Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 540
I like it when people do this, because they know that you know, but they don't want other people to know as well, so they call you a name in the hope that you'll be quiet and other people will be discouraged under threat of being called a hurty name.
Depends on the context really. For example there was that footballer case not too long ago where the conviction was overturned thanks to evidence from former partners re: the supposed victim’s behaviour in bed etc...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
And that one example should influence every trial so we can ****-shame the women to the jury?
Why would you do that? You're not making much sense here Vincent - try to read what was posted. Are you in the habit of **** shaming women?
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 540
From my point of view, it'd most likely be like being locked in a room with a Jehovah's Witness.
The main reason for a person's belief such as his, is religious.
It's be a great laugh, not.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
Yes, very religious me. Super religious
Other than being agnostic, and pretty much swaying towards atheism.
Other than being agnostic, and pretty much swaying towards atheism.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 540
You misunderstand, my friend.
As faith in Christianity declined, faith in the government increased. It isn't a coincidence.
People are as religious now as they always were, but they have switched belief in a bearded man in the sky and angels and stuff, for belief that government and authority are good.
That's why there are loads of socialists, climate loons, pro-EU drones, and so on.
You're not agnostic nor swaying towards atheism as such; your brain has merely said to you, "I don't believe in god, but I do have faith in authority, and the government is a real thing, so I can't be religious".
If you were non-religiously-minded, then you wouldn't be opposed to the idea that feminism is a mechanism by which to harm Western Civilisation.
I'd hazard a guess that you believe that feminism is about equality, but that's just because you have faith in authority.
They say it - you think it.
150 years ago, you would actually have believed in the virgin birth, walking on water, coming back to life after 3 days, etc. LOL.
What a ridiculously ill informed comment!
How much do you actually know about criminal trials?
A complainants past may be very relevant to a sexual offences case.
Here's a simple example: a man is accused of raping a woman in an alleyway outside a club.
In interview he claims it was consensual and she instigated it.
The police speak to the complainant who says she would never have had sex with someone she had must met in public.
The police do some checks and find two or three people who will provide evidence that the complaint had in fact on prior occasions had causal sex, including sex in public with recent acquaintances.
This is absolutely relevant to the allegation at hand and goes directly to the credibility (or lack thereof) or the complainant.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,181
- Location
- Rollergirl
@Caracus2k obviously, if a defendant tried to use their sexual past as a means of defence then that would be offered to the prosecution for scrutiny. Your example is overly simplistic and unlikely.
I like this gif as theres a man in glasses behind them inappropriately handling them, indirect humor only a handful can see
Ideally, all evidence and testimony of any relevance should be made available to the jury so that there can be a fair trial. But that's not fashionable. Maybe it never has been, but especially not now when the openly stated goal is to convict more people of the "wrong" biological group identity. Whether they're guilty or not doesn't matter, which is why it's never mentioned.
If you can't see the problem, there's a very useful technique to illuminate prejudice that's so popular it's normal and thus invisible. Just imagine exactly the same words/deeds/etc but targetted against a different biological group identity, one it's not fashionable to target. Just swap "men" for "black people" and you might see the problem. That's the best swap, since the negative stereotyping is very similar.
That's also a very relevant reply. Projecting your own views onto other people is never a path to justice.
No but it highlights how sexual history can be perfectly relevant.
I'll give you another example (which I believe I've shared on here before).
I went to uni with a guy who was accused of rape by a woman after a night out. He'd been in a club on a night out where he'd met said girl. Both of them were drunk but hit it off, danced together, drank together and quite frankly she was all over him. Kissing, groping and exchange of non oral fluids...
Anyhow, he went back to hers and they obviously had sex.
Turns out what he hadn't noticed but a couple of my mates had was that she had an engagement ring on. Somehow her fiancee had found out she'd slept with this guy and feeling guilty she'd played the rape card. It became known who he was and before he was arrested her dad kindly beat him to a pulp.
Anyways...kicked out of uni, kicked out of his accommodation, arrested, trial. During the trial it became known that this wasn't the first bloke she'd taken home whilst engaged. Unfortunate news for her fiancee. It was at this point she finally confessed that the sex had been consensual and she just felt guilty about everything afterwards and so tried to cover her tracks not expecting someone to point out who the other party was and have everything come out in the open.
He lost 3 years of his life, his reputation and future career because of her lies. Even after he was found not guilty the uni wouldn't touch him. She received something stupid like a suspended sentence.
If they hadn't found out about her previous infidelity then there was a good chance that an innocent man would have been jailed and she would never have been found out.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 540
Shocking stuff.
Such a crime to be committed against him.
Did he ever "settle out of court", for justice?
Thats the silly thing - the false accusations ought to be properly punished, there was that case where one guy had to take out a private prosecution because the CPS wasn't even going to bother... then the girl who had claimed rape committed suicide as it was going to become known she was a sex worker etc..
Rather dodgy that the uni would't let him back after he was cleared though - surely he ought to be speaking to a solicitor about that? Likewise re: the dad assaulting him - did he get charged? Did he sue the dad?
Honestly don't know. His trial was in my final year of uni.
The dad did get charged but again a very light sentence because of the sympathy vote for believing his daughter had been raped - he was a victim in a way as well tbh.
When is an allegation evidence? When it's the victim's testimony.
When is an allegation inadmissible? When it's the defendant's testimony.
We all know how this works in 2019.
As the replies above show, it's becoming common knowledge that the system is designed to improve conviction rates above all else. Safe (conviction), unsafe, hardly matters these days.