Mens Rights Thread

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2018 9:24am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Why can't it influence other cases, if all men are rapist's until proven innocent and still rapist's anyway which seems to be the current narrative how can they get a fair trial when women who have been influenced by the media can be both judge and jury.

That’s always been the narrative popularised in gossip mongering circles dm. The reality is of course that the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are still fundamental concepts in our judicial system, in spite of the lacklustre publicity seeking stunts of a small minority of people. It’s not just women at all btw, there’s plenty of men imagine the same sort of nonsense.

It's too easy make a false statement against someone, your charged with rape before even appearing in court. You've a criminal record. You may be innocent but a lot of damage is done.

You don’t have a criminal record if you’re only charged with an offence? And party to that, if you’re charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by making false allegations, it’s also treated as a serious criminal offence.

It might not be fair but I think we need to start looking at proof before someone is even charged. A statement is not good enough when the court system has so little perjury convictions.

We do look at proof before someone is charged, they aren’t charged without evidence, and if it emerges during an investigation that someone has attempted to pervert the course of justice, they can be charged, and if found guilty will receive a criminal conviction. The reason we have so little criminal convictions for attempting to pervert the course of justice is the same reason we have so little convictions for rape - it’s up to the prosecution to present evidence of any wrongdoing, and they have to meet the same burden of proof in both cases - beyond a reasonable doubt, before anyone is convicted of a criminal offence.

drunkmonkey · 27-11-2018 10:49am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t have a criminal record if you’re only charged with an offence?

Once your charged you've a criminal record. You may be innocent until proven guilty but the criminal record starts once your charged. It's reported in Garda vetting to any potential employers etc. It can have serious consequences.
The way I read it once your charged your guilty until proven innocent from that point on even though you technically innocent until proven guilty.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2018 11:02am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Once your charged you've a criminal record. You may be innocent until proven guilty but the criminal record starts once your charged. It's reported in Garda vetting to any potential employers etc. It can have serious consequences.
The way I read it once your charged your guilty until proven innocent from that point on even though you technically innocent until proven guilty.

No, only criminal convictions are recorded on a criminal record. And the way you read it is certainly not the way the law operates.

drunkmonkey · 27-11-2018 11:17am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, only criminal convictions are recorded on a criminal record. And the way you read it is certainly not the way the law operates.

Specified information in relation to a person who is the subject of an application for a vetting disclosure means information concerning a finding or allegation of harm to another person received by the Bureau from An Garda Síochána

Unproven allegations are disclosed. The record starts with the charge before it goes to court. If someone makes a false statement and the Guarda decides to charge you and bring it to court you have a criminal record until proven innocent.
I can see why it's wrong to do so but can see why it might be relevant as well.

Here you go, no convictions, still cost her a job https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-settles-case-against-state-over-her-garda-vetting-30041897.html
Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2018 12:12pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Specified information in relation to a person who is the subject of an application for a vetting disclosure means information concerning a finding or allegation of harm to another person received by the Bureau from An Garda Síochána

Unproven allegations are disclosed. The record starts with the charge before it goes to court. If someone makes a false statement and the Guarda decides to charge you and bring it to court you have a criminal record until proven innocent.
I can see why it's wrong to do so but can see why it might be relevant as well.

Here you go, no convictions, still cost her a job https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-settles-case-against-state-over-her-garda-vetting-30041897.html
Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

No you don’t, that’s exactly why the National Vetting Bureau makes the distinction between criminal convictions, and specified information - because criminal convictions are on your criminal record, specified information isn’t -

Specified information in relation to a person who is the subject of an application for a vetting disclosure, means information concerning a finding or allegation of harm to another person received by the National Vetting Bureau from An Garda Síochána or a Scheduled Organisation pursuant to section 19 of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Acts 2012 to 2016.

It is information that is considered to reasonably give rise to a bona fide concern that the vetting subject may

harm any child or vulnerable person,

cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed,

put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm,

attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, or,

incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person.

Making a determination

In making a determination, the Chief Bureau Officer must take a number of matters into account, including the relevance of the type of work concerned, and the rights of the applicant. Section 15 (4) (a)-(g) of the Act outlines the areas the Chief Bureau Officer shall have regard to in making a determination.

