Turned Out Nice Again Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Have you ever served on a jury (for any type of case, not just rape)? Real life is not like CSI. Plenty of cases are decided on one person's word against another. Usually in favour of the defendant in cases that shouldn't have gone to court in the first place (ie the majority of rape prosecutions), which is as it should be according to Blackstone's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 A man should be questioned if a women claims it and there is reasonable evidence to back up the claim. Pretty simple really. The same would apply for any other 'personal' crime. (Obviously if the crime had not been reported by the women in question but the police had witnessed it- yes as well). ah, thanks. So from line one, you think a woman needs to have corroboration to even make a claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 To all the posters who think the odds are stacked against men in rape accusations: what do you think the proportion of rape claims resulting in a conviction is? 60%? 80%? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html what they are saying is that the stigma of even the accusation, let alone going to Court is serious enough for there to needing to be more than just the say so there was no consent. Their point is that so many cases are failed that the motive to prosecute is far higher than the motive to let it go as a private dispute between to adults. Malicious accusations are an issue too. They have a point if statistics is all we look at. The idea that the accused are quizzed about how they reasonably beleived they had obtained consent is to reduce trial time where the defence puts this case to the jury and the jury agrees, the belief was reasonable. The Feminists argue that the lack of convictions is firstly down to a huge number of offences going unreported, and then, a public disbelief and a legal system weighted towards the accused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 MP's fears over new guidelines on rape: How do you prove consent was given, he asks A politically correct DPP, rape and the worrying question: how DO men prove consent, asks SARAH VINEThe Mail has two headlines asking the same question. click bait and scaremongering as I said up thread. The defendant always had to prove he had a reasonable belief he had consent....that was the defence...the only others were that he wasnt there at all, or that he didnt have sex with his *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 To all the posters who think the odds are stacked against men in rape accusations: what do you think the proportion of rape claims resulting in a conviction is? 60%? 80%? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html Watering down the definition of rape is not going to increase the conviction rate for violent rapes. Really, it's not. This is just a game played by the authorities to make it look like they're doing something, when all they're really doing is moving the goalposts. No different from watering down university courses in order to claim that more students are university graduates, or refusing to register A&E patients upon arrival in order to meet A&E waiting time targets. This is a classic case of managerial malfeasance, the end result of which will be less police time dedicated to real rapes and lower conviction rate for real crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Watering down the definition of rape is not going to increase the conviction rate for violent rapes. Really, it's not. This is just a game played by the authorities to make it look like they're doing something, when all they're really doing is moving the goalposts. No different from watering down university courses in order to claim that more students are university graduates, or refusing to register A&E patients upon arrival in order to meet A&E waiting time targets. This is a classic case of managerial malfeasance, the end result of which will be less police time dedicated to real rapes and lower conviction rate for real crimes. what watering down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 what watering down? If this new guidance doesn't change anything, which you seem to be arguing, then why issue it in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 If this new guidance doesn't change anything, which you seem to be arguing, then why issue it in the first place? i thought I explained that...its to make sure the prosecution case doesnt come crashing down when the defendant comes in with his reasonable beleif...it can all be avoided if the prosecution can see it before it all gets out of hand. You see, the Prosecution isnt about the defendants claims...its about prosecuting with the evidence supporting the allegation..the guidance asks the Prosecution to consider the defence up front before making the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 i thought I explained that...its to make sure the prosecution case doesnt come crashing down when the defendant comes in with his reasonable beleif...it can all be avoided if the prosecution can see it before it all gets out of hand. You see, the Prosecution isnt about the defendants claims...its about prosecuting with the evidence supporting the allegation..the guidance asks the Prosecution to consider the defence up front before making the decision. OK, I could be wrong on this, but hasn't the prosecution always considered the likely defence upfront before any decision to prosecute. For instance, if the potential defendant has an unassailable alibi for a crime, the prosecution isn't going to launch a prosecution no matter what the evidence supporting the allegation might be. It was my understanding that a decision to prosecute was based on the likelihood of a conviction, which would mean that the CPS would have already been looking at the probable defence argument in a rape case. This guidance really is new, and, again, I don't see why they would be issuing it if it wasn't meant to be a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 OK, I could be wrong on this, but hasn't the prosecution always considered the likely defence upfront before any decision to prosecute. For instance, if the potential defendant has an unassailable alibi for a crime, the prosecution isn't going to launch a prosecution no matter what