Load_2.0 wrote:No. An accusation can come from a place of honesty, but the accused can still be innocent. It could be mistaken identity or just a misreading or events, or even a hallucination or something. There are many possibilities to explore. I'm of the opinion that there should be an investigation before someone is labelled a rapist or sex offender. We're completely agreed on this. That was never in debate. My issue again was with your suggestion that victims might be 'trying to make a name for themselves'. When there is video evidence of the crime I'm OK with skipping ahead to labelling people.To be honest even then I'm more inclined to go with your previous point that we should wait until they're proven guilty before destroying their name. Again, the issue really is believing the victims and empowering other victims to come forward. |
Celebrity Paedogeddon (now feat. other celeb sex offences) • Page 241
-
You-can-call-me-kal 22,328 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 15 years ago -
Lukus 24,001 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoI'm genuinely trying to think, have there been any high profile cases where the accused is named, but then turns out to be innocent (at least in a court of law definition)? Doctor Fox is about the only one I can think of. -
You-can-call-me-kal 22,328 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoLukus wrote:
Yeah plenty. Cliff Richard, Craig Charles. Even Woody Allen amazingly, although you wouldn't know it from this thread.
I'm genuinely trying to think, have there been any high profile cases where the accused is named, but then turns out to be innocent (at least in a court of law definition)? Doctor Fox is about the only one I can think of.
A better question, is has any women ever 'made a name for herself' and had an incredible career off the back of falsely accusing a celebrity of rape. -
Lukus 24,001 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoYeah, I'm not sure how that's ever been a good argument against someone's guilt or potential guilt.
That's obviously not to say there aren't false accusations flying around, but, you know.
Edited by Lukus at 10:05:02 11-01-2019 -
Lukus 24,001 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoOh and the funny (awful) thing is, in my mind, Cliff is totally guilty, in a weird, abstract kind of way. I know he's not, but, COME ON... -
Load_2.0 32,507 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoYou cant have it both ways.
If you want to believe the accuser you have to assume the other party is guilty.
That is when the damage is done. To the family, workplace, friends.
Even if the person is found innocent the stigma remains. If you had a colleague who had been found not guilty of rape would you want to be associated with them? -
Decks 28,427 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 5 years agoThere are plenty of people out there who will look at the me too movement as a way of making money. People are cunts, both men and woman. -
Load_2.0 32,507 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoNot sure it was me that was making a case for seeking fame off the back of accusations.
I have suggested that accusations can be used as a weapon or to gain a benefit.
Not sure why that has stuck with you as particularly outrageous. -
RichDC 9,011 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoI guess this is the reason we let courts decide these things and not randoms on the internet. -
mrpon 36,744 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 14 years agoYou-can-call-me-kal wrote:
Another top tip. When being raped make sure it's not your Dad.
Load_2.0 wrote:
Top tip. When being raped make sure you’re being filmed so people can feel more confident you’re not just trying to make a name for yourself.
When you film yourself raping people I feel more confident that it's probably not the case here.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/11/man-raped-drunk-daughter-wedding-night-thought-new-wife-8332782/ -
Frogofdoom 17,223 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoNot sure rape victims get much choice over their assailants.
Edited by Frogofdoom at 11:22:29 11-01-2019 -
You-can-call-me-kal 22,328 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoLoad_2.0 wrote:
The phrase 'make a name for themselves' is the one that really stuck with me. In addition there's been more than one occasion where a metoo type conversation point has led you to make, as you say, suggestions that accusations can be made to gain benefit.
Not sure it was me that was making a case for seeking fame off the back of accusations.
I have suggested that accusations can be used as a weapon or to gain a benefit.
Not sure why that has stuck with you as particularly outrageous.
What we've seen in the last year or so is the unravelling of a serious societal issue of men imposing their power over women, with rape, sexual abuse and murder being the most extreme examples of this. One of the reasons this has happened on such a huge scale, for such a long time, is the fear that women have of these accusations being turned on them, which invariably happens. Look at the incredible amount of smear Christine Blasey Ford had to suffer over her Kavanaugh accusations.
While I understand (and again completely agree) that not all accusations should immediately mean an assumption of guilt on the accused, I think it's even more important in the bigger picture to give total benefit of doubt to the accusers (and as I explained above, these can both happen). The reason this is more important, is because of the issue of women being raped, abused and murdered is far far FAR bigger than that of women falsely accusing men of these crimes. Furthermore, in the face of the metoo and timesup movements, to turn around and say 'yeah but whatabout the women that make this stuff up for personal benefit' is the height of male privilege.
And I realise I'm being a bit dicky bringing this up somewhat randomly, but again, you posted this particular example and it felt like an opportunity to make a point. Because generally I think you're awesome and I hate that that one conversation has stayed with me, so maybe you might now see what I meant. -
Graxlar_v3 10,809 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 3 years agoRichDC wrote:
Pretty sure in the uk at least it is decided by random who may frequent the internet
I guess this is the reason we let courts decide these things and not randoms on the internet. -
Graxlar_v3 10,809 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 3 years agoRichDC wrote:
Pretty sure in the uk at least it is decided by randos who may frequent the internet
I guess this is the reason we let courts decide these things and not randoms on the internet.
