Jail for bondage sex rape accuser

This story has me incredibly concerned.

The version of events that is now accepted as "true" is descvribed simply by the opening para:

Knowles, 21, was furious that the night of passion - which included bondage - with Alex Warran, 25, had failed to win him back.

So in revenge she told her father, a Ministry of Defence policeman, that Mr Warren had raped her and he called police.

I struggle to accept this as the whole picture.

Although there is this:

After Mr Warren was arrested, Knowles was contacted again by the police and she admitted she had made up the allegation and even signed a statement confirming that said she had agreed to everything, including bondage.

It feels to me incomplete, and I do not feel confident in holding Ms Knowles as guilty here. Because I am very keen on bondage (and indeed, any kind of sex) being based on clear and informed consent, I feel as though that is lacking in this. It is an issue that has been discussed in BDSM forums online that it is hard to say "yes, I consented to x but then they did y as well, which I didn't consent to, and that made it rape." Ms Knowles seems to have admitted freely that she did agree to have sex with Mr Warren. I find it hugely suspect that she signed this declaration - was she given only one declaration ("sign this or else" - and she's got the "or else" anyway, it appears!) or was she given the chance to accept or retract each individual element? Is it possible, in fact, that there was pressure put on Ms Knowles to retract everything? That is my concern, especially when I read the following passage [my emphasis here]:

Jason Coulter, mitigating, told Judge Picton that Knowles, who now lives in Bristol, was genuinely sorry but had believed she had been raped.

He said: "The primary hurt to Mr Warren will be his wrongful arrest and that he spent wrongful time in custody as a result of her false allegation.

"Whatever happened between the parties on that night, the sexual encounter of tying her up was something that she found an unpleasant experience.

"That aspect, which had never taken place before, was a new form of sexual encounter and she didn't expect it to happen to her."

My fear is that she did not consent - or else, she withdrew her consent during the activity - and that, because her initial statement was (in her words) "over-exaggerated a bit", she was left unable to push forward with the specific claim.

I do not believe that the public interest was served in bringing Ms Knowles to trial for her false allegation; had I been on the jury I would have been implacable that she should not be found guilty. Although the prosecution alleged clear malicious intent, I would never have been convinced of it and would not have seen any way to view her actions as anything other than those of a frightened and worried woman.

Enthusiastic, negotiated, informed, consent, should be the benchmark, whether we're dealing with the mildest bondage or the harshest whipping, the most vanilla or the most kinky of sex. When we hear "yes", we want it to be "yes, yes, YES!!!" and not "oh, okay then".

The saddest, and most harmful, thing about this is it plays directly into the MRA gynophobic misogyny that I believe probably underpins a lot of unjust acquittals in rape trials (and there have to be a lot of them, because no one is going to convince me that 95% of rape allegations are false!) The trope that women only have sex with men because they want something leads inexorably to the belief that if they do the sex and then don't get what they want, then women will automatically cry "rape!" to punish the man involved. And that is the story we have been told here. And I just don't buy it.