the evidence supporting the allegation might be. It was my understanding that a decision to prosecute was based on the likelihood of a conviction, which would mean that the CPS would have already been looking at the probable defence argument in a rape case. This guidance really is new, and, again, I don't see why they would be issuing it if it wasn't meant to be a change. I beleive its for the reason I stated...they need to be told to consider the likely defence. Like you now need a Lantra Level 5 qualification to work stop go boards Ive discovered this morning. This IS explained in your OP article: Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 what watering down? Perhaps what's happened over recent years ... From an act of violence (or at least credible threat), which we can all agree is a very serious crime ... ... to one where not merely violence but even coercion are no longer relevant, and where the traditional Christmas Story is an absolutely clear and unambiguous case of rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Perhaps what's happened over recent years ... From an act of violence (or at least credible threat), which we can all agree is a very serious crime ... ... to one where not merely violence but even coercion are no longer relevant, and where the traditional Christmas Story is an absolutely clear and unambiguous case of rape. I quite agree there is an agenda, but I dont think this guidance is it. Ive sent CCC an article about the mission creep of the feminist movement...ill post it here: Its from a newsletter from the judgy bitch ( a female anti extreme feminism): The end game of feminism is to make it impossible for a female to do any wrong, absolving her from all responsibility for her actions, no matter how reprehensible. The fact that a human being has a vagina will soon mean that she can not make a bad decision about anything. Punishing or criticizing a woman for her life choices will be abolished. Name one thing right now that a feminist would criticize their gender for doing. I’ll save you the mental effort: there’s nothing. There is absolutely nothing that a girl can do that would get hate from feminists. For example: Girl has no willpower and is 50 pounds overweight? Not her fault. She’s beautiful. Social constructs need to be changed. Girl sluts around with 100 guys without condoms? Not her fault. She’s empowered and strong. Girl is irresponsible with sex and has five abortions in her 20s? It’s her body and she can do whatever she wants. A fetus inside her is not a living entity. Girl is making less money than men? The patriarchy is holding her down. Girl gets drunk in a guy’s house and has sex with him? He took advantage of her. She was raped. Girl studies stupid major in college and can’t get a job? The 1% owes her a marketing manager position. Girl sleeps with her college professor in exchange for a better grade? She was a victim. The professor took advantage of her. Girl likes dating guys much younger than her? You go girl! Rob that cradle! Girl experiences an uncomfortable moment of any kind? She’s being harassed.Men are creeps. Girl travels to Italy or Spain to bang hot European men? She’s romantic. Wife gets slapped by husband after she pushed him first? Call the police and send him to jail. Wife cheated on her faithful husband? He wasn’t attending to her needs. She wasn’t happy. Give her the kids and half his money. Mother runs over her own kid in an accident? The SUV wasn’t safe. It’s the auto industry’s fault. Mother kills all of her kids? She was mentally sick. We must give her love instead of severe punishment. On the flip side, almost anything a man does is wrong: Guy is nice to girl in hopes of getting sex one day? He’s dishonest. He’s the polar opposite of nice. Guy approaches girls in the bar in hopes of getting sex? He’s a rando creep loser. Guy on OK Cupid says he wants a girl who doesn’t play games? Let’s publicly mock him on Tumblr. Guy graduates from college in field that uses math? He’s privileged. We must create expensive programs to push girls into math while excluding boys. Guy makes a joke about fat girls? Hate speech. Guys says he doesn’t date black girls with ghetto attitude? Racist. Guy likes working out to have strong muscles? Narcissist. Guy spends his money on a fast sports car? He’s overcompensating for a small *****. Guy doesn’t want to date girls because he’s tired of flakes? He needs to stop being a boy and man up. Guy says he wants his wife to stay at home and raise the kids? Slaver. Guy believes in limited government without welfare? Right wing whacko. Guy believes hard work is eventually rewarded? Wants poor people in Africa to suffer and starve. Guy calls girls on the internet ugly? Whole internet comes pounding on his door. Guy hits on a girl on the street? Street harassment. Disturbing the peace. Guy travels to Ukraine to get laid? Sex tourist. Guy likes dating girls much younger than him? Sexual predator. Guy likes dating girls just a little bit younger than him? Immature and irresponsible. Hairy man says he likes to raw dog? Disgusting and foul. Promiscuous gay man spreads HIV through raw dogging? It’s okay since he’s gay. Give more taxpayer money to fund HIV research. The most mundane male behavior is quickly attacked, while the most egregious female behavior is rewarded or ignored. As a man, I can clearly see right and wrong behaviors within my own gender. For example, mixing Coca Cola with Johnnie Walker Black (or better) is wrong. Not lifting weights is wrong. But when it comes to feminism, and young American women in general, a man can’t criticize a single thing they are doing without experiencing insults of sexism and misogynism. How can you possibly have a reasonable argument with a feminist if the leading organization of women is not willing to concede that even a crazy mother murdering her own kids is wrong? I feel sorry for the man who attempts to engage feminists in intellectual debate with the hope of making them see the light or to understand reality. As you can see, that was never their goal at any point in time. They don’t care about your arguments because you are a MAN. They won’t accept your judgement of them because you are a MAN. Unless you are willing to admit that there is nothing wrong a woman can do, and that most male behavior needs to be corrected with help from the state, your efforts will be in vain. You’re better off calling them ugly instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Have you ever served on a jury (for any type of case, not just rape)? Real life is not like CSI. Plenty of cases are decided on one person's word against another. No I have not. If I was - and the case had no tangible evidence rather than one persons word against another ? I would be not guilty - 100% of the time. If that meant I had to sit with the jury for 3 weeks in a hotel - do be it. I would not put someone in jail based simply on the word of another person. That's barbaric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 ah, thanks. So from line one, you think a woman needs to have corroboration to even make a claim? As I said - some form of evidence. Corroboration , bruises, signs of struggle, suspicious activity seen by others re. the bloke in question on the night, injuries consistent with rape etc.. There are many things that can be used to back something up. Whether they should be evidence at an actual trial is another matter. We are talking here about whether a case should be started in the first place. Girl walks into station saying Mr x raped me - police take her for questions - zero evidence on top of her claim ? Nope - that's not a case IMO. Waste of time and resources. And I will repeat - I know this will result in some men getting away with it. However I would rather live in this scenario than what is happening today. And this goes for crime in general and not just rape. That's how I see things - if others disagree - up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I've posted this before....absolutely dreadful song...could never imagine a record company would consent to releasing a mainstream song, whereby the roles are reversed, and the bloke sings about how much of a slob his missus is. There's casual sexism is a lot of TV adverts - string woman, weak man. Probably a lot of feminists will say that they have been repressed for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and now "its their turn"...I'd imagine things will balance out in time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitevanman Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I've posted this before....absolutely dreadful song...could never imagine a record company would consent to releasing a mainstream song, whereby the roles are reversed, and the bloke sings about how much of a slob his missus is. There's casual sexism is a lot of TV adverts - string woman, weak man. Probably a lot of feminists will say that they have been repressed for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and now "its their turn"...I'd imagine things will balance out in time... Things will balance out in time because western civilisation will cease to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I beleive its for the reason I stated...they need to be told to consider the likely defence. Like you now need a Lantra Level 5 qualification to work stop go boards Ive discovered this morning. This IS explained in your OP article: Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented with full capacity and freedom to do so. But doesn't this alter the entire "innocent until proven guilty" principle that is meant to undermine the word of law in this country ? Onus is now on me to demonstrate I didn't commit a crime ? That's totally flipped things around. You should be able to simply say nothing - as the onus should be on the police to show you have committed a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/jan/21/naked-pictures-this-is-what-i-did-revenge-porn-emma-holten-video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northerner Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I've posted this before....absolutely dreadful song...could never imagine a record company would consent to releasing a mainstream song, whereby the roles are reversed, and the bloke sings about how much of a slob his missus is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Swansea teacher just cleared of having sex with under-age girls. I found it interesting that he had 9 women on the jury. http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Teacher-Jonathan-Norbury-cleared-age-sex/story-25949146-detail/story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 But doesn't this alter the entire "innocent until proven guilty" principle that is meant to undermine the word of law in this country ? Onus is now on me to demonstrate I didn't commit a crime ? That's totally flipped things around. You should be able to simply say nothing - as the onus should be on the police to show you have committed a crime. course not. The law hasnt changed one bit. And you are innocent until found guilty in court. And yes, when in Court, you will submit your defence...if thats what you mean by the Onus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feed Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I've posted this before....absolutely dreadful song...could never imagine a record company would consent to releasing a mainstream song, whereby the roles are reversed, and the bloke sings about how much of a slob his missus is. There's casual sexism is a lot of TV adverts - string woman, weak man. Probably a lot of feminists will say that they have been repressed for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and now "its their turn"...I'd imagine things will balance out in time... You do know it’s a euphemism song don’t you. I need a man to take control… I want to see you work it out now… If a man can “dance” he gets a second chance… Do you need me to spell it out to you….