“Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.”
This is where you can stop reading. Those numbers represent the false accusations which where proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false.
“It’s important to recognise that even official statistics on false reporting can and have been inflated by other factors.”
That's a blatant lie and the opposite is true. There is a significant amount of unreported false accusations as police rarely follows up on false accusations. The case of Mark Pearson is a good example of the UK police not following up on a case of false accusation.
Even worse the police colluded in the case by falsifying evidence.
“Sometimes police record cases as “no crime” or “unfounded”.”
Instead of recording then as “false accusation” as they should. This is the blatant mistake in the paper. “no crime” or “unfounded” are not inflating false accusations. Again the opposite is true: “no crime” or “unfounded” are deflating false accusation
I can't understand how Lisa Lazard ever became a Senior Lecturer in Psychology when she is making such fundamental mistakes in her paper.
