Silentcorner wrote: » I don't think we understand how damaging a crime rape actually is...it destroys a person, women in particular....it is one of the most serious crimes on the statute books... Imagine the outrage if 90% of murders in this country went unsolved...it would suggest a primitive society unable to erect proper moral standards in both justice and investigation of the taking of a persons life....luckily, in this country we have a fairly robust record in convicting murders...not too many false convictions that I am aware of... Rape is probably the next most serious charge a person can face...it can destroy a life to either be a victim of a rape, or be a victim of a false accusation of rape... The likelihood that a woman will be raped is much much higher than the likelihood of a man facing a false accusation of a rape... The vast majority of rapes are not violent in nature...they are perpetrated by people known to/or familiar with the victim...there is never any evidence to these crimes...it normally boils down to one persons word against another's....which means the victim's character is on trial.... The conviction rape of rape is abysmal....which can only suggest that our justice system when it comes to successfully convicting rapists is primitive....by extension we as a people, when it comes to convicting rapists...are primitive... Cases like this, come along every now and again, and they challenge society...people don't like to be challenged, they invariably and reject any notion that there is anything wrong.... I say that as an individual, who has had to challenge myself more times than I'd like...I've had to accept that what I thought was right, was actually completely wrong (I won't bore with those details).... I have no doubt I will be ridiculed for what I am about to say...but I've been ridiculed before on threads like this and it doesn't bother me...I see my old self in some people that ridiculed me... That legal system, when it comes to the pursuit of justice when it comes to rape, is a product of the male group think (not just restricted to men)....who in their right mind would think that allowing an already traumatised victim endure a vicious adversarial legal process without legal representation is ok? When it comes to non violent rape cases, most of us take a starting point that the woman is lying...as does the legal process... Who in their right mind think that it is perfectly acceptable to parade a woman's underwear around a courtroom? Who in their right mind, think that it is perfectly acceptable to assassinate (unchallenged because of an absence of her own legal team) a woman's character in pursuit of doubt is ok? Like I said, every so often, a case will come along that will challenge people....I can see that, sadly, we haven't really learned a thing...
Faugheen wrote: » The courts didn't decide she wasn't raped ffs. The jury can find the defendants not guilty but still believe the complainants story. However, it's not enough to believe the story, there needs to be enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which there wasn't. People need to stop spreading this absolute nonsense, bull**** and completely untrue statement that the courts system said she lied and that no crime took place.
holyhead wrote: » As the men have been found innocent of rape do they have a counter case against the accused for defamation/assassination of character given the seriousness of a rape allegation in societal terms.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Why is sentiment here so different to twitter?
HappyAsLarE wrote: » Rape is when the man knows he doesn’t have consent. In this case they thought they had. Doesn’t mean she is lying.
Rodin wrote: » I never said she lied. But it is a possibility - to deny that is ludicrous.
Zonda999 wrote: » I don't know but it really defines the reason I like reading Boards on stories like this and am appalled by Twitter. Boards seems to allow for considered thought provoking posts and seemingly intelligent discussion. Twitter is a shouting match of angry people looking to further usually fairly extreme opinions based on sweeping statements bundled with the going hashtag of the day. There's obviously different age groups on here discussing this as opposed to those tweeting about it under the popular hashtags, To be honest, I suspect the general IQ is a lot higher here.
Faugheen wrote: » You mean the same complainant who wasn't found guilty of anything? How come the lads are innocent and she isn't?
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » RuMan wrote: » Sounds like a cop out. I fail to see the relevance of this case to your personal situation. There was a car crash story in the news, it reminded me of why i dont drive ? Men are first and foremost out for sex. They find communication with women on a cerebral level difficult.
RuMan wrote: » Sounds like a cop out. I fail to see the relevance of this case to your personal situation. There was a car crash story in the news, it reminded me of why i dont drive ?
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » Men are first and foremost out for sex. They find communication with women on a cerebral level difficult. The What's App texts were hardly the stuff of Noel Coward. Keep digging, I'm really enjoying the confirmation.
holyhead wrote: » Surely the fact that they were not found guilty means they had consent? If they hadn't consent it's rape.
holyhead wrote: » Because a court of law has told us the lads are innocent.
foxyladyxx wrote: » I have not heard anyone claim that the victim was lying. . All appear to agree that there was sufficient evidence to convict.
Rodin wrote: » All? 11 jurors disagree. If they thought there was sufficient evidence they'd have convicted !?
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » So what is the solution?
Faugheen wrote: » And she hasn't been found guilty of anything either. So why should she be sued?
Faugheen wrote: » That comes down to opinion. However, to say the court found that no rape took place is a lie.
Dots1982 wrote: » Once all the evidence was heard there couldn’t be a conviction on the main charges. You had a witness who claimed she saw a threesome not a rape. What was left of the prosecution after that testimony?
Faugheen wrote: » Are you just going to ignore the fact that you're spreading lies about what the court said or what?
For Forks Sake wrote: » Also I notice #suemePaddy trending on twitter...... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Rodin wrote: » It does not come down to opinion. It is a fact that she may have lied. Whether she did or not is another matter but it is a fact that it is a possibility.