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I quite agree there is an agenda, but I dont think this guidance is it. Ive sent CCC an article about the mission creep of the feminist movement...ill post it here: Its from a newsletter from the judgy bitch ( a female anti extreme feminism): The end game of feminism is to make it impossible for a female to do any wrong, absolving her from all responsibility for her actions, no matter how reprehensible. The fact that a human being has a vagina will soon mean that she can not make a bad decision about anything. Punishing or criticizing a woman for her life choices will be abolished. Name one thing right now that a feminist would criticize their gender for doing. I’ll save you the mental effort: there’s nothing. There is absolutely nothing that a girl can do that would get hate from feminists. For example: Girl has no willpower and is 50 pounds overweight? Not her fault. She’s beautiful. Social constructs need to be changed. Girl sluts around with 100 guys without condoms? Not her fault. She’s empowered and strong. Girl is irresponsible with sex and has five abortions in her 20s? It’s her body and she can do whatever she wants. A fetus inside her is not a living entity. Girl is making less money than men? The patriarchy is holding her down. Girl gets drunk in a guy’s house and has sex with him? He took advantage of her. She was raped. Girl studies stupid major in college and can’t get a job? The 1% owes her a marketing manager position. Girl sleeps with her college professor in exchange for a better grade? She was a victim. The professor took advantage of her. Girl likes dating guys much younger than her? You go girl! Rob that cradle! Girl experiences an uncomfortable moment of any kind? She’s being harassed.Men are creeps. Girl travels to Italy or Spain to bang hot European men? She’s romantic. Wife gets slapped by husband after she pushed him first? Call the police and send him to jail. Wife cheated on her faithful husband? He wasn’t attending to her needs. She wasn’t happy. Give her the kids and half his money. Mother runs over her own kid in an accident? The SUV wasn’t safe. It’s the auto industry’s fault. Mother kills all of her kids? She was mentally sick. We must give her love instead of severe punishment. On the flip side, almost anything a man does is wrong: Guy is nice to girl in hopes of getting sex one day? He’s dishonest. He’s the polar opposite of nice. Guy approaches girls in the bar in hopes of getting sex? He’s a rando creep loser. Guy on OK Cupid says he wants a girl who doesn’t play games? Let’s publicly mock him on Tumblr. Guy graduates from college in field that uses math? He’s privileged. We must create expensive programs to push girls into math while excluding boys. Guy makes a joke about fat girls? Hate speech. Guys says he doesn’t date black girls with ghetto attitude? Racist. Guy likes working out to have strong muscles? Narcissist. Guy spends his money on a fast sports car? He’s overcompensating for a small *****. Guy doesn’t want to date girls because he’s tired of flakes? He needs to stop being a boy and man up. Guy says he wants his wife to stay at home and raise the kids? Slaver. Guy believes in limited government without welfare? Right wing whacko. Guy believes hard work is eventually rewarded? Wants poor people in Africa to suffer and starve. Guy calls girls on the internet ugly? Whole internet comes pounding on his door. Guy hits on a girl on the street? Street harassment. Disturbing the peace. Guy travels to Ukraine to get laid? Sex tourist. Guy likes dating girls much younger than him? Sexual predator. Guy likes dating girls just a little bit younger than him? Immature and irresponsible. Hairy man says he likes to raw dog? Disgusting and foul. Promiscuous gay man spreads HIV through raw dogging? It’s okay since he’s gay. Give more taxpayer money to fund HIV research. The most mundane male behavior is quickly attacked, while the most egregious female behavior is rewarded or ignored. As a man, I can clearly see right and wrong behaviors within my own gender. For example, mixing Coca Cola with Johnnie Walker Black (or better) is wrong. Not lifting weights is wrong. But when it comes to feminism, and young American women in general, a man can’t criticize a single thing they are doing without experiencing insults of sexism and misogynism. How can you possibly have a reasonable argument with a feminist if the leading organization of women is not willing to concede that even a crazy mother murdering her own kids is wrong? I feel sorry for the man who attempts to engage feminists in intellectual debate with the hope of making them see the light or to understand reality. As you can see, that was never their goal at any point in time. They don’t care about your arguments because you are a MAN. They won’t accept your judgement of them because you are a MAN. Unless you are willing to admit that there is nothing wrong a woman can do, and that most male behavior needs to be corrected with help from the state, your efforts will be in vain. You’re better off calling them ugly instead. Excellent post. People need to wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 You do know it’s a euphemism song don’t you. I need a man to take control… I want to see you work it out now… If a man can “dance” he gets a second chance… Do you need me to spell it out to you….. If you really want to be pedantic.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Does_Nothing The lyrics focus on the men in Dixon's past relationships and their lazy attitudes. The chorus states her frustration with men not completing everyday housekeeping tasks; "Does he wash up? Never wash up/Does he clean up? No he never cleans up/Does he brush up? He never brushed up". The in final verse the lyrics state, "And if the man can't dance/He gets no second chance"; a reference to her refusal to date men if they cannot dance. In an interview Dixon explained in further detail about the lyric, saying "I have to be honest, I do like a man who can dance, but it's not a deal-breaker. It's nice if they can dance, but if they can't we'll just have to work on other areas!"[10] www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/s104/strictly-come-dancing/interviews/a132930/alesha-dixon.html#~p2SsOsdWbUGpts "Well, the title's very lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek. I don't really mean to offend boys! It's a fun, feelgood song that's playing around with guys rather than trying to attack them." Of course you are love.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Well, the title's very lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek. I don't really mean to offend boys! It's a fun, feelgood song that's playing around with guys rather than trying to attack them.. Women are empowered. Well, the title's very lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek. I don't really mean to offend girls! It's a fun, feelgood song that's playing around with girls rather than trying to attack them. Hate speech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.