Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Executive Sadman

More Sanity From The Condems

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279965/Male-defendants-granted-anonymity-rape-cases.html

Defendants in rape cases will now be granted anonymity under new rules set out in today's Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition document.

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the decision was an 'insult' and a backlash against the rising number of rape reports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yeh forgot to add the most important bit

Officials said details of the change were yet to be decided but it is likely the ban will be lifted once a suspect is convicted.

Cant have that 'innocent until proven guilty' now can we Jackboot Smith and Harriet Harperson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

http://www.dailymail...rape-cases.html

Defendants in rape cases will now be granted anonymity under new rules set out in today's Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition document.

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the decision was an 'insult' and a backlash against the rising number of rape reports

Of course now that rape allegations will not be made public it's likely that juries will view men accused in a different light. For example, they may conclude that the woman making the allegation has nothing to gain from a false allegation (as it won't be publicised) and therefore be more inclined to believe her version of events regardless of its veracity or otherwise.

Maybe Theresa May is banking on this line of thinking to get more convictions whilst subtly sending outside signals about fairness to the easily satisfied.

One for the TFHs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

I'm finding it really hard to adjust to this new government. I just got so used to being opposed to everything the government did and now the ConDems come along and start talking about sane policies. I've not disagreed with them once yet.

:lol:

It's bloody weird isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they carry on like this I might have to stop bitching about them.

Then what would I do!

Bah humbug.:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

I'm finding it really hard to adjust to this new government. I just got so used to being opposed to everything the government did and now the ConDems come along and start talking about sane policies. I've not disagreed with them once yet.

Give it a little time.

Currently they're going through a honeymoon period and inevitably everyone's rather starry eyed. At the moment the majority of policies being executed are common-ground stuff and not particularly fractious or contentious. Dave's brilliantly wrong-footed the loonies in his party by kicking most of the difficult stuff into the long grass by proposing various reviews i.e. postponing them for a year or so thus buying time for him to establish credibility with the electorate.

In so doing the difficult stuff gets postponed beyond this year's conference season. The Lib Dems will love it as it's the first taste of power in a century so there'll be no real critics for Cleggy as yet. Similarly, Dave's brought enough of the party onside to ensure he has a good conference - the new boys and girls will also be keen to get noticed for all the right reasons - after all there's a chance of a junior post if the parliament runs five years.

However, the old hands passed-over for promotion and who have big majorities have nothing to lose if their pet project (whatever it may be) gets a drubbing in the review process. So expect the critics to emerge from among the passed-over - either from the left of the Lib Dems or the europhobes in the Conservatives - either way they wont emerge this conference season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

On the flip side the juries will have less media bias to filter out. And hopefully we'll get less false allegations. I can't see this as being anything other than a good thing. The way it works at the moment is that men can be proven innocent but still have their lives ruined by a rape allegation. The public never forget the allegation but seldom remember when it has been recanted.

The counter-argument has always been that the publicity surrounding a rape case may bring forward witnesses - who may either support or refute the allegation. Whilst I've a degree of sympathy with this argument and the argument that criminal trials should receive wide publicity, on balance I think that the damage to an innocent man's reputation sways it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they carry on like this I might have to stop bitching about them.

Then what would I do!

Bah humbug.:angry:

Having no Labour Government to hate has left a small hole in my day and having a new one which keeps on doing vaguely sensible things is really disconcerting.

They seem dead set on doing stuff to the country that seems balanced and non-partisan. If this carries on it could (seriously) alter the style of politics. For instance, how does the Leader of the Opposition get up and make an almighty fuss over something that two other parties are thoroughly up for and which can't be dismissed in some old tribal way? They will look strangely out of step and could lose popularity.

Early days, but this does all look a bit unusual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yeh forgot to add the most important bit

Officials said details of the change were yet to be decided but it is likely the ban will be lifted once a suspect is convicted.