Also worth taking a look at What is disclosed?

In the case you linked to above, her complaint was that she was unable to get a job (not that she lost her job) in the specific area of employment she wanted to work in, due to the specific information which was disclosed, and she claimed that there was no justification for the inclusion of the two incidents in the report -

...claimed that she was unable to get a job as a care assistant as a result of the contents of a garda vetting report she was required to undergo.

It contained details of two non-convictions, which resulted in her not being offered the job. Ms Walsh, who has honours and master's degrees in social studies, had hoped to work in the care sector in Carlow.

She claimed that there was no justification for the inclusion of the two incidents in the vetting report.

There’s still no guilty until proven innocent there, and there’s no criminal record because there were no criminal convictions.

drunkmonkey · 27-11-2018 12:24pm

For Vetting since 2016.
Full Criminal Record must be disclosed (which includes any pending prosecutions) subject to the provisions of The Criminal Justice (Spent Conversations and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016.

Unless i'm reading it wrong, once your charged it means you have a pending prosecution. Hence it will show up in garda vetting.
Or does it mean you have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing.

source · 27-11-2018 12:47pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

For Vetting since 2016.
Full Criminal Record must be disclosed (which includes any pending prosecutions) subject to the provisions of The Criminal Justice (Spent Conversations and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016.

Unless i'm reading it wrong, once your charged it means you have a pending prosecution. Hence it will show up in garda vetting.
Or does it mean you have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing.

Indeed but once it's struck out or you are aquited then you no longer have a pending prosecution and the vetting bureau has to make a decision on what to include based on the nature of the alleged offences and the nature of the job being applied for.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2018 12:54pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

For Vetting since 2016.
Full Criminal Record must be disclosed (which includes any pending prosecutions) subject to the provisions of The Criminal Justice (Spent Conversations and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016.

Unless i'm reading it wrong, once your charged it means you have a pending prosecution. Hence it will show up in garda vetting.
Or does it mean you have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing.

No you’re reading that correctly, and if you’re not convicted of any wrongdoing, then it doesn’t show on your criminal record. That’s still not ‘guilty until proven innocent’. That has specifically to do with the disclosure of information which the Gardai have on file in relation to vetting for specific employment (or positions with voluntary organisations) in which a person would be in contact with vulnerable people, and the information is relevant to their application.

drunkmonkey · 27-11-2018 1:03pm

source wrote: »

Indeed but once it's struck out or you are aquited then you no longer have a pending prosecution and the vetting bureau has to make a decision on what to include based on the nature of the alleged offences and the nature of the job being applied for.

If it's struck out or your found innocent can you get any record of the alleged crime purged.
It seem to be it's stuck on you forever via garda vetting regardless of the outcome. It may not be a criminal record but it is a record of a crime you were involved someway in.

seamus · 27-11-2018 1:18pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If it's struck out or your found innocent can you get any record of the alleged crime purged.
It seem to be it's stuck on you forever via garda vetting regardless of the outcome. It may not be a criminal record but it is a record of a crime you were involved someway in.

Not forever, but the Gardai are permitted to retain information on allegations and arrests for operational purposes.

It would be very difficult to conduct effective investigations if they weren't permitted to keep these records.

Garda vetting doesn't just give a list of arrests and stuff that the Gardai hand over to a third party.

It details the criminal record of the individual.

If, in the opinion of the Gardai, there is other relevant information which indicates that the person poses a risk, then the Gardai may also disclose that information - but they will notify the individual of this first.

If you were arrested for shoplifting in college but it turned out that it was one of your mates, that will not appear on any vetting outcome.

If you were brought in for questioning over sending explicit messages to 12 year olds online, but you couldn't prove it was actually a roommate who did it, then that may very well appear on a vetting form. As it probably should.

It might be unfair, but if the option is between the statistically tiny number of people falsely accused being excluded from working with vulnerable people, OR allowing questionable people to access vulnerable people because they haven't yet been convicted, then I would rather err on the side of caution.

LostinBlanch · 27-11-2018 1:22pm

There's an article from Melanie Phillips in the London Times with similar arguments to many on here. It's behind a paywall so I'll c & p some relevant bits here.

