![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Even though the money would come from the Health Service and not the Saville estate? ie, the taxpayer?
Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator
- Thread starter fidget
- Start date
Even though the money would come from the Health Service and not the Saville estate? ie, the taxpayer?
Just seems odd that it might be the taxpayer who pays for his crimes.
Last edited:
How do you know?
They claimed it was fake on last nights HIGNFY IIRC.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,400
Truthfully, it is not known with any degree of accuracy, just like the true figures for rape. However, my point with posting links was to show the huge disparity between false rape claim sentencing and that of actual rape when it can be argued that the people falseley accused can have their lives ruined too. Also there is no consistency in the sentencing that is made either. It seems because the perpertrators are women, the law views them as vulnerable somehow and lets them off. Added to that, men are not entitled to anonymity like women are, so there is a further problem there. It has been said on here that the cards are stacked against women in rape cases, but I think the actual truth is that it is stacked against men just as much.
Men will be arrested on the basis of an accusation, even without evidence.
Men are assumed to be guilty until proven not guilty, and the fact they are not allowed anonymity further reinforces that.
Men, will, even if found not guilty (or if the charges are dropped) forever have that "is he really a rapist" question hanging over their heads.
Women do not see the same severity of sentencing when they are found to be making false allegations, even though they may have destroyed someones life in doing so.
Women are often seen as the fairer sex, and more believable - someone crying and appearing upset instantly makes onlookers feel concerned, and as we know many women are capable of 'performing' in such a way.
If a woman is very drunk it is assumed that she cannot give consent and the CPS even state in their guidance that this can be "long before losing conciousness" impying the individual will still have cognitive function. If a man is also just as drunk, why then does he become responsible for what happens in the bedroom?
So my question is - how many of the convicted rape cases are from false allegations? We will never know, but if a man has no way of proving where he was, even if he is totally innocent, he could go to jail - and if you do some googling there are plenty of cases where this has happened.
Even if the false allegations do pale into insignificance, why are they not treated as harshly when they are found?
Feminist movements are always trying to preach equality, and always trying to say how the law is against them but I cant help feeling it isnt, not at all.
We see the same thing with parental rights. The law normally sides with the mother and the father gets kicked out and has to pay child support. Now why is that? When my sister got divorced her friend advised her to say that her soon to be ex husband hit her and the kids and if she did, she would be assured custody. She wasnt the only 'friend' to advise that, and unfortunately she would not have to offer any proof - they would just take her word for it.
Fortunately she did the decent thing and made no such false allegations.
Yes, I agree. I do feel that the number of rape cases reported are more to do with how the woman feels about being a victim, rather than how she feels about the CPS being less than rigorous when prosecuting allegations. But you can't prosecute a rape case if they do not come forward in the first place. The conviction rate - which if the official figures are believed is on a par with the overall conviction rate for any crime and women should be reassured by this.
With regard to he said / she said, how do we tackle this without the very real possibility of sending many innocent men to jail? It is a really tough question and I would not like to sit on a jury in such a case. However, identifying that the very nature of the case is ambiguous does not mean we live in a rape culture, or that people on a jury are rape apologists because often the evidence presented does not uphold the ethos of reasonable doubt. Would you like to send a man to jail based on evidence that often amount to stories from both parties (IE personal testimony)?
But it does not help to have people shouting out rape statistics that are innacurate or slanted to suit an agenda. That only harms the case for women reporting rape because it is an extra problem to contend with when they are already feeling vulnerable. For instance if you tell a woman that 1 in 4 women are subject to rape, but they only convict 6% of men, of course she will be hesitant. It does not help that these so called rape support groups use woefully inadequate surveys and then bandy the results around as fact. Seriously? A survey of 1007 women is enough to state unequivacally that 1 in 4 women are raped? It is ridiculous and does nothing to help the many rape victims out there.
I would hazard a guess that 90% of people on here would offer support and sympathy to a woman who had been raped by her partner or husband or anyone else for that matter - and I suspect there would also be many kindred spirits too who could offer advice. I think we need to dispel the myth that we all blame women for their own rape, it is simply not true.
Yes, a lot of women are raped, but is the true figure really 1 in 200? Nobody knows, and maybe we should start there? At least then we can have some honest answers for women and not ones based on silly surveys, or surveys using ambiguous questions. They are almost as bad as the surveys done on beauty products! (88% of women agree.....then in small print out of 50 women asked etc etc)
How about a proper survey that simply asks, "have you ever been raped?"
Not have you ever had sex whilst really drunk, or have you sometimes felt you didnt want to have sex but did any way, but a direct question where there can be no ambiguity.
