Yorkshire Air Ambulance Let's Welcome...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Yet Another So Called Rapist Cleared, Isn't It Time That These Female Accusers Are Named And Shamed?
86 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Islay //It could be argued Beso that if she was so drunk that she can't remember what happened she may have been to drunk to give consent therefore it is rape and not a false allegation. //
There is a world of difference between taking advantage someone who is virtually comatose and someone who is actively instigating sexual activity.
Her actions constituted explicit consent. If she doesn't like what she does when she is drunk then she should quit drinking.
It is a classic case of morning after regret.
There is a world of difference between taking advantage someone who is virtually comatose and someone who is actively instigating sexual activity.
Her actions constituted explicit consent. If she doesn't like what she does when she is drunk then she should quit drinking.
It is a classic case of morning after regret.
I think Andy is getting some unfair flack here. *responsible* parents (like the ones on here) will educate their kids in responsibility and self esteem but we all know that there are some kids whose parents don't give a fig about. I know one woman who was dragged up as a kid and she puts hereself in dangerous situations where she gets drunk and sleeps around. Easy to call her a *** but her upbringing was totally devoid of love or attention. (or any sense of self respect)
And it's not just these women making false accusations what about that Nick person who accused Field Marshal Brammal a respected WWII veteran and some politicians of gay orgies with underage boys at some London flat
and the Plods must be a complete bunch of dick heads to believe all the crap he was telling them.
I mean Edward Heath going there and planning to kill a boy?
yes of course the prime minister of UK will just go to a flat in London kill a Boy with Special Branch guards who are always present, waiting outside? that story is so Preposterous how any competent police officer can believe crap like that is beyond me. then our friend Nick also said another boy was murdered, run over in London street apparently.
yes of course you can just run over a boy in the middle of London and nobody actually notices and there's no body or anything.
that's another reason for warning bells to ring but still the incompetent plods believed every word that nasty little man said
eventually even a family member of this guy told the police don't believe a word he says he's a total liar.
and still they merrily plodded on calling him a "credible Witness"
Really is unbelievable
that man has caused untold misery and ruined reputations and inquiry costing Millions, and yet nothing at all has happened to him and he's still free and probably laughing.
it's a bloody disgrace
and the Plods must be a complete bunch of dick heads to believe all the crap he was telling them.
I mean Edward Heath going there and planning to kill a boy?
yes of course the prime minister of UK will just go to a flat in London kill a Boy with Special Branch guards who are always present, waiting outside? that story is so Preposterous how any competent police officer can believe crap like that is beyond me. then our friend Nick also said another boy was murdered, run over in London street apparently.
yes of course you can just run over a boy in the middle of London and nobody actually notices and there's no body or anything.
that's another reason for warning bells to ring but still the incompetent plods believed every word that nasty little man said
eventually even a family member of this guy told the police don't believe a word he says he's a total liar.
and still they merrily plodded on calling him a "credible Witness"
Really is unbelievable
that man has caused untold misery and ruined reputations and inquiry costing Millions, and yet nothing at all has happened to him and he's still free and probably laughing.
it's a bloody disgrace
AOG - // andy-hughes
/// but with choices come responsibilities, and that is where the education of children comes in to my point. ///
Do you seriously think that one can educate children in matters that they are too young to have ever experienced, ie the effects of alcohol, plus adult sexual urges etc etc? //
If you consider a child to be under the age of majority, then children are up to seventeen, well within range of the effects of alcohol and adult sexual urges.
But actually my point - which I accept I have not made clearly - is about teaching children respect for themselves and each other, which needs to begin in nursery.
In an ideal world, parents would teach resect and self-respect to their children, but there are seriously large numbers of parents who have no grasp of the concept because it was never taught to them.
This is why nursery education is so vital in building a future society where people accept each other and respect each other, and situations like this would eventually die out altogether.
That is the point I was making, although I accept that I did not explain it fully - hopefully this rectifies that omission.
/// but with choices come responsibilities, and that is where the education of children comes in to my point. ///
Do you seriously think that one can educate children in matters that they are too young to have ever experienced, ie the effects of alcohol, plus adult sexual urges etc etc? //
If you consider a child to be under the age of majority, then children are up to seventeen, well within range of the effects of alcohol and adult sexual urges.
But actually my point - which I accept I have not made clearly - is about teaching children respect for themselves and each other, which needs to begin in nursery.
In an ideal world, parents would teach resect and self-respect to their children, but there are seriously large numbers of parents who have no grasp of the concept because it was never taught to them.
This is why nursery education is so vital in building a future society where people accept each other and respect each other, and situations like this would eventually die out altogether.
That is the point I was making, although I accept that I did not explain it fully - hopefully this rectifies that omission.
kvalidir - // Of course children are educated. Everyone I know has plenty of self respect thanks Andy and your comments most certainly are victim blaming and your further explanation really just underlines that. //
Everyone I know has too - but I speak to two of my daughters who work in deprived inner-city schools where simply speaking to children nicely by parents is a rarity, and casual violence is a way of life for them.
It would be lovely if everyone lived in the world you and I inhabit - but they don't, and if my attitude is 'victim blaming', then yours is insular and naïve.
Everyone I know has too - but I speak to two of my daughters who work in deprived inner-city schools where simply speaking to children nicely by parents is a rarity, and casual violence is a way of life for them.
It would be lovely if everyone lived in the world you and I inhabit - but they don't, and if my attitude is 'victim blaming', then yours is insular and naïve.
nailit - // I think Andy is getting some unfair flack here. *responsible* parents (like the ones on here) will educate their kids in responsibility and self esteem but we all know that there are some kids whose parents don't give a fig about. I know one woman who was dragged up as a kid and she puts hereself in dangerous situations where she gets drunk and sleeps around. Easy to call her a *** but her upbringing was totally devoid of love or attention. (or any sense of self respect) //
Thank you for your support, and for clearly understanding the point I am making.