Cant have that 'innocent until proven guilty' now can we Jackboot Smith and Harriet Harperson.

a bit of common sense.

false accusations of this nature can wreck peoples lives whether a conviction is secured or not.

in this day and age where cameras do lie,photo's get airbrushed and people make snap judgements on the basis of what they read in the sun,it is absolutely imperitive that we maintain the benefit of the doubt.

even in cases where the names have been divulged but no criminal proceedings are made,the social stain is indellible in the minds of some people.

I'm for keeping details of any arrests/charges to a minimum of age/sex/location until it can be proven beyond doubt that they dunnit.

you would feel pretty hard done by being tried under sharia law(for a crime you might not have comitted) on hearsay.

especially so when involves the forfeiture of appendages.

that's not to say that if a conviction is warranted that the penalty should be rather stiffer than community service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course now that rape allegations will not be made public it's likely that juries will view men accused in a different light. For example, they may conclude that the woman making the allegation has nothing to gain from a false allegation (as it won't be publicised) and therefore be more inclined to believe her version of events regardless of its veracity or otherwise.

Maybe Theresa May is banking on this line of thinking to get more convictions whilst subtly sending outside signals about fairness to the easily satisfied.

One for the TFHs

Rape has one of the highest conviction rates of any violent crime so I find that a bit unlikely to be honest with you. The problem doesn't lie in courts. It grieves me to say this but feminist discourse on this subject is based on a myth and a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem (and there is one, its just nothing to do with judges who don't understand and jurors who are scared to convict and barristers who are misogynists and the other twaddle they come out with). The problem with rape is that the attrition rate is fairly high (although still in the ballpark of comparable offences) which is something completely different. It is an irony that the unsubstantiated complaining about the allegedly low conviction rate and the problems with courts may actually be feeding this.

Plainly; the issue is this. Rape is an horrendous crime that should concern everyone. Unfortunately rape also serves a rhetorical purpose for certain groups as a form of 'original sin' they choose to use against men. I think it has now reached the stage where the interests of people concerned with these two views of rape have significantly diverged such that one is injurious to the other. It is very hard to have any sort of reasoned discussion about it. And even typing this I can feel my shoulder-blades twitching because even saying this isn't something you are supposed to do...

Edit: sodding thing deleted my post on editing. Anyhow "violent crime"; there are clearly some crimes that by their very nature are undeniable so they do have higher conviction rates because all that is left is mitigation from day one. Rape is convicted more frequently than unlawful wounding, attempted murder, manslaughter, GBH, common assault and threatening to kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding it really hard to adjust to this new government. I just got so used to being opposed to everything the government did and now the ConDems come along and start talking about sane policies. I've not disagreed with them once yet.

+1 and their moves re civil liberties and rescinding Labour's erosion of individuals' privacy and independence are excellent; to hear Nick Clegg saying that our children should not be brought up to accept surveillance as norm was fantastic - I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly; I want my kids to be free to peacefully demonstrate to their hearts' content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding it really hard to adjust to this new government. I just got so used to being opposed to everything the government did and now the ConDems come along and start talking about sane policies. I've not disagreed with them once yet.

....I want my John Prescott style comedy act back. And Harperson; I haven't had a good comical name corruption yet. And the panto villain? Where's Mandy or Campbell?

God they were sh1t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having no Labour Government to hate has left a small hole in my day and having a new one which keeps on doing vaguely sensible things is really disconcerting.

They seem dead set on doing stuff to the country that seems balanced and non-partisan. If this carries on it could (seriously) alter the style of politics. For instance, how does the Leader of the Opposition get up and make an almighty fuss over something that two other parties are thoroughly up for and which can't be dismissed in some old tribal way? They will look strangely out of step and could lose popularity.

Early days, but this does all look a bit unusual.

don't worry - the right wing of the tory party are limbering up in their tweeds, hiding behind their moats, and by god they'll be at'em!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No anonymity in the justice system. Everything out in the open. Otherwise, how do you know justice is being done?

+1. clearly there is an inbalance of justice in the current system but i'd be inclined also to instead level the playing field by removing the anonymity for accusers. anonymity for both is the next best option and i just can't see why WAR etc. are opposing it. the rationale given that it somehow slanders rape victims and the implication that men falsely accused are a kind of collateral damage is cynical in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1. clearly there is an inbalance of justice in the current system but i'd be inclined also to instead level the playing field by removing the anonymity for accusers. anonymity for both is the next best option and i just can't see why WAR etc. are opposing it. the rationale given that it somehow impunes rape victims and the implication that men falsely accused don't matter is cynical in the extreme.

No, I disagree. A accuses B. The evidence just isn't of a sufficient quality, there are gaps in the case the police can't fill (this isn't because Quincy ME needs to seize on it, the appropriate info just doesn't exist, sometimes people do just throw out their rubbish or go for a walk on their own or whatever it is), the jury can't convict B whatever A is saying. "Not guilty" is the verdict, the implication to the bovine masses looking on is that A filed a false accusation. Courts don't tend to think this because they aren't that stupid, but newspaper editors do. This doesn't serve justice at all. In terms of seeing justice being done, I recommend if you are worried you actually go and see justice being done, you have that right. Not actually sure you need to know anyone's name for this anyway but you'll find out if you are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I disagree. A accuses B. The evidence just isn't of a sufficient quality, there are gaps in the case the police can't fill (this isn't because Quincy MD needs to seize on it, the appropriate info just doesn't exist, sometimes people do just throw out their rubbish or go for a walk on their own or whatever it is), the jury can't convict B whatever A is saying. "Not guilty" is the verdict, the implication to the bovine masses looking on is that A filed a false accusation. Courts don't tend to think this because they aren't that stupid, but newspaper editors do. This doesn't serve justice at all. In terms of seeing justice being done, I recommend if you are worried you actually go and see justice being done, you have that right. Not actually sure you need to know anyone's name for this anyway but you'll find out if you are there.

you might be right. i'm not strident on this issue except on the point that there should be equanimity.

incidentally, i'm not aware of a "not guilty" verdict in a rape case being used (on its own) by the media to imply a false accusation, eg. the recent tweedy case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rape is an horrendous crime that should concern everyone. Unfortunately rape also serves a rhetorical purpose for certain groups as a form of 'original sin' they choose to use against men. I think it has now reached the stage where the interests of people concerned with these two views of rape have significantly diverged such that one is injurious to the other. It is very hard to have any sort of reasoned discussion about it. And even typing this I can feel my shoulder-blades twitching because even saying this isn't something you are supposed to do...

Indeed, and it is not alone in this. There are crimes which have grown out of changing attitudes which to some extent became symbols of the changed values rather than crimes themselves; it's not hard to imagine what those might be, and racially based crime including forms of "hate" crime are what I'm causing my own shoulder blades to twitch about.

It's incredibly unfortunate that at some early point in the debate on these matters the dividing line was drawn not between tolerance and intolerance, but between supporters and opponents of groups. I hope that the path taken since then is retraceable, because the obstruction to rational debate created at the genesis of those debates has becoming the greatest obstacle to a lasting resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you might be right. i'm not strident on this issue except on the point that there should be equanimity.

incidentally, i'm not aware of a "not guilty" verdict in a rape case being used (on its own) by the media to imply a false accusation, eg. the recent tweedy case.

The problem is the default is the same as one of the choices that can be positively made. The Scottish system has two forms of aquittal to distinguish between the two; not guilty and not proven. But that is its own can of worms because of course having a "not proven" hanging over your head is itself stigmatising because you didn't, as it were, prove your innocence. Which you shouldn't have to do...argh. The whole thing is messy, I think its better if your name isn't publicised. One of the things that has always upset me is in a notorious case, the accused is brought to court in a van and people start attacking it. Maybe its having spent too much time in the lab, but its partly sympathy for the potentially innocent person being subjected to it and partly despair at the idiots doing it. You'll laugh at this but I told my family years ago that if I ever get murdered(!) I'd much rather they caught the person who did it than any old idiot they can frame up so could they please ask people not to do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For instance, how does the Leader of the Opposition get up and make an almighty fuss over something that two other parties are thoroughly up for and which can't be dismissed in some old tribal way? They will look strangely out of step and could lose popularity.