No you are absolutely right. What I was getting at were instances where the cause is harmed. There seemed to be a lot of negativity aimed at the police and the CPS for low conviction rates and poor attitude, when in reality (according to the figures) they do a good job when they have allegations they can prosecute. They cant always prosecute due to lack of evidence, but is that their fault?
Women making false claims does not help, even if they are a small number - nor does the inequalty of the law. Nor does the huge differences in 'facts' on rape numbers, nor does said figures being slanted for agendas.
That is really what I was getting at - it is not that the CPS and the police that are lacking and instead of pointing fingers at them (and the populace in general) we should look at why some people have the views on rape they do, and why its reports are not as high as they should be.
On that subject, I stand by my point that banging on about the 1 in 4 claim and then quoting the 6% conviction figure as fact even though it is based on attrition is damaging. People making such claims have no idea how many of the reported cases are genuine, and how many are dropped before investigation because they are false, or how many are found to be false during investigation. There are no real reports to show this, so at the very least the figures they quote are disingenuous and I feel they harm the cause, not help it.
Also, it makes me wonder why people think women wont report rape falsely? There is clear evidence they do, and as it stands it is a small number. However, is it the true number? Just something to think about.
Cheers
Buff
^Good lord!
You are conflating the actions of the person and the responsibilities of these institutions.
Neglection of duties and protection can attract tort.
It isn't for what Savile done, but the aspect that institutions could have prevented or contributed to some of these allegations.
This isn't lodging a claim against the BBC or the NHS because a person was molested by a TV personallity, it is for their lack of care or attention.
You know this I suspect.
I suppose we'll know soon enough.
[TW]Fox;22952132 said:
You are conflating the actions of the person and the responsibilities of these institutions.
Neglection of duties and protection can attract tort.
It isn't for what Savile done, but the aspect that institutions could have prevented or contributed to some of these allegations.
This isn't lodging a claim against the BBC or the NHS because a person was molested by a TV personallity, it is for their lack of care or attention.
You know this I suspect.
I suppose we'll know soon enough.
Last edited:
It's less that they're all lying, it's whether some are lying. I'm sure there are some unscrupulous people thinking they can cash in on this and sell their "story".
Have I got news for you had a better idea of melting down all the jim will fixit badges and making a massive stake to drive though his grave...
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
break the BBC up and stop public funding for it let it stand on its own by merit alone!
Why??
Commercial funding gets us lumped with ITV that puts on the drossy star wars films in the middle of a dull Saturday afternoon.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
lol have you seen what what tosh the BBC had on!
BBC is poor tv and we are forced to pay
with todays tech just a
encrypt it so I can have a choice to pay for it but they dare not do that do they? and why cant they there is no logical reason why they cant
BBC is poor tv and we are forced to pay
with todays tech just a
encrypt it so I can have a choice to pay for it but they dare not do that do they? and why cant they there is no logical reason why they cant
Last edited:
But the accusation is a statement and therefore evidence.
No, the burden of proof of guilty is same as for other crimes.
And so will anyone who goes before trial for any crime.
Maybe because there is a significant difference between a false allegation and a physical act that would cause direct physical harm etc.
Care to back that up because it's well documented that female jurors do not see it that way at all.
Maybe because consent has not been gained no matter what. If the defendant wants to please mitigating circumstances that's a problem with their plea not the prosecution. Moreover, you;d be hard pressed to argue you were incapable of cognition but capable of erectile performance!
Yes we could search for a spotlight fallacy whereas the statistics indicate this is not really happening much.
Well you've answered your own question there. And see previous comment.
Rubbish, I've been involved in enough case conferences to know circumstantial evidence is circumstantial.
So there was no actual issue then ... just a few friends telling her to do something incorrect to fight her corner in a rather stupid fashion. I suspect idiot advice was given the other way too I know I had that when my first marriage ended.
I can see why you do get annoyed by hurfdurf's stance of calling people apologists. It's rather stupid - I think there has been a big shift over the years away 'victim blaming', I really noticed it when that Jodie Foster film came out. That changed peoples perceptions somewhat. Likewise I can also see why hurfdurf gets a bit tetchy as rape is something that is more prevalent that the conviction figures suggest. I don't think that CDC report is far from the truth. Their epidemiology is usually second to none and balanced and without bias or agenda - as is their remit. However, I do not think you can then say there is a general 'rape culture'. If you want to find a 'rape culture' you need to look at the US Army or gangs not the general population which like I have said has drastically changed its views over the years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
lol have you seen what what tosh the BBC had on!
BBC is poor tv and we are forced to pay
Not this canard again!!
Not just in this country either.
Loved the point made on HIGNFY ( I think both Hislop and the Father Ted writer, cant remember his name), made some good statements about the whole thing. But then to go and point out with the DM Online was publishing whilst bashing the BBC was a terrific point to make.
Last edited: