to have not let this go with my dad and ended up in an argument? (TRIGGER WARNING: Rape)

[Bogeyface]

Locally there has been relatively important public figure accused of rape.

I was discussing it with my mother and she said that she doesnt know what she thinks, but I said that the fact it got to court at all, especially taking into account that it happened several years ago, suggests that the CPS must have some pretty damning evidence. I said that considering that most reported rapes dont get to court because of a lack of evidence, the fact that this one did says that there is something in the accusation. She conceded that I had a point but I could see that she wasnt convinced.

Then my dad says "Well its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, she says he did, he says he didnt, its probably a misunderstanding" and I was really cross and said that I was appalled that he viewed rape like that. I said that his attitude was one of the reasons that many women dont bother reporting rape because they know that the chances of conviction are tiny, as most of the jury will have that attitude. Anyway, it went on and we ended up having a row about it, which shook me, I havent hada row with dad in years and years. He stormed off and obviously thinks that I am in the wrong and should accept that the accused probably didnt do it as the woman sounded "like a piece of work" (DONT GET ME STARTED ON THAT ).

Mum says I should have left it and not got into a row, I said that I would get into a row with anyone with that attitude to women and to rape. I asked her how she would feel if I was the victim and someone said that about me, she sort of shrugged and said that I still should have let it go.

I had to ring them about something a few minutes ago and dad was really short and snotty with me on the phone, not like him at all, but I was damned if I was going to let a comment like that go unchallenged. The court case is ongoing and if I mention it again I just know that mum will try to shut me up about it, rather than "make a fuss" and "wind your dad up".

WIBU? I wasnt was I? Questioning myself now!

[rinabean]

of course you shouldn't have backed down, those attitudes are evil. God knows what has happened in the past in your family or god forbid might happen in the future. Someone has to stamp it out of him at some point and it's better now than later.

[WiiUnfit]

YANBU. This attitude to rape makes me sick. As if women would put themselves through the stress of interviews, examinations, court cases and the disgusting attitude that she somehow deserved it or invited it if it hadn't have happened.

[cricketballs]

whilst I don't disagree with your point towards your Ddad and his 'mis understanding' you also need to take a step back as you are saying that because it has gone to court then he is guilty; the point of a court case is for the jury to weigh up the evidence and make a decision. Sometimes the attitude of guilty because of charges being brought is worse than rape cases not being brought to court

[k4yb33]

Within my inlaws a relative of theirs got done for rape, even had jail time married dad with kids btw. But nearly every one in their family/friends think it was a girl who was his 'Girlfriend' who wen he wouldn't leave his wife cried rape. I told my hubby that that was disgusting and appalling attitude to have. That to have had prison time meant the police had some pretty damming evidence. I said the only person to feel bad for was the girl in question how brave she must have been to go to police when so many rapists go Scott free. Its so hard to bloody convict these filth so when they do u know they are dirt!!!
YANBU at all good on you challenging ur dad. He needs to have his attitude changed!

[wheresthelight]

as a victim of rape everything you said to your dad is wholly accurate and his attitude is exactly why I never reported my rapist to the police.

that said there have been numerous cases brought over the last few years that have been thrown out as the victim was caught out lying and "celebrity" trials like William Roach being found not guilty have made a great many people question the validity of rape accusations.

the rapes that are successfully prosecuted very rarely make headlines whereas the ones where the victim lied or the attacker got off always make a big splash.

[WiiUnfit]

You only have to look at the Ched Evans scenario to see the disgusting attitudes that still exist towards rape and the hatred that is projected at a victim for reporting something so horrific.

[HayDayRookie]

I do the same with my father, who thinks "Girls dress who tarty must accept that they are not helping themselves".
YANBU

[PtolemysNeedle]

Your dad may well have the wrong attitude, but so do you if you're convinced that this man must automatically be guilty just because it's gone to court.

[anothermakesthree]

Disagree with some of your dads disturbing comments. I have to say though, I find your attitude of 'no smoke without fire', as equally as disturbing.

[Bogeyface]

I said that there must be something to the accusations and some evidence, I did not say I thought he was guilty.