I have attempted to elaborate on my view - we cross-posted - but anyone who thinks I am 'victim blaming' has not been on here long enough to know me better than that.
Thank you for your support, and for clearly understanding the point I am making.
I have attempted to elaborate on my view - we cross-posted - but anyone who thinks I am 'victim blaming' has not been on here long enough to know me better than that.
kvalidir - // I know it's remarkable. Here Andy is a little viral anti rape video which explains to you how we educate our children about consent and respect without the pseudo Catholic guilt and moralising, //
I am not sure who the 'we' and 'our' are in your post - probably not British children.
I as an adult would have serious difficulty in making the connection between the video and sexual assault.
I strongly question if any child would make the connection, given that the script only actually mentions sex in the last ten seconds - the recipient will certainly know not to force tea on anyone - but probably nothing else!
There is no moralising, the video is too confused to have any!
And as for 'Catholic guilt' - I am an atheist, so no danger of that either.
I think you don't know me at all - which means you are not entitled to second-guess the motives for my viewpoint, and then be rude to me about it.
I am not sure who the 'we' and 'our' are in your post - probably not British children.
I as an adult would have serious difficulty in making the connection between the video and sexual assault.
I strongly question if any child would make the connection, given that the script only actually mentions sex in the last ten seconds - the recipient will certainly know not to force tea on anyone - but probably nothing else!
There is no moralising, the video is too confused to have any!
And as for 'Catholic guilt' - I am an atheist, so no danger of that either.
I think you don't know me at all - which means you are not entitled to second-guess the motives for my viewpoint, and then be rude to me about it.
Desk Diary - // "Being cleared of rape doesn't make him innocent."
Yes it does.
Doesn't mean somebody cleared of rape didn't do it, but a verdict of Not Guilty does make then innocent.
Anonymity for both. //
Not Guilty does not mean Innocent - if it did, it would say Innocent, it doesn't it says Not Guilty.
The distinction is a vital aspect of legal process.
What it means is that, on the balance of evidence heard, the jury believes that the accused is not guilty of the crime of which they have been accused.
It does not mean that they are innocent of any involvement, simply that the crime is not proven.
Yes it does.
Doesn't mean somebody cleared of rape didn't do it, but a verdict of Not Guilty does make then innocent.
Anonymity for both. //
Not Guilty does not mean Innocent - if it did, it would say Innocent, it doesn't it says Not Guilty.
The distinction is a vital aspect of legal process.
What it means is that, on the balance of evidence heard, the jury believes that the accused is not guilty of the crime of which they have been accused.
It does not mean that they are innocent of any involvement, simply that the crime is not proven.
I believe that the argument against "anonymity for both" is that the police need to name the accused so that other victims may then have the courage to come forward.
If that is the case, I would argue that they also need to name the accuser(s) so that people with evidence of prior behaviour by the accusers may be alerted to the trial and also come forward?
One without the other seems patently unjust.
If that is the case, I would argue that they also need to name the accuser(s) so that people with evidence of prior behaviour by the accusers may be alerted to the trial and also come forward?
One without the other seems patently unjust.
sunny-dave - // I believe that the argument against "anonymity for both" is that the police need to name the accused so that other victims may then have the courage to come forward.
If that is the case, I would argue that they also need to name the accuser(s) so that people with evidence of prior behaviour by the accusers may be alerted to the trial and also come forward?
One without the other seems patently unjust. //
I think its a serious moral dilemma.
Trying to balance anonymity against the potential for other victims to speak up is a question to which I have no answer - sadly.
If that is the case, I would argue that they also need to name the accuser(s) so that people with evidence of prior behaviour by the accusers may be alerted to the trial and also come forward?
One without the other seems patently unjust. //
I think its a serious moral dilemma.
Trying to balance anonymity against the potential for other victims to speak up is a question to which I have no answer - sadly.
Difficult (impossible?) isn't it, Andy.
I would not wish to do anything to stop anyone reporting rape - whether they are male/female, young/old, sober/drunk, educated or not - rape is too serious for anyone to be discouraged in any way from going to the Police.
But the accused must have rights too - or the concept of equality before the law is debased.
I would not wish to do anything to stop anyone reporting rape - whether they are male/female, young/old, sober/drunk, educated or not - rape is too serious for anyone to be discouraged in any way from going to the Police.
But the accused must have rights too - or the concept of equality before the law is debased.
pixie - // t's no excuse for naming people before a conviction. Afterwards, when a name is released, people can still come forward- if that's what they're waiting for. //
The argument for naming is that, without other victims coming forward, there may not be a conviction after which the name can be released.
I am not saying I agree with the concept, merely pointing out the arguments used in favour of it.
The argument for naming is that, without other victims coming forward, there may not be a conviction after which the name can be released.
I am not saying I agree with the concept, merely pointing out the arguments used in favour of it.
sunny-dave - // The Police would say that they may not get the initial conviction without the publicity, pixie. //
We cross-posted here - and I think you agree with me, that the moral dilemma is impossible to resolve adequately.
I would entirely endorse your point that all rapes are to be reported and investigated, regardless of the circumstances - I am on the side of any and every victim in any crime, despite the attempts by one poster to infer otherwise, and I think that anyone who knows me at all would know that as well.
We cross-posted here - and I think you agree with me, that the moral dilemma is impossible to resolve adequately.
I would entirely endorse your point that all rapes are to be reported and investigated, regardless of the circumstances - I am on the side of any and every victim in any crime, despite the attempts by one poster to infer otherwise, and I think that anyone who knows me at all would know that as well.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
How it Works3 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.