the joint open letter. Below are responses on Twitter to the Home Office's reply.
"Your letter has been passed to the Home Office’s Direct Communications Unit for a reply - so fobbed off already. The rest of the response is also shockingly misinformed."
"No wonder the (ex-) colonies behave in the same way/attitude. Minus of course the apology for the delay."
"Arghhhhhhh. That response letter angers the hell out of me. An investigation means that there is an ALLEGED victim i.e complainant and an ALLEGED perpetrator i.e defendant. The language MATTERS. Why the hell can society not grasp this simple fact. #Justice matters."
"That letter is quite frankly shocking."
"Should change the "If there is evidence of this, the accuser could be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice." to "Will be prosecuted.""
"It is very disappointing that this letter says that those who knowingly, deliberately make false allegations of sexual offences “could” be prosecuted. Prosecution should not be a mere possibility. It should be the outcome in all but exceptional cases."
"If evidence strongly suggest false rape accusations are so rare, why is the rape prosecution & conviction rates supposedly the lowest they have ever been? In fact so low the government has TOLD the @cpsuk to increase rape prosecutions!!!! They must think we are stupid or something."
TPeeTShirts @TPeeTShirts May 15. "'Evidence does not suggest false allegations are widespread.' It kinda helps if you're looking out for it or not."
"H.O. Letter says it all: 'genuine victims are believed and not criminalised'. How can an accuser be believed without confirming guilt of the accused? Law is not about belief, it is about facts. Why would facts 'criminalise' an accuser? They'd only criminalise a liar surely?"
