razorblunt wrote: » I've not been following it closely either, there's no actual case against for rape right? She's accused him of this and stated she no longer wants to work with him? Strange that Sony don't just let he go to save face and be seeing to do the right thing, what do they have to gain for it?
Wibbs wrote: » I'm not sure what you mean M? Are you suggesting that accusations are enough and that this automatically renders the accused guilty? If this was say a theft case, would you automatically believe the plaintiff in the absence of any proof? Obviously this kind of crime is far more nuanced, but the requirement for reasonable proof should be in place before calling for the hangman?
BattleCorp wrote: » I'm genuinely curious about how the police deal with these types of claims. Plenty of criminal trials for rape don't have much in the way of physical proof. I'm thinking specifically of historic rape claims. How do you prove somebody raped you 15 years ago (or even one year ago) if you didn't go to the hospital at the time, gather DNA evidence etc.? Is it not pretty much one person's word against the other? How do the police establish proof in these types of circumstances?
thattequilagirl wrote: » "When I was 17, someone stole my handbag with all my money in it." "That's terrible." "Did you report it?" "When I was 17, I got beaten up after a night out." "That's awful!""Why didn't you report it? Do you know who did it?" "When I was 17, my uncle raped me." "Why didn't you report it? Why are you still in contact with him? What proof have you got?"
eviltwin wrote: » Speaking from personal experience sometimes it's easier just to say nothing. Sometimes you are too afraid to make a complaint. Sometimes you convince yourself that you were somehow responsible so you think everyone else will see it that way too.
I don't know if Kesha is genuine or not but she doesn't automatically rated as a liar in my book because she didn't make this known previously.
Whatever the story I think she should be released from her contract for both their benefits.
smellslikeshoes wrote: » The producer wasn't convicted of a crime, if the judge had ruled in favour of Kesha it would have set a precedent that an accusation of abuse alone is enough to break a contract. Sony have said from the beginning that they are happy to let her work with a different producer.
everlast75 wrote: » Corrected your post
smellslikeshoes wrote: The producer wasn't convicted of a crime, if the judge had ruled in favour of Kesha it would have set a precedent that an accusation of abuse alone is enough to break a contract. Sony have said from the beginning that they are happy to let her work with a different producer.
rawn wrote: » I heard they are refusing to promote her if she does choose to work with a different producer
thattequilagirl wrote: » The point was, people tend to automatically believe someone who claims to be a victim of any crime other than rape. Rape is the only crime where you start questioning the character of the victim. This happens even when they do report it. Even if there are no suspects yet. This despite the fact that research shows around 92% of rape accusations are true, which is higher than other crimes. And I could go away and Google the sources of that for you as I have done in the past on Boards, but you know what - do it yourself.
Deleted User wrote: » The most idiotic idiom ever uttered.
smellslikeshoes wrote: » Kesha's side have claimed that there wouldn't be as much promotion if it was a different producer which is possible I suppose but no refusal or anything from Sony, it wouldn't make sense to offer another producer and then refuse to promote the work if the offer was accepted.
thattequilagirl wrote: » This despite the fact that research shows around 92% of rape accusations are true, which is higher than other crimes. And I could go away and Google the sources of that for you as I have done in the past on Boards, but you know what - do it yourself.
ghostdancer wrote: » complete nonsense.
thattequilagirl wrote: » Reread this thread.
Wibbs wrote: » I don't know where to begin with that daftness. That said the more you dig, the more odd it gets. A few years ago she swore in a court hearing that any contact they had was consensual, now the story changes and it happens to change when she wants out of a contract? The fact that it was also thrown out of court says a fair bit. Not conclusive either way but bloody fishy. In the old days she'd have taken a civil action against him, now it's easier and cheaper to use the High Court of Twitter. It's a win win for her either way.
rab!dmonkey wrote: » In your first two examples, the victim merely stated that they were a victim of a crime at some point in the past. In the third, they accused a third party of a very serious criminal offence. There's good reason why people might react differently.
BrokenArrows wrote: » Rape allegations should be kept 100% private until the person is found guilty. If found innocent then the case should never be known to the public.
fullstop wrote: » I don't agree with the 2nd part of this. Anyone who falsely accuses someone of rape, which could destroy the life of the falsely accused, deserves to be named and shamed.
ghostdancer wrote: » people generally aren't found innocent though, they're found not guilty, and that may be due to lack of evidence, which doesn't make the claim false.