However, I would like to know how the "I believe you" campaign can stand alongside saying "innocent until proven guilty"

I believe the woman in this case, so I suppose that means that I am automatically saying that I think he is guilty (he has admitted sex but says it was consensual), and that everyone who supports "I believe you" will therefore assume guilt on the part of the accused.

Which am I supposed to stand beside? MN confuses me at times!

[PtolemysNeedle]

You realise you've contradicted yourself there right?

It is confusing, I agree. You have your own mind and are entitled to your own opinion, so stand where you want to stand.

Personally, I would stand beside 'I believe you' if I had reason to believe anyway and before someone was being prosecuted. I think by the time something goes to court, we need to take a step back and not automatically say 'I believe you' because the law is more important than a MN campaign and because innocent until proven guilty is a fundamentally important thing that we cannot lose.

[KindleFancy]

we need to take a step back and not automatically say 'I believe you' because the law is more important than a MN campaign and because innocent until proven guilty is a fundamentally important thing that we cannot lose

Agree with this. Although mn will probably delete the comment tbh.

[Bogeyface]

I know I have contradicted myself, that was my point!

Surely its either "We believe you" OR "innocent until proven guilty", yet on MN it seems that you are supposed to hold both views, which are not compatible!

[PorkyMinch]

Both of you are wrong. Neither of you should be making a judgement on the situation without knowing the full facts.

[jasper]

I have a huge problem with the I believe You thing .

[LineRunner]

What does my nut in is the implication that women enjoy lying about this one crime.

[Bogeyface]

I wasnt making a judgement, I was pulling dad up on the fact that he was and his attitude to rape victims in general. My comments to mum werent "Oh its in court, he must have done it" but "The CPS must be fairly confident of a prosecution if its gone to court, they must have some substantial evidence that isnt being reported in the paper". It was a comment on how we dont know what is being brought up in court but that it was unlikely to simply be her saying "he did it" and him saying "no I didnt". We werent judging at all but dad was based on his view of the alleged victim.

[DirtyPigeon]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept that means that the Crown has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and that no punishment can be carried out until that has been established by due process.

No conflict with the I Believe You campaign, given that MN is not part of the justice system.

Your dad could be a juror on a rape case, so it's important that attitudes like his are challenged. Being a juror with generic prior prejudice against a witness is not on. Being a juror who has taken on board rape myths and has considered what rape actually means in law is much more preferable.

[Aridane]

I think YWBU to have a row. Rowing rarely changes people's minds. However, absolutely NBU In your views.

[PorkyMinch]

All cases that go to court have evidence that needs to be considered, but that doesn't mean it will not later be found to be unreliable.

I understand that it is a contentious and sensitive subject, but it's unfair to make the assumption that someone is guilty or not guilty before they have had a fair trial.

[Bogeyface]

dirty

Yet I have been pulled up on this thread because I have (apparently) judged him as guilty before the verdict has been announced. Now as an MNer I am expected to support I Believe You, yet I am not allowed to assume guilt on the part of the accused in a rape case because it goes against British Law!

I Believe You means "I believe that you have been raped and that the man you accused was the man who raped you". As I am not a juror in this case, I fail to see how my support of a rape victim makes any difference to the argument I had with my dad.

[PtolemysNeedle]

Good point well made DirtyPigeon, but equally, you could say that someone who was a strong supporter of the 'I believe you' campaign could end up on a jury, so it's important that an attitude of automatic belief when an accusation of rape made is challenged.

[DirtyPigeon]

Yes, as I said, being a juror who has taken on board rape myths and has considered what rape actually means in law is much more preferable. I am quite comfortable with believing a witness and also being able to find someone not guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the same case.

[wobblyweebles]

Why should you have backed down and not your dad?

No need to feel guilty. YWNBU.

[Bogeyface]

I should say that I am not sure about the I Believe You campaign because of the issues pointed out about assuming guilt. Its difficult, I dont know what to think really.

But I have not assumed this man was guilty, I was just saying to mum that there must be more to it than the paper is saying because it is supposed to have happened 8 years ago so any physical evidence will be long gone. For it to get to court there must be some sort of evidence that the CPS believe could lead to conviction.

My dad could end up on a jury in a case like this, any of us could, and I felt that his attitude of "Well she is probably lying because she had a one night stand with him.... " (ie; is a tart, despite the fact that he was married and presumably also having a ONS) needed challenging.