Aside from anything else, the absolute brilliance of this (I am sure) deliberately tautological statement is beyond reproach... unless it of course was not, I cant be absolutely certain:
"one thing you should never ever do, it's talk in absolutes."
Have another read of it and see if you can spot the joke. Take your time.
Okay, lets put it another way, I would happily wager all of the money in my pocket, against all of the money in your pocket, that this does not end in the girl being put in jail for the perverting the course of justice having been found to have absolutely fabricated *every* part of the situation.
And there you go again, just like in the Sanderson thread, stating an absolute and insisting that it's the only possible scenario. She doesn't have to be put in jail for perverting the course of justice, the charges could either not be made in the first place or subsequently dropped.
Which is why, I believe there should be sympathy for the situation the girl finds herself in.
Which is supposition on your part despite not being in full possession of the facts.
The accused is still innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that the law decides whether or not an event happened - that is already historical fact.
Um, that's exactly what the law does. You're determining that a rape took place despite it not having been proven (in both senses of the word) in a court of law. In doing so you undermine the supposition of innocent until proven guilty because if it's a "historical fact" that something happened justifying the arrest, then according to your logic the accused is automatically guilty because under the circumstances as you've determined them they can't be anything but.
By making an arrest they have made the first assessment that there is, prima facie, enough to suggest at this time that it is a matter for the courts.
Which doesn't assume guilt or otherwise (which is what you're doing), or whether either party is telling the truth. That's for the court to decide.
Of course you knew all of that, as did everyone else, and it was simply easier to abbreviate.
And there you go again. There can't possibly be any other interpretation than RowZ's, whom everybody knows is right. You're not Dominic Cummings are you?