Girl accuses stranger off Facebook of rape

I think partly it means we still have a pervading culture of thinking that women can bring rape upon themselves, by the way they dress or act.

which is ********, and most men will not agree with.

and btw... to me rape isnt being so ****ed you forgot you said yes. its about women (or underage girls) being forced into sexual acts they are not willing participants in.
 
The reason the perp (male or female) is named before being found guilty or innocent is so other victims can come forward who never had the strength previously.

Whilst it seems harsh, we do need to consider the victims of rape and their ability to standup and say they were raped given the amount of stigma society still has around the whole crime.
 
I seem to recall this being reported a few weeks back on another news site. The daily mail doesn't make a mention of it but does anyone know if the lady was ever punished?
 
I seem to recall this being reported a few weeks back on another news site. The daily mail doesn't make a mention of it but does anyone know if the lady was ever punished?

Yes she got 200hrs of community service for essentially ruining an innocent mans life.
 
I seem to recall this being reported a few weeks back on another news site. The daily mail doesn't make a mention of it but does anyone know if the lady was ever punished?

Did you actually read the DM article?

It was only two weeks ago that Linsey, a single mother, appeared at Aberdeen Sheriff Court, where she admitted a charge of wasting police time.

And her punishment for a callous deceit that besmirched the names of two innocent young men? A risible 200 hours of community service and a social services supervision order.
 
which is ********, and most men will not agree with.

and btw... to me rape isnt being so ****ed you forgot you said yes. its about women (or underage girls) being forced into sexual acts they are not willing participants in.

I dont think a woman's dress or the way they act makes them a target for rape, but there will be the mentally challenged male out there that will see a girl/women in a compromising way and pray on them, which is all sorts of wrong.

But the "to me rape isnt being so ****ed you forgot you said yes" i agree with you, i guess it happens more than we think, as Dis86 said in his story, engaged/married women feeling frisky when they are out and then regretting it later when home, so decide to make up some fantasised version of events to get them out of a situation, blaming the male as he is an easy target, again all sorts of wrong.
 
The reason the perp (male or female) is named before being found guilty or innocent is so other victims can come forward who never had the strength previously.

Whilst it seems harsh, we do need to consider the victims of rape and their ability to standup and say they were raped given the amount of stigma society still has around the whole crime.

And what about all the other victims of the woman falsely accusing a guy of raping her because he wouldn't give in to her blackmail demands?
 
Oh snap just missed that part of the article ( I skim read :P).

200 hours is bloody terrible - surely this man is entitled to sue?

EDIT: On a side note I have no idea how to tell someone has quoted me. Apologies if I ignore you.
 
The reason the perp (male or female) is named before being found guilty or innocent is so other victims can come forward who never had the strength previously.

Do you think that argument justifies the ruination of lives due to false allegations such as the one being discussed here, or proven innocence?

Whilst it seems harsh, we do need to consider the victims of rape and their ability to standup and say they were raped given the amount of stigma society still has around the whole crime.

Of course we do. Naming the accused should still be banned.
 
Do you think that argument justifies the ruination of lives due to false allegations such as the one being discussed here, or proven innocence?

I agree the false accusations makes a mockery of the law but I would suggest there is far more rapes then there are false accussers.

We must ensure laws protect the victim and not the perp and changing it because some people are mentally deficient is not the right way to go
 
I agree the false accusations makes a mockery of the law but I would suggest there is far more rapes then there are false accusers.

I'm sure you're right, but what has that got to do with it? There are probably far more legitimate accusations than false ones across the board, taking all crimes into account. Shall we just lock everyone up and not worry about trials, because the accusations are true most of the time?

We must ensure laws protect the victim and not the perp and changing it because some people are mentally deficient is not the right way to go

Anonymity for the accused (innocent until proven guilty, remember) doesn't hurt the victim.
 
I agree the false accusations makes a mockery of the law but I would suggest there is far more rapes then there are false accussers.

We must ensure laws protect the victim and not the perp and changing it because some people are mentally deficient is not the right way to go
Then names should not be released. People who have been raped have already been raped, they're already a victim. By releasing the names of innocent men, you're creating victims where there were none before.
 
That makes it all ok. C'mon boys, rape away, they cry for a bit but then everything's ok because people pat them on the head and tell them everything's going to be fine.

You strike me as a particularly unstable, venemous, nasty little person; coming right out of the gate with "rape apologist culture" anti-male nonsense is not any part of this thread/discussion.

Rape, and all that it encompasses, is one of the most horrendous things to exist on this earth. Besides that Finnish fish that's fermented in the tin... seriously, eeeeeurgh.

That applies whether it's being raped, or being falsely accused in today's society of making the act. Both of these destroy lives utterly and completely, albeit in different manners. Neither should be placed at loggerheads in order to provide a larger proportion of sympathy to either sex. You seem very much more geared towards the female outlook than the male, making ridiculous sweeping comments that it's somehow amusing or enlightening to see that what you think is the "majority" of men are just three minutes away from raping someone given the opportunity, without realising that you're making exactly the same kind of correlation that some braindead idiot makes when they say "if she dresses like that, she's asking for it". Similarly, one does notice that you didn't reply to Xordium's query regarding the number of men that are raped every year? No position on that?

They're both utterly skewed, and utterly ridiculous viewpoints that represent next to nobody. Not one single person that I know would shrug their shoulders upon hearing of a genuine rape, and similarly not one would react with anything less than disgust when hearing about the destruction of some poor bloke's life through false accusation of such.

Grow up, look around, and engage your brain.
 
I'm sure you're right, but what has that got to do with it? There are probably far more legitimate accusations than false ones across the board, taking all crimes into account. Shall we just lock everyone up and not worry about trials, because the accusations are true most of the time?



Anonymity for the accused (innocent until proven guilty, remember) doesn't hurt the victim.

Then names should not be released. People who have been raped have already been raped, they're already a victim. By releasing the names of innocent men, you're creating victims where there were none before.

Like I said I may not agree with it but the law is there to allow previous victims to come forward.

Another reason the law exists is to ensure that someone who have been found guilty of a previous rape gets a fair trial, that is to say as rape is a Crown crime a jury is not unduly influenced if the perp is already in jail
 
Like I said I may not agree with it but the law is there to allow previous victims to come forward.

Like I said, that's not a valid reason. Victims should never be discouraged from coming forward, but they aren't being prevented from doing so by blocking the names of the accused from being published in the press.

Innocent, and anonymous (to the press anyway) until proven guilty.

Another reason the law exists is to ensure that someone who have been found guilty of a previous rape gets a fair trial, that is to say as rape is a Crown crime a jury is not unduly influenced if the perp is already in jail.

Not sure what you're saying here - what's being in jail got to do with it?
 
Like I said I may not agree with it but the law is there to allow previous victims to come forward.

Another reason the law exists is to ensure that someone who have been found guilty of a previous rape gets a fair trial, that is to say as rape is a Crown crime a jury is not unduly influenced if the perp is already in jail

I'm not sure how pre-judgement of a man already found guilty of rape isn't worse than pre-judgement of a man who hasn't yet been found guilty...
 
Back
Top Bottom