How convenient for Labour to have a spell of navel-gazing while the coalition has its honeymoon. A new leader can then start on the tack of killing the recovereh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plainly; the issue is this. Rape is an horrendous crime that should concern everyone.

I expect you're taking the old-fashioned definition involving at least coercion and likely violence, and of course I agree with that.

But the feminists have extended it to the point where it may not involve any such thing. A jury might reasonably take the view that a rape conviction is out of all proportion to someone who got drunk and had an honest misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How convenient for Labour to have a spell of navel-gazing while the coalition has its honeymoon. A new leader can then start on the tack of killing the recovereh.

True, this would be the route back. Then again, if things haven't fallen apart by September the incoming leader may be under some pressure to join in the constructive party, especially as (with it not being Balls) they will be keen to look as little like Brown as humanly possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect you're taking the old-fashioned definition involving at least coercion and likely violence, and of course I agree with that.

But the feminists have extended it to the point where it may not involve any such thing. A jury might reasonably take the view that a rape conviction is out of all proportion to someone who got drunk and had an honest misunderstanding.

I don't even mean that, I have some sympathy for the view that the drunken scene could be a crime worth prosecuting depending on whether it is actually a crime if you see what I mean. And look, most incidents of rape aren't committed by strangers, they occur in domestic settings by people very well known to the victim so I'm not too happy with going around saying a "misunderstanding" generally cover it, it really doesn't.

What I meant was...er its hard to explain really here, its not that it happens, its the idea that it happens. Its totemic of something; as a man it doesn't matter what you do and don't do, doesn't even matter if you are gay, nothing short of castrating yourself (and even then) will stop you from being a potential rapist. And if you are a potential rapist, it makes every woman your potential victim. The potential, it is argued, leads to structural inequalities. At which point note, you are written out of this discussion as thinking, feeling human being capable of choice and judgement, be as right on as you like, you are an oppressive force and all the rest of it. Now this is a bit of a caricature because in fairness modern day feminist writers would never really put it that bluntly but its implicitly there still in a lot of claims and writing. You can see similar things in the discussion of prostitution as well. At the moment we have laws that expose prostitutes to significant risk that were brought about by women who aren't prostitutes, never were prostitutes and live in the kind of areas where they never see prostitutes. But thats fine because the idea of prostitution has been struck a blow so thats a victory for the sisterhood right? It is of course, pity its so disastrous for actual prostitutes who never get asked about this sort of thing.

And I will add actually when someone got a very small sum of money to pay someone else to spend a year finding out about this sort of thing, I was the only person on quite a long thread saying it was justified. Everyone else went with the Daily Mail line that it was a waste of money using public funds to pay someone to visit strip clubs! Like the woman(!) that was hired was going to be sitting around putting tax payer's fivers into suspender belts. Of course the Mail hates evidence based policy, its quite happy with our usual kneejerk ooh-my-feelings-are-hurt (not that I know anything about the issue) legislation we currently suffer from because it sells papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No anonymity in the justice system. Everything out in the open. Otherwise, how do you know justice is being done?

Anonymity is different from closed courts. So long as the reporting restrictions on the identity of both sides in a case are symmertrical and the public are allowed to view the proceedings, I don't see why a restriction on reporting the names of the people involved is as issue. The idea that someone could cry rape, destroying the life of the accused, whilst maintaining their own anonymity even if the case was thrown out is what I object to. This move is sensible and just.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course now that rape allegations will not be made public it's likely that juries will view men accused in a different light. For example, they may conclude that the woman making the allegation has nothing to gain from a false allegation (as it won't be publicised) and therefore be more inclined to believe her version of events regardless of its veracity or otherwise.

Maybe Theresa May is banking on this line of thinking to get more convictions whilst subtly sending outside signals about fairness to the easily satisfied.

One for the TFHs

You really do live on a different planet don't you? How can it be right that someone's life can be destroyed - and that certainly is what happens to people accused in rape cases - even when the allegations turn out to be entirely unfounded and yet, the person doing the accusing can walk away free? It goes against all notions of justice; it's just plain wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.