Yet Another So Called Rapist Cleared, Isn't It Time That These Female Accusers Are Named And Shamed?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5262181/Ex-Manchester-City-youth-footballer-cleared-rape.html

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // They only need one to prove it. //

That's not actually true - the evidence from one victim may or may not prove guilt, the evidence from ten make that proof far more likely to be obtainable, and indefensible.

[pixie374]

That doesn't make sense. Each one will only have their own evidence.

[andy-hughes]

sunny-dave - // I tend to agree, pixie - but perhaps the Police (with the agreement of the accuser) should be obliged to name both or neither? //

Sadly, that really doesn't help the issue.

If I was accusing someone of rape, I would want him named, but I would not want myself named.

I would expect the accused to adopt exactly the same approach, wanting me named, and not him.

[pixie374]

Neither should be named.

[andy-hughes]

Pixie - // That doesn't make sense. Each one will only have their own evidence. //

Of course they will, but if you produce one victim's evidence to a jury, you have a 'He said she said ...' argument from each side, possibly backed up by physical evidence, possibly not.

If you have ten victims and one accused, the believability of the victims increases exponentially- along with the chance of a conviction.

[pixie374]

That's a major problem with the system then.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// Not Guilty does not mean Innocent - if it did, it would say Innocent, it doesn't it says Not Guilty. ///

By that reckoning anyone who is sent for trial and later found not guilty of the crime that they have been charged with, can never be classed as fully innocent.

[kvalidir]

Andy, referencing the video I posted, it's not hard to understand at all, most of the younger teens I know have seen it, yes in Britain, shock horror, and yes they fully understood it. Children and teenagers are a lot savvier and more sophisticated in their reasoning that you seem to imagine, they don't watch Pinky and Perky you know, and I've yet to meet anyone ( except you) who has struggled with that video at all. I am possibly thre least naieve person you have ever met, raising people to have self respect is not simply a matter of how they are treated by their parents, but by wider society as a whole, that is what I meant by 'educating our children'. With regard to me not knowing you, no I don't or wish to, but that does not mean that I cannot judge you on your words and then on your backtracking. As to appearing wracked with Catholic guilt, jolly good job you are an atheist, because otherwise you'd be in danger of coming across as the most pious being in existence, I have rarely seem anyone so judgmental in such a passive aggressive way. Nothing you have said has convinced me that you are not victim blaming here, sorry if you don't like that, but I think you need to re-examine the way you thing it's fine to express your views relentlessly and essentially try to turn thing around on anyone who dares call you on.

[Deskdiary]

AH - you're playing with semantics.

"What it [Not Guilty] 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."

You should have included the words 'beyond all reasonable doubt' in the above passage.

Technically (I hate that word) I'm sure you're correct, but where a not guilty verdict is returned because a jury is convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that somebody didn't so something, that's as near as makes no difference telling them that they're innocent.

Beyond reasonable doubt is pretty bloody compelling in my book!

Doesn't mean they didn't do it though....

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // That's a major problem with the system then. //

Absolutely - and as advised, I have no idea how we solve that particular issue.

[andy-hughes]

kvalidir - // Andy, referencing the video I posted, it's not hard to understand at all, most of the younger teens I know have seen it, yes in Britain, shock horror, and yes they fully understood it. //

That is something of a sweeping statement. Because you and teenagers you know understand it does not make it a fact that it is easy to understand - anymore than my view of its difficulty makes it difficult. Each are opinions, yours and mine, to which we are entitled.

Children and teenagers are a lot savvier and more sophisticated in their reasoning that you seem to imagine, they don't watch Pinky and Perky you know, and I've yet to meet anyone ( except you) who has struggled with that video at all. //

Thanks for the heads up on that. I have a wife and three children who work in education, and I have six grandchildren, so I do have an inkling of what children and teenagers watch.

//I am possibly thre least naieve person you have ever met, raising people to have self respect is not simply a matter of how they are treated by their parents, but by wider society as a whole, that is what I meant by 'educating our children'. //

Once again an opinion unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and I do understand that education is not confined to the classroom - I have enough life experience to know that, but thanks again for pointing it out.

// With regard to me not knowing you, no I don't or wish to, but that does not mean that I cannot judge you on your words and then on your backtracking. //

My reference to you 'knowing me' referred to knowing me on here, and as a relative newcomer, I accept that you are not familiar with me as a person in the way that other more seasoned AB'ers are. In terms of you not wishing to know me, that is your choice of course. Of course you can judge me on my posts, although I would deny that clarification is the same as 'backtracking' - but be aware that judgement is a two-way street.

As to appearing wracked with Catholic guilt, jolly good job you are an atheist, because otherwise you'd be in danger of coming across as the most pious being in existence, I have rarely seem anyone so judgmental in such a passive aggressive way. Nothing you have said has convinced me that you are not victim blaming here, sorry if you don't like that, but I think you need to re-examine the way you thing it's fine to express your views relentlessly and essentially try to turn thing around on anyone who dares call you on. //

I do not turn anything round on anyone who 'dares to call me on' as you put it.

I have and will always defend my view against any criticism, although as I have said, criticism is a two-way street as well.

[kvalidir]

Relative newcomer? Andy I've been on here for over five years lol.

[andy-hughes]

kvalidir - // Relative newcomer? Andy I've been on here for over five years lol. //

The site is in its eighteenth year now, so relatively, you are a newcomer - which is why I used the term 'relative'.

[Zacs-Master]

Andy, that’s rather condescending and not a little elitist.

[kvalidir]

Blimey that's desperate tbh Andy, utterly desperate and pathetic from day one boy, no-one else would have dreamed of saying something so childish.

[andy-hughes]

Zacs,

What it is, is a simple statement of facts.

If you want to join kvaldir in looking for a spat, you will have to do it without my assistance.

This is how threads get derailed - if you want to return to the OP, then we can carry on, if you want to be condescending, try someone else to bicker with.