Celebrity Rapist Pt. 97 and mysoginy in popular culture.

[belboid]

while i might not share his opinions or conclusions, he hasn't really seemed obnoxious or imbecelic, unless you find the arguments he makes as opposed to the way he expresses them obnoxious; but certainly i don't think it's a good way of winning folk round to whatever point of view, to debate points back and forth, and then without them being overly rude or anything, to instead resort to insulting them, calling them obnoxious and a cunt, and saying folk will clearly see this.

I find being utterly disingenuous, unable to accept or admit error, refusing to answer points put repeatedly etc etc to be fairly obnoxious, especially when allied with such a supercilious arrogance. Use of the word 'cunt' was quite specific to show up an error in his post (one which he ignored as it contradicted his statement).

And what I said people would see was his ignorance most specifically, and the obnoxiousness of his views (tho I grant you that the latter could have been taken to refer to his method of putting his view across ratther han the view itself).

 

[Streathamite]

It is fairly common practice for a woman to get herself impregnated in between commiting a crime and being sentenced,

you've STILL not substantiated this OUTRAGEOUS statement. "som,eone told me in a pub" really doesn't cut it, I'm afraid

 

[belboid]

yeah, that was the one that really made me think 'obnoxious bastard' (cos i dont normally use the c word unless there is explicit reason)

 

[trashpony]

Victims just have to report it as soon as they can and then stay with the case because i think the law doesn't do a bad job on this one.

Gosh yes - the law's utterly fabulous on rape cases - which is why it's being changed! *slaps forehead* Because the current law hasn't let me down at all, no siree

And I've never used the c word before. But I've never had a discussion about rape with people who hold views similar to some of those expressed on this thread.

I'm going to Waitrose now

 

[Rich Lyon]

*phew* Is it safe to come back out now?

 

[ch750536]

The whole issue for me is that it is so incredibly grey.

I could invite a woman back to my room, do some canoodling, i could undress her, she could smear me in oil, then have sex.

At no point did I ask if I could 'do' that to her, how do I know I had consent?

She didn't give consent, could be of the type that likes to 'play games' such as 'rough' sex.

How would I know? If I don't know then how the hell can we expect the courts to know.

Also, it is so incredibly easy for a chap to get stitched up by a woman accusing him of rape. Never any witnesses, proof of sex is easy. One word against the other as far as consent is concerned.

It is very difficult, especially for the real cases of rape that go unpunished. We have seen recently high profile cases that have proven the fact that this happens. Does this muddy the waters for when a genuine case does happen?

Dont take this post the wrong way please.

 

[Streathamite]

*phew* Is it safe to come back out now?

provided you answer my last post.
I am disgusted at what you have implied.
i'm waiting....

 

[belboid]

Also, it is so incredibly easy for a chap to get stitched up by a woman accusing him of rape. Never any witnesses, proof of sex is easy. One word against the other as far as consent is concerned.[/I]

whilst it may seem like that - the facts are quite different. It is the woman who has to prove that she was raped, not the man proving he didn't do it. To fake the kind of evidence required for conviction would be very very difficult.

 

[ch750536]

whilst it may seem like that - the facts are quite different. It is the woman who has to prove that she was raped, not the man proving he didn't do it. To fake the kind of evidence required for conviction would be very very difficult.

Unfortunately a conviction isn't needed. Making the claim with such an emotional charge is enough in the eyes of the public.

 

[belboid]

such as? Craig Charles is doing okay, most of those footballers are still playing. Sometimes their public perception has gone down because of the way they have accepted they treated women (iyswim), which whilst stopping short of rape, is still far from respectful.

 

[tbaldwin]

The whole issue for me is that it is so incredibly grey.

I could invite a woman back to my room, do some canoodling, i could undress her, she could smear me in oil, then have sex.

At no point did I ask if I could 'do' that to her, how do I know I had consent?

She didn't give consent, could be of the type that likes to 'play games' such as 'rough' sex.

How would I know? If I don't know then how the hell can we expect the courts to know.

Also, it is so incredibly easy for a chap to get stitched up by a woman accusing him of rape. Never any witnesses, proof of sex is easy. One word against the other as far as consent is concerned.

It is very difficult, especially for the real cases of rape that go unpunished. We have seen recently high profile cases that have proven the fact that this happens. Does this muddy the waters for when a genuine case does happen?

Dont take this post the wrong way please.

I think you would have to be quite unlucky to be wrongly accused once. But if you were accused by 3 different women, i would believe them not you.
unless it looked clear there was some kind of stitch up going on.

 

[ch750536]

such as? Craig Charles is doing okay, most of those footballers are still playing. Sometimes their public perception has gone down because of the way they have accepted they treated women (iyswim), which whilst stopping short of rape, is still far from respectful.

Craig Charles is doing OK now, but at the time he lost a lot of work and took a lot of flak. The point is that whilst he was at court, until he was cleared, people were making decisions as to whether he was a rapist or not. They wouldn't have done this previously. Only once cleared, and in a damning way too (iirc, third time she had claimed this) did he actually be cleared.

All these cases with footballers, I appreciate your opinion of how 'they' treat women, but surely its wrong to paint all with the same brush. If Wayne Rooney were accused he would definately be a rapist (until cleared) whereas Michael Owen would have obviously been stitched up (until charged).

Either way, this is a massive impact on their lives.

 

[ch750536]

I think you would have to be quite unlucky to be wrongly accused once. But if you were accused by 3 different women, i would believe them not you.
unless it looked clear there was some kind of stitch up going on.

and there lies the difficulty. What you are saying is that maybe I should get away with rape once, iyswim.

 

[Rich Lyon]

provided you answer my last post.
I am disgusted at what you have implied.
i'm waiting....

No - how about you answer some of my points, which have been put very considerately, at several points in this discussion, and without a single response. I'm fed up with this simulated indignation as a (poor) substitute for reasoned and civil discussion.

Of course I can't give you google clips to press articles citing women who have decided to get pregnant instead of going to prison. Of course you won't accept evidence based on conversations with women who know of friends and aquaintances who have done so - and who, incidently, are even more disgusted about the practice than I am.

So instead, here is Cherie Booth QC, our Prime Minister's wife, calling on courts to "think twice before sending mothers to prison". She has been successful, and as a consequence she has created an incentive for those wishing to avoid sentencing to get pregnant. Which some do.

I've implied nothing. Your digust is hubris. How about you engage on some of the points?

 

[belboid]

Have you actually read your link? It contradicts much of what you have been arguing re womens sentencing. And it is deeply untrue to say your points have not been 'engaged with'. You may not have liked the answers, but they were engaged with. It is you who are seeking to avoid answering the points put to you.

 

[Rich Lyon]

Have you actually read your link? It contradicts much of what you have been arguing re womens sentencing. And it is deeply untrue to say your points have not been 'engaged with'. You may not have liked the answers, but they were engaged with. It is you who are seeking to avoid answering the points put to you.

Of course I have. You may recall a way back in this thread dismissing (presumably because you didn't understand) the point that a large [edited] percentage rise in a small figure is less important that a small rise in a big number. The article correctly identifies large rises - in very small numbers. Women are more likely now than they were a few years ago to go to jail - but still much less likely than men to go to jail, which is the germane point to this thread's assertion of a misogynist society.

And I was inviting the person I was addressing to address some of the points instead of stamping their little foot - I think you and I know each other's views well enough by now.

 

[Streathamite]

No - how about you answer some of my points, which have been put very considerately, at several points in this discussion, and without a single response. ?

you really shouldn't think on an empty head, you know. You haven't put any points to me personally, so how can I answer them? The baseless, vile allegation you made, and which I picked up on, was the one I was interested in, and which i'm not surprised to see you weasel on.

I'm fed up with this simulated indignation as a (poor) substitute for reasoned and civil discussion.

Ladies 'n' Gentleman, we have a master magician amongst us! he knows the innormost state of our minds and feelings better than we all do ourselves. despite the fact that the anger directed towards him on this thread looks pretty damn genuine, if he says it's

simulated

- why, then of course it must be so! Now why didn't I think of this before?

Of course I can't give you google clips to press articles citing women who have decided to get pregnant instead of going to prison. Of course you won't accept evidence based on conversations with women who know of friends and aquaintances who have done so - and who, incidently, are even more disgusted about the practice than I am.

so it's bullshit, in other words.

So instead, here is Cherie Booth QC, our Prime Minister's wife, calling on courts to "think twice before sending mothers to prison".

Oh, ffs! Let me explain;she is an employment law specialist barrister who is junior to them, she has never done a day's criminal law advocacy in her life, and she has always gone to great lengths to insist on total separation of her career and her husband's role.
Given that, has it never occurred to you that it is not beyond the wit and ken of m'luds to go tell counsel to go take a running jump and sod off out of their domain? and don't you think that that might just possibly have occurred to female criminals too?

She has been successful, and as a consequence she has created an incentive for those wishing to avoid sentencing to get pregnant. Which some do.

evidence of her success in this please? or - again - that some female villains have got up the duff to avoid bird|? She made a speech. lawyers do loads of those. so do PMs wives. big deal.

I've implied nothing.

No you haven't, you've said it clear as day. which makes it even worse

Your digust is hubris.

Oh sodding hell, we're back to The great Lyonini, mindreader extraordinaire again. what's the next trick, spoonbending?

How about you engage on some of the points

I've just fucking told you; I was interested in that one specific point-as is pitifully obvious. what part of this do you not get?
And do you understand - at all - that every woman knows - unless she is extraordinarily dim - that having a kid is a 16 year sentence from which there is no escape? sure they'll cop that rather than 5 years, less remission, or whatever.

 

[tbaldwin]

and there lies the difficulty. What you are saying is that maybe I should get away with rape once, iyswim.

No i dont want anybody to get away with rape. What i am saying is that its possible that you could be wrongly/maliciously accused once but a lot less likely more than once.
If such a small % of rapes lead to a conviction then something really needs to change.