Edited by Graxlar_v3 at 12:47:45 11-01-2019 -
RichDC 9,011 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoA fair point. -
Load_2.0 32,507 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoOh no drama. We're still sweet. Xxx
I just can't buy into the idea that every one that comes forward must be believed automatically. For me that means the accused is guilty. In an age of twitter and social media accusations are devastating. Even if you are found innocent you are labelled forever.
It's also got to viewed as a weapon. How many thousands of Americans believe the Clinton's are paedos? -
Load_2.0 32,507 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoI'm all for making a better safer world for everyone. I dont think the current approach of automatic guilt is the right course. -
RichDC 9,011 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoLoad_2.0 wrote:
100% correct. Unfortunately I can't remember the full reasoning but there is a whole chapter in The Secret Barrister book about why this is very important and the issues that were created when the police adopted a policy of believing every complainant without question.
I just can't buy into the idea that every one that comes forward must be believed automatically.
Essentially though, as far as the justice system is concerned the rights of the accused to a fair trial trump everything else. -
You-can-call-me-kal 22,328 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoHave actual victims of the Clintons come forward? I think there's a very important difference between smear and slander, and victims coming forward. I again don't think the latter necessarily is (and certainly shouldn't be) wrapped up in a presumption of guilt on the accused. There is definitely a problem with the press naming people accused and that whole system needs looking at. People absolutely should be innocent until proven guilty.
However, equally fundamental is the principle that anyone that comes forward as a victim of a crime, particularly one as serious as rape, should be believed as a starting point. -
You-can-call-me-kal 22,328 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoRichDC wrote:
I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure there's nuances to this that I don't understand. Perhaps my point shouldn't be as broad as 'everyone should be believed'.
Load_2.0 wrote:
100% correct. Unfortunately I can't remember the full reasoning but there is a whole chapter in The Secret Barrister book about why this is very important and the issues that were created when the police adopted a policy of believing every complainant without question.
I just can't buy into the idea that every one that comes forward must be believed automatically.
Essentially though, as far as the justice system is concerned the rights of the accused to a fair trial trump everything else.
I still strongly believe in the metoo era, we really seriously need to be better at how we treat women who are brave enough to say they've been sexual victims. -
nickthegun 84,548 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoI think it's right to treat sexual assault with a belief first approach but that should also be tempered with anonymity for the accused until it at least gets to trial.
I think on a purely risk based approach (ugh) the benefits of belief first far, far outweigh the unfortunate instances where the system is abused.
Or put another way....
Edited by nickthegun at 13:26:32 11-01-2019 -
RichDC 9,011 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoYou-can-call-me-kal wrote:
I completely agree. But it is important to remember that the way we recognise rights and wrongs on a societal level are very different to convicting an individual person of a criminal offence.
I still strongly believe in the metoo era, we really seriously need to be better at how we treat women who are brave enough to say they've been sexual victims.
Remembering that all convictions are made on a standard of evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt, a good investigation will show that this standard is met (or not met) and whether the complainant is believed has absolutely no bearing on the facts.
Obviously this relies on a good investigation actually taking place, which is where things have fallen down.
Edited by RichDC at 13:23:17 11-01-2019 -
JamboWayOh 22,460 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoYeah I think there's been issues with how sexual assault cases have been investigated, also there's far too much of cases where both parties identities in a case have been revealed resulting in a great deal of kangaroo court bullshit primarily from the Internet. I'm sure many of us here have been guilty of it. -
Load_2.0 32,507 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoWe live in a world where consent is fluid and where you can go online announce to the world famous person X is rapist/sex offender.
I think there has to be a more cautious approach for the benefit of all parties involved. -
Lukus 24,001 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoAnonymity for both sides until it goes to trial (which would imply there were sufficient grounds/circumstances/evidence to create a case for potential prosecution) is the obvious solution. But pretty much impossible in the world we live in now. -
fontgeeksogood 11,998 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 3 years agoThere's very good reasons why anonymity isn't a good blanket thing.
It's incredibly difficult to get it right. Would be really terrific if people just stopped raping -
Load_2.0 32,507 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoEveryone? -
RyanDS 13,677 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoLukus wrote:
With anonymity metoo would never have happened. Neither would the saville stuff have come out. It is knowing you are not alone that can give confidence to victims to come forward.
Anonymity for both sides until it goes to trial (which would imply there were sufficient grounds/circumstances/evidence to create a case for potential prosecution) is the obvious solution. But pretty much impossible in the world we live in now.
But also Craig Charles etc. Basically it is shit either way. -
Lukus 24,001 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoThat's why I said until trial. Which again isn't ideal as you're potentially missing out on evidence and testimony from other victims that could form part of that trial. -
Load_2.0 wrote:
I don't think I understand what this means.
We live in a world where consent is fluid
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
