Late last year the Liberal NSW government passed new sexual assault laws enshrining the notion of 'Affirmative Consent'. Essentially the law is explained as changing 'no means no to 'yes means yes'. A defendant in a rape trial will now need to demonstrate that he (let's face it - its always gunna be a he) actively sought consent for the sexual encounter and each part of that encounter. It is no longer good enough to assume consent based on her not saying no and not objecting in any way...he must actively seek the 'yes' and continue to do so.

The rationale for the changes was that extremely few (8%) alleged sexual assaults resulted in charges being laid. That information was based on data compiled by the NSW Law Reform Commission in 2020.

The data was shocking and was the reason many 'Liberal' members voted for the change.

However, to some followers of the issue, the numbers used to justify the change seemed odd. So they started to look into the data behind the numbers and finally came to realise that the data was badly skewed. Finally, after great effort the Commission issued a correction.

To get an idea of how badly skewed, here are a few of the changes admitted to...the first number is the original, the second the change....

Incidents recorded by NSW Police - 14,994, 4,883.
Number of finalised charges - 1,207, 2,658.

So the percentage of reports that resulted in charges went from 8% to 54%. Its difficult to see how that error could be anything by deliberate. No explanation has been offered.

But worse part is that, even though it was known by mid-2020 and acknowledged that the original numbers were wrong, the Commission delayed releasing the corrected numbers until AFTER the legislation was passed. Indeed two weeks after it was passed.

The legislation was based on false data. They knew it was false data but delayed releasing the correct data which almost certainly would have changed many minds. The legislation is now in place and won't be rescinded. Innocent males will end up in gaol.

You present the facts which are that statistics lie; or at best can be construed to fit almost any scenario proffered, but what are your conclusions with reasons for your decision?

Dan

Bettina Arndt had an article on this in the last few days; and I believe what she says about the shonky statistics.

However, "innocent" males have nothing to worry about if take responsibility for themselves and their actions, as well as being aware that the feminazis have it in for them.

Some of the data I couldn't fit on the initial post.....

(first number is the one originally posted and which was used to justify the legislation. The second number is the 'revised' figure posted after the legislation passed...)

(all figures are July 2018 to June 2019)

Sexual assaults reported - 14171, revised to 2549

Number of people charged with sexual assault - 423, revised to 328

Persons of interest in regards to assault accusations - 14829, revised to 1479

People charged with sexual touching - 62 revised to 694

So the original numbers massively over-stated the number of sexual assaults etc but massively understated the number of people charged with those offences. Its hard to reach any conclusion other than they were anxious to make it seem that only a small number were being charged when in fact the percentage being charged were many times greater.

Again, its hard to understand how this could just be an honest error. The erroneous numbers were exactly what the proponents of the legislated wanted.

That it was realised early on that the numbers were erroneous is clear. Yet they continually delayed releasing the new numbers until AFTER the legislation was passed. Then they did so 2 weeks later - almost as if to say, Yeah we know we were wrong and we know you know. But what're ya gunna do about it now, pleb.

There is so much we see over the past few years where numbers and data are deliberately distorted, hidden of fabricated in order to achieve an objective that the truth wouldn't justify - lockdowns, masks, AGW. Yet the plebs are constantly admonished to believe the 'experts' since they KNOW.

The yellow-vests and Freedom Truckers suggest the plebs aren't buying it any more.

There'd better be a God because going by all this we need one desperately !

The lesson from this is not just that a truly societal changing piece of legislation was passed based on deliberately falsified data.

The lesson is that the managerial class wanted a particular outcome that wasn't justified by the data and felt no compunction about altering the data to get the outcome they desired.

Whatismore, they are so unconcerned that their actions would result in consequences that they don't try to hide it. They revel in it. Additionally, our allegedly free-press who also wanted the outcome achieved has no desire to look into any of this.

It would be foolhardy to assume this is a lone case. As the population becomes increasingly incapable of understanding the data and the data becomes increasingly proprietary, it, the data, can be easily manipulated to achieve the aims of the managerial class.

The data on masks is at best equivocal. But it is presented as certain (except for the early part of the WuFlu scare when there weren't enough masks to go around. Then the data on masks was used to show they didn't work).

The vaccine data shows nothing like what the authorities and therefore the press say it does.

Early data showed the benefits of lockdown were unclear. But that was suppressed. Now, when the data is clear that lockdowns were a monumentally bad decision, that data is ignored. That's a standard method - ignore what you can't manipulate.

We are told to follow the 'experts'. There are people on these pages who defer to their favoured 'expert' as though they are Gabriel. But experts have agendas and personal aims as much as any of us. They always have. The difference is that, these days, they have found its possible to achieve those aims despite the data and to suffer zero consequences.