 

[Rich Lyon]

[Red Jezza]: I've just fucking told you; I was interested in that one specific point

Can anyone say: strawman? Quote: Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'd give that a bluster/content ratio of about 90%, often an indication of an argument's fuel tank running on fumes.

Firstly, in a conversation of, say, 5 people (like this one), each individual making each point separately to each other participant would increase the length of the thread by 5(factorial), or 120 times. So the convention arises that a point is made once, and to all. So spare us the bullshit about how points have not been put to you personally, and get on with the argument.

Secondly, sarcasm should be done well, or not at all. So regarding the whole mindreading thing, that puts you in the "not at all" category.

Thirdly, regarding "so it's bullshit in other words". No, in other words, your unwillingness to accept my word for it leaves this point unsupported. Deal with it - I can.

Fourthly, regarding "she is an employment law specialist barrister who is junior to them, she has never done a day's criminal law advocacy in her life - what a relief! Then people are paying her £30,000 per speech to hear her views as a Junior Barrister. And her husband's capacity to elevate her seniors in their careers will have nothing to do with their receptivity to her views, because she has always gone to great lengths to insist on total separation of her career and her husband's role Well, that's settled then.

Fifthly, re. "evidence of her success in this please?" - we've covered that. Note I don't say, "I've just f*cking told you" as if you might have had some chance to reply to the point further up this posting and are therefore stupid in the way you would have been if we were standing talking. That would be unnecessary bluster, and I wouldn't want to make the same mistake as you.

Sixthly, re. "unless she is extraordinarily dim" ... In what way would you say this qualification narrows the field of candidates? What would you say the average intelligence of a woman with a child is who commits a crime that attracts a custodial sentence?

 

[Harold Hill]

Why are there so many loony rights for dads people on this board? .

Where did the need to say that come from?

 

[detective-boy]

Does this muddy the waters for when a genuine case does happen?

Yes it does. Rape allegations are often a nightmare to investgate because you frrequently have cross allegations - he raped me - no she consented. The issue of consent rarely has any direct evidence to resolve it one way or another - if the evidence does not exist no amount of investigation will find it. Sadly the existence of some (surprisingly many in my experience) examples of false / malicious allegations mean that great care has to be taken and it is a very frustrating area for investigators.

 

[Autonomous]

tbaldwin

I absolutely agree that if the purported victim can undergo sexual interrogation on the stand, the purported criminal should too. That is balanced and liberal. Further, there needs to be a ban on naming accusers and defendents untill the veridct. This would probably help things more because the press wouldnt be able to feed off cases as much.

The Law regarding 'Hearsay' and 'Bad Character' evidence changed earlier this year. I won't go into it in great detail because I'm not that hot on it but Jurors can know about previous convictions or 'Bad Character' provided the Prosecution can convince the Trial Judge that it's relevant. This legal argument will go on before a jury is sworn and quite often after as well as things crop up in cross-examination etc, to the annoyance of jurors who have to be ushered out of court every five minutes for it to happen.

Same goes for victims/witnesses. The Judge must simply make careful directions to the Jury to the effect that this 'Bad Character' of a given witness or defendant is just one of many things they should consider in reaching a verdict and they should consider the case on its own individual merits etc etc. Once it's established what is going to be made known to the Jury then I imagine both Parties should have space to beat the person in the stand about the head with it within reason.

 

[detective-boy]

The Law regarding 'Hearsay' and 'Bad Character' evidence changed earlier this year.

I think you are probably talking about the Criminal Justice Act 2003. s.98 et seq refer to Bad Character (both witness and defendant). s.114 et seq refer to hearsay evidence.

I think the bad character rules were brought into force in December 2004. In short they allow evidence of bad character only if it is of substantial value to the proceedings. The rules are complex and are hedged about with exceptions and conditions. I suspect that it will continue to improve the situation but there is ample opportunity for the unscrupulous defence brief to still make a case for questioning the victim as to their previous sexual history in circumstances which really do not merit it. The defence hold the aces in that they make application that they cannot otherwise effectively defend their client and it is in the "interests of justice" for them to be allowed to proceed and many judges, fearing reversal on appeal, let them get away with it.

As I said, things are steadily being improved but there is a way to go yet - and diversity education for the legal profession (judges AND lawyers) would be
a good place to start. It is often not so much WHAT they do as HOW they do it which damages victims.

As for the hearsay rules, I can't see these having a major impact other than widening the scope for others to give evidence if the victim is not available due to illness or fear. That said, it is highly unlikely that it will allow a rape trial to proceed without the victim - the evidence of consent is going to be so central that the dangers of allowing hearsay evidence (an inability to effectively cross examine the witness on the truth of the evidence given) are likely to always exceed the interests of justice in allowing it. It may improve things in relation to corroborative evidence in such cases however.

That said, I cannot find that the hearsay changes have yet been brought into effect. There have been eight commencement orders for the Act thus far and I don't think s.114 et seq have been included. (That said, I lose the will to live trying to keep up with such messy commencement arrangements and may have missed it!!)