Yet again, the feminocracy is banging on about how women are so badly treated by The System. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, QC, reportedly told the Bar conference at the weekend that the courts needed to be more aware of women’s rights and the MeToo movement. She called for more sensitivity when sentencing women offenders so that judges took account of “abuse and violence in their backgrounds as well as their caring responsibilities”.

But when it comes to claims of sexual misbehaviour, the injustice shoe is surely on the other foot. Of course, women are sometimes victims of sexual attack, harassment or unwanted advances. MeToo, though, has created the impression that depravity is not just widespread but innate in the male sex.

This is a wild and sexually selective generalisation. Moreover, shouldn’t individual men be given the benefit of the doubt until such claims are proved? Aren’t they entitled to have such claims properly tested?

She then compares Baroness Kennedy's statement about judges needing to take account of abuse in victims backgrounds and then looks at the treatment of Tory MP andrew Griffiths who 9righlty IMO) resigned in July after sending 2000 lewd texts to 2 female consitituents. Something which he attributed to suffering psychiatric problems due to being abused as an 8 year old boy resulting in a mental breakdown. But according to Labour MP Jess Phillips this was just an excuse and a myth . . Childhood abuse or mental illness didn't explain wanting to belittle and exploit women.

So what is deemed sensitivity and compassion when dealing with women, it seems, turns into a myth to protect the powerful when the accused is a man.

The reason is the underlying assumption that men are innately misogynistic and women accusers always their victims. This is behind the repeated assertion, endorsed by public prosecutors and sundry politicians, that the number of rape convictions is too low. The pressure on police and prosecutors to rack up those numbers has caused several recent cases to collapse.

The inescapable premise is that most, if not all, men accused of rape are guilty, because men are predatory and women are their victims and so their accusations are invariably true. The reality is that the woman may be lying or the sexual encounter may be too ambiguous for a jury safely to convict.

Yet now the Labour MP Ann Coffey has called for juries in rape trials to be scrapped because of the dominance of rape stereotypes and “shockingly low” charging and conviction rates caused by the reluctance of jurors to find such men guilty.

This growing contempt for the presumption of innocence is not just eroding fairness and the rule of law. It has destroyed the lives of men who have been wrongly accused, and on occasion has even replaced justice by tragedy.

The Welsh politician Carl Sargeant, whose inquest opened yesterday, reportedly killed himself after he was sacked as a minister a year ago following allegations of sexual misconduct. According to his family, he wasn’t told the details of what he was accused of doing and so was unable to defend himself.

The belief that men are incorrigible sexual predators has been given rocket fuel by the ferment over apparently depraved showbusiness cavemen. But this gender sectarianism has meant that, when it comes to unfairness and injustice, more and more men are now saying MeToo too.

I didn't know the details of the Carl Sargeant case, but if it's true that he wasn't told the details of what he was accused of doing and was unable to defend himself, that is totally shocking. It puts Kafka in the ha'penny place.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2018 1:52pm

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I didn't know the details of the Carl Sargeant case, but if it's true that he wasn't told the details of what he was accused of doing and was unable to defend himself, that is totally shocking. It puts Kafka in the ha'penny place.

Collapsed trials and cases being dropped are going to become more and more common here too as a result of attempts to... as one person accused of rape put it, the police and the CPS chasing rape convictions like sales targets -

Liam Allan, a criminology student, had been three days into his trial when it emerged police had failed to disclose a vast amount of crucial information.

He had been accused of six rapes and six sexual assaults, spending almost two years on bail.

Among the text messages that were not passed to the defence, was one from the alleged victim that stated: “It was not against my will.”

Mr Allan, who endured a two-year ordeal, threatened to sue the police and CPS, accusing them of chasing rape convictions “like sales targets”.

More than 900 prosecutions collapse in a year over failure to disclose evidence

drunkmonkey · 27-11-2018 2:03pm

seamus wrote: »

Garda vetting doesn't just give a list of arrests and stuff that the Gardai hand over to a third party.

It details the criminal record of the individual.

This is what i'm trying to get at. You haven't been convicted of any crime but there is a criminal record there which can cause you problems.
Once your charged (not convicted). The record begins.
Maybe it's not called a criminal record but it shows in vetting so is a mark against you.

