Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 EP article states that the other man was a 21 year old. It seems unfair that only one person has been named, as no charges have yet been made. Typical of our vile press, tyre fitters, carpenters, butchers etc. etc. don't sell papers, been going on forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 I don't think they should name you unless convicted - whatever the outcome this will tarnish the rest of his life... Totally agree, but try telling that to the feminists who make the rules. A mate of mine had his life ruined by a serial false accuser. She, of course, remained anonymous and free to continue making malicious accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Typical of our vile press, tyre fitters, carpenters, butchers etc. etc. don't sell papers, been going on forever. And, indeed, journalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 I don't want to go in to it too much, but about 6 years ago a ex-friend of mine was accused of rape, he was arrested - his slammed against the floor by 2 female police officers who arrested him. Shamefully, I didn't know what to believe due to the seriousness of the accusation. Turns out, it was just a bitter girl who he had a argument with, playing the best card she had. Anyway, it was hell for the guy and it shows just how easy it is to make an accusation like that. I dread to think how many people are in prison due to people doing jury service and just passing people off as rapists just because they are accused. My friend had a alibi thankfully, but it just goes to show. Was she brought to justice for it? No, I thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 The conviction rate for cases that go to court are almost the same over most crimes, including rape. There is a myth that seems to abound that that the conviction rate is really low, but it is on a par with many other court cases. The number of rape cases brought to court is low, but again it's the same with many other crimes - the main problem/issue for rape being the lack of witnesses (the fact that it is often 1 persons testimony against another). There is a balance that is needed, it seems pretty much there atm other than as I mentioned earlier that I feel that the suspect should not be named until convicted (or at least until the case come to trial). That entirely depends on whether the CPS decides to take it to court or not. It also depends on how you manipulate/interpret the statistics. The fact of the matter is that the CPS know how difficult it is to successfully prosecute in rape cases so most never make it out of the prosecutors pile of case files. Earlier this year (around the time the CPS were reporting an record increase in their success in court) figures from the Office For National Statistics a Ministry For Justice revealed that less than 1 in 30 reported rapes results in a successful prosecution. That's the governments own interpretation of its own figures. If you add in serious sexual assaults, I think it's about 2.5%, taking into account that most rapists convicted are in court for multiple offences. Compare that to 40% of non-sexual violence offences reported going to court and a 70% conviction rate (which incidentally is higher than the success rate in court for rape), it does show that there is an issue. I appreciate the difficulty in prosecuting such cases, but there is definitely an 'issue' there PS in response to what other people have said, I do think it should be criminal offence to make clearly false accusations of this nature. I'm sure a lot of these false accusations fall down fairly completely once it comes to the crunch and I think in those cases where it becomes obvious that the claim was malicious, the accuser should be prosecuted themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 I don't think they should name you unless convicted - whatever the outcome this will tarnish the rest of his life... Then how can you be convicted in a court of law if your name isn't known? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Then how can you be convicted in a court of law if your name isn't known? It seems to work for juveniles It's not about your name being known, it's about it being published in the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 It seems to work for juveniles It's not about your name being known, it's about it being published in the media. I think the theory is with well known people if you get various victims who are unrelated from various parts of the country, telling the same story ala Stuart Hall, then the 'nobody will believe you' shroud is lifted somewhat. it is a difficult area but the Stuart Hall case proved that without the publicity, he would have carried on with his cowardly public denials and false indignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 It seems to work for juveniles It's not about your name being known, it's about it being published in the media. Are juveniles tried publicly or privately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 I hope he gets cleared of everything, but I do love seeing that club in turmoil :laugh: Why hope he gets cleared at this stage..? Just as I totally disagree with people being named before being convicted, there is also every chance that he might be guilty! Let the courts and Jury do their job and hopefully justice will prevail either way. As an aside, I believe that in cases where false accusations are proven beyond reasonable doubt (this is different to the accused being found not giulty) Women should be charged with something pretty damn serious for causing such distress to innocent people based on a bitter grudge. imo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 I think the theory is with well known people if you get various victims who are unrelated from various parts of the country, telling the same story ala Stuart Hall, then the 'nobody will believe you' shroud is lifted somewhat. it is a difficult area but the Stuart Hall case proved that without the publicity, he would have carried on with his cowardly public denials and false indignation. aye but many peoples lifes and careers have been destroyed by people crying wolf some people have even been locked up and later proven it wasn't them, Every other accused normally remains conferdaential until it goes to trial or even a verdict when should rape (even though its a vile crime) be outside this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Why hope he gets cleared at this stage..? Just as I totally disagree with people being named before being convicted, there is also every chance that he might be guilty! Let the courts and Jury do their job and hopefully justice will prevail either way. As an aside, I believe that in cases where false accusations are proven beyond reasonable doubt (this is different to the accused being found not giulty) Women should be charged with something pretty damn serious for causing such distress to innocent people based on a bitter grudge. imo! Actually they always are, I think you are confusing a person being found not guilty ala Le Vell, which was purely a he said/she said case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semblar Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Why hope he gets cleared at this stage..? Just as I totally disagree with people being named before being convicted, there is also every chance that he might be guilty! Let the courts and Jury do their job and hopefully justice will prevail either way. As an aside, I believe that in cases where false accusations are proven beyond reasonable doubt (this is different to the accused being found not giulty) Women should be charged with something pretty damn serious for causing such distress to innocent people based on a bitter grudge. imo! I guess "perverting the Course of Justice" would count as "pretty damn serious"? You can get 3 years for it.... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 aye but many peoples lifes and careers have been destroyed by people crying wolf some people have even been locked up and later proven it wasn't them, Every other accused normally remains conferdaential until it goes to trial or even a verdict when should rape (even though its a vile crime) be outside this? As I said it's a difficult area, but the Stuart Hall case proves that it can work, in the special circumstances of 'celebs'. I watched the documentary last night about the dirty fat arsed Liberal scum bag Cyril Smith, who there is now no doubt whatsoever the police had the evidence to prosecute very early on in his reign of perversion and also had the will to do so, but were prevented by government and the secret services from doing so, because he was part of a coalition government propping up a failing labour party and Harold 'Bloody' Wilson couldn't afford the scandal and even now the then liberal leader David Steel won't say what he knew, I have to say the people who covered for scum like him and Saville are just as guilty IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Then how can you be convicted in a court of law if your name isn't known? There are plenty of private cases. I accidentally walked into one once at the Court of Appeal when I was supposed to be viewing another! Innocent until proven guilty mind guys, just bear that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Then how can you be convicted in a court of law if your name isn't known? that's like saying, how can you be convicted if the name of the victim is not known - they are obviously known by the courts - does not mean that the names need to be released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 So why hasn't the other guy been named? He alledgedly raped a guy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 What I don't understand in the le vell case, why would a young girl randomly pick an actor like that and say what she did. Was there any connection to her with regards family, just all seemed pretty random and end of the day it's one persons word against another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 What I don't understand in the le vell case, why would a young girl randomly pick an actor like that and say what she did. Was there any connection to her with regards family, just all seemed pretty random and end of the day it's one persons word against another. Agreed, the strange thing is the CPS originally ruled that the chances of conviction were very low and threw it out but I think they panicked in the light of Stuart Hall and other high profile cases, hopefully more sense will prevail now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 What I don't understand in the le vell case, why would a young girl randomly pick an actor like that and say what she did. Was there any connection to her with regards family, just all seemed pretty random and end of the day it's one persons word against another. some people are mentally sick and make things up like this some are innocent and some will make an advance at some only to be turned down so they go and make up a story, I thought the le vell case smelt fishy every since I started to read about the evedance and the medical exam the young lady in question took, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 some people are mentally sick and make things up like this some are innocent and some will make an advance at some only to be turned down so they go and make up a story, I thought the le vell case smelt fishy every since I started to read about the evedance and the medical exam the young lady in question took, and sometimes the accused are guilty are found so and sometimes they buy justice, there are stories to be told on both sides, I seem to recall an overwhelming stream of support for Ched Evans on here whilst the case was ongoing and he has since even failed on appeal. Many celebs and especially footballers should have learned by now, why put yourselves into those sort of situations?, the media is such these days that nothing will remain secret for long, when the prostitute knocked on Rooney's hotel room door what do you think her first thought was? perhaps 'retirement fund' I would have thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 and sometimes the accused are guilty are found so and sometimes they buy justice, there are stories to be told on both sides, I seem to recall an overwhelming stream of support for Ched Evans on here whilst the case was ongoing and he has since even failed on appeal. Many celebs and especially footballers should have learned by now, why put yourselves into those sort of situations?, the media is such these days that nothing will remain secret for long, when the prostitute knocked on Rooney's hotel room door what do you think her first thought was? perhaps 'retirement fund' I would have thought. to be fair celebs and the rich have it different because they are famous or rich enough to put their life back together ater so I can see the against arguement in that instance, Joe public however are not able to once they've been accused of something like rape or faulsly convicted of something as serious it will stay with them and haunt them forever as people tend to go along the lines of no smoke with out fire etc, Its a very fine line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 I guess "perverting the Course of Justice" would count as "pretty damn serious"? You can get 3 years for it.... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/ Not enough in my opinion. I'm not talking about 50/50 cases why the defenition of "rape" is decided on a technicality - I'm talking about women using "the rape card" specifically to try and ruin someones life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 to be fair celebs and the rich have it different because they are famous or rich enough to put their life back together ater so I can see the against arguement in that instance, Joe public however are not able to once they've been accused of something like rape or faulsly convicted of something as serious it will stay with them and haunt them forever as people tend to go along the lines of no smoke with out fire etc, Its a very fine line Yes it is and rape cases are generally very difficult to prove (lack of witnesses) and sometimes the publicity brings out a totally unrelated victim and a real rapist is properly dealt with, I cannot see a better way, rape convictions are poor anyway, they would plummet without this IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Yes it is and rape cases are generally very difficult to prove (lack of witnesses) and sometimes the publicity brings out a totally unrelated victim and a real rapist is properly dealt with, I cannot see a better way, rape convictions are poor anyway, they would plummet without this IMO. so we should hang out innocent people to dry because an alledged victim is always telling the truth?, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider-manc Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Was she brought to justice for it? No, I thought not. They do charge them though, where possible: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-23629148 I'm always in two minds at first when it comes to footballers being accused of rape. Part of me always thinks that perhaps the girl is looking for a pay out etc, the other part of me thinks that some footballers think they are untouchable. Although I should wait and see the evidence, I think this is the problem, a lot of people pass judgement straight away one way or another. I was in halls at University with this pleasant fellow, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8889277/Lord-Boatengs-son-jailed-over-sex-assault.html none of my friends liked him as he was arrogant as sin. When we heard about the first case in South Africa our thoughts were as I just described: "she is probably after money- but I wouldn't put it passed him". It must be very difficult to make a decision as a jury member without holding any preconceived ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy bird Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 I always though that Michael le veil would come out of it smelling of Rosie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 I always though that Michael le veil would come out of it smelling of Rosie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 What I don't understand in the le vell case, why would a young girl randomly pick an actor like that and say what she did. Was there any connection to her with regards family, just all seemed pretty random and end of the day it's one persons word against another. Because, to some people, TV soaps are the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 so we should hang out innocent people to dry because an alledged victim is always telling the truth?, Where the **** did I say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.