Take for example you made a false sexual assault statement to the Gardai against me and your friend purges herself and backed up your statement. My good name is tarnished from that point on even if your both found to be lying. The Gardai if they act on the statements will arrest and charge me. I'm innocent but until I prove it i'll be denied any jobs that need vetting.
Worse still if I can't come up with an alabi to prove my innocence I may be convicted of a crime that never happened.

seamus · 27-11-2018 2:09pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Take for example you made a false sexual assault statement to the Gardai against me and your friend purges herself and backed up your statement. My good name is tarnished from that point on even if your both found to be lying. The Gardai if they act on the statements will arrest and charge me. I'm innocent but until I prove it i'll be denied any jobs that need vetting.

Sure.

Like I say though, better to err on the side of caution. False (i.e. malicious) accusations are statistically tiny.

If Garda vetting were only permitted to contain actual criminal convictions, then the falsely accused person is free to take one of these jobs, but the other nine people who've been genuinely accused but never convicted are also free to take one of these jobs.

Is the right of an innocent individual to take up a career of their choosing, more important than vulnerable people's safety? I don't think so.

drunkmonkey · 27-11-2018 2:24pm

seamus wrote: »

Is the right of an innocent individual to take up a career of their choosing, more important than vulnerable people's safety? I don't think so.

This is the problem when your innocent and falsely accused and proven innocent your good name is gone forever regardless. I'd assume that civil cases don't appear on vetting, i.e you took the accuser and won a defamation case against them.
Should someone not be entitled to get their good name back, I think they should.

Of course it's important vulnerable people are not put at risk and I believe the law does protect them. It does not need to stop people clearing their name though.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2018 2:43pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

This is the problem when your innocent and falsely accused and proven innocent your good name is gone forever regardless. I'd assume that civil cases don't appear on vetting, i.e you took the accuser and won a defamation case against them.
Should someone not be entitled to get their good name back, I think they should.

Of course it's important vulnerable people are not put at risk and I believe the law does protect them. It does not need to stop people clearing their name though.

Dm I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding a lot of things, but you’re arguing a lot of things as though they’re an inevitability, and they’re not by any means an inevitability. I’ve been falsely accused in the past (about 20 years ago now), and it hasn’t been an issue with respect to vetting for numerous organisations, numerous times.

You’re completely disregarding the fact that it would be at the discretion of the Chief Bureau Officer what information they regard as relevant, while also having regard to the rights of the applicant -

In making a determination, the Chief Bureau Officer must take a number of matters into account, including the relevance of the type of work concerned, and the rights of the applicant. Section 15 (4) (a)-(g) of the Act outlines the areas the Chief Bureau Officer shall have regard to in making a determination.

TL;DR version is that it’s not as simple as you’re trying to make out.

py2006 · 27-11-2018 2:55pm

Not sure which thread to put this as it could go in 2 or 3 here at tGC.

The independent have an article today on domestic violence and refreshingly its a male victim.

There are a lot of men in similar circumstances to that article, some less extreme and some more.

Why is it often ignored, disregarded or dismissed?

r439z5ifwt8soq · 27-11-2018 2:59pm

py2006 wrote: »

The independent have an article today on domestic violence and refreshingly its a male victim.

Yes, domestic violence ... so refreshing

givyjoe · 27-11-2018 3:04pm

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure which thread to put this as it could go in 2 or 3 here at tGC.

The independent have an article today on domestic violence and refreshingly its a male victim.

There are a lot of men in similar circumstances the the on in that article, some less extreme and some more.

Why is it often ignored, disregarded or dismissed?

Someone close to me has been 'putting up' with something similar for decades now. At least this chap got out.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2018 3:25pm

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure which thread to put this as it could go in 2 or 3 here at tGC.

The independent have an article today on domestic violence and refreshingly its a male victim.

There are a lot of men in similar circumstances the the on in that article, some less extreme and some more.

Why is it often ignored, disregarded or dismissed?

The main reason is that the men themselves don’t want other people to know.

LostinBlanch · 27-11-2018 4:11pm

Or that others* just don't want to know.

* Gender b(i)ased Domestic Violence charities and activists; as well as authorities who are conditioned to look at women as victims.

iptba · 27-11-2018 5:54pm

seamus wrote: »

It might be unfair, but if the option is between the statistically tiny number of people falsely accused

This is what it boils down to: is the number of people falsely accused "statistically tiny".

I don't trust a lot of research and researchers in this area while you, who seem to have feminist inclinations, may have a different inclination.

Silentcorner · 27-11-2018 7:51pm

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Or that others* just don't want to know.

* Gender b(i)ased Domestic Violence charities and activists; as well as authorities who are conditioned to look at women as victims.

I would tend to agree...

What is tragic about a toxic narrative that only men abuse, it isolates even further male victims of abuse at a time when they need help the most.

There was a good (more balanced documentary) about Domestic Abuse on TG4 recently...an abused male convinced himself he wasn't being abused because it is something that only happens women.

Female on male abuse is also more likely to be much more insidious...many men don't even know they are being abused! They just lose all self worth, sometimes I have no doubt, ending in tragic circumstances.

It is difficult not to get annoyed with Feminists these days I find, I have never seen a narrative as toxic as the current wave of feminism....I'd feel the same if that toxic narrative was directed at the working class...or jewish people...or foreigners or who ever...it is not right!

Silentcorner · 27-11-2018 7:56pm

iptba wrote: »

This is what it boils down to: is the number of people falsely accused "statistically tiny".

I don't trust a lot of research and researchers in this area while you, who seem to have feminist inclinations, may have a different inclination.

There is no research you can place trust in, in the limited studies I have seen it can be as low as 2% or as high as 40%...

After the Gender Pay Gap fiasco it would be prudent to ignore stats from the vested interests.

I saw one in an article yesterday, I can't seem to find that article now...it included a stat that 3 in 10 women who are being abused will never tell a soul (the figure may be wrong)...how did they end up included in a Statistic if they never told a soul!

drunkmonkey · 28-11-2018 5:40pm

Poor old Cliff Richard is in the hot seat after coming out and saying he'd rather 9 bad guys got off if it meant 1 innocent guy isn't wrongly convicted. Mel B not too happy, she called it a minor inconvenience for the innocent person. I'd say Cliff still isn't right after it, a lot more than a minor inconvenience.

Pawwed Rig · 28-11-2018 7:08pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Poor old Cliff Richard is in the hot seat after coming out and saying he'd rather 9 bad guys got off if it meant 1 innocent guy isn't wrongly convicted. Mel B not too happy, she called it a minor inconvenience for the innocent person. I'd say Cliff still isn't right after it, a lot more than a minor inconvenience.

That is the reason that you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt because of the belief that better the guilty go free than the innocent suffer. Nothing controversial in what he said imo

gizmo555 · 28-11-2018 7:17pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Poor old Cliff Richard is in the hot seat after coming out and saying he'd rather 9 bad guys got off if it meant 1 innocent guy isn't wrongly convicted. Mel B not too happy, she called it a minor inconvenience for the innocent person. I'd say Cliff still isn't right after it, a lot more than a minor inconvenience.

"Blackstone's Ratio" has been a principle of common law for 250 years or more:

"... all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Would Mel B be as sanguine about Cliff's type of experience if it was her husband, son or brother who was wrongly accused?

drunkmonkey · 28-11-2018 7:38pm

Hasn't MelB accused a few, not saying there false aligations. Must be something about her didn't she even turn Louie back to the dark side.

iptba · 29-11-2018 12:22am

(For what it is worth)
This is looking at the international picture

Men hit hardest by crash: millennial females least affected as male-dominated jobs bore brunt
The big picture

https://www.independent.ie/business/jobs/men-hit-hardest-by-crash-millennial-females-least-affected-as-maledominated-jobs-bore-brunt-37573130.html

iptba · 30-11-2018 6:47pm

“Toxic masculinity. Gareth Thomas on the importance of workplace diversity” is a headline on the front page of Irish Times today. The article is called “Gareth Thomas: Toxic Masculinity on and off the field”. It says he is an LGBT campaigner and discusses how he was a victim of a homophobic attack. Masculinity is not discussed really in the article. I doubt the paper would use "toxic femininity" in this way.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments