Oxford Union president rape allegations - alumni open letter

JaneParker He;s not "falsely accused". He wasn't charged. They are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT legal concepts. One is crime and the other is not.

Statement to CaptChaos.

So it makes no difference to you if he is 0% guilty or 100% guilty

I would hope most mumsnetters feel utterly sorry for the falsely accused man who hasn't even been charged and that he can exercise the new rights to be forgotten and have all references removed on Google to it.

Anyway, thinking about it. I'm out. Too close to home, too likely to be used as a reason to give accused people anonymity.

I have no idea ppplease. I wasn't there, and nor were you, I assume. Why do you ask? Trying to put words in my mouth?

I have stated, quite clearly I though, but obviously not that anyone (so male or female) who is accused of a serious crime (so armed robbery, rape, assault, and on and on) should step aside from a position either of power or in the public eye until exonerated or the police decide to prosecute. They should do so on full pay and without prejudice.

I don't really care how sad that makes the accused person. If they are not guilty, then they have nothing to fear, do they.

'So, the 2 women who reported the crime were both lying and are now being charged with perverting the course of justice? Wasting Police time? Anything?

No?

Funny that.'

And, if they were, would you feel better or would you merely take it as another example of the patriarchal society? Do you feel that if he is innocent, he should be suing them?

I do not know the facts of this case but read his story in the Sunday Times today. Of course, it cast him in a sympathetic light. On the other hand, if what he says is true, he has been terribly smeared.

Do any of us know one way or the other? And, if not, why would people presume guilt if there was not even enough evidence to press charges?

But I do think that that is what happens. It changes a person, understandably. But that shouldnt mean that a person's altered state means that men and women[I am thinking about Annabel something, children's cook] who get accused of anything sexual, should be made to step aside until something is proved or until someone is charged.

I was raped when I was 15 and it shaped my entire approach to sex and sexuality throughout my teens and early twenties. He was a man in his 30's and I was flattered at the attention, having never had a boyfriend before.
I'm now 29 and know I will never report what happened because there's not the slightest chance this man would be prosecuted. I would be the "lying bitch" in this situation. I feel so sorry for the women in this case and cannot bring myself to read the rape myth-filled articles surrounding this story. He absolutely should have stood aside.

What % chance do you think that the man was guilty CaptChaos?

Oh, he was falsely accused?

So, the 2 women who reported the crime were both lying and are now being charged with perverting the course of justice? Wasting Police time? Anything?

No?

Funny that.

My sympathy lies with the victim, in this case someone who was falsely accused of a vile crime. I don't care what gender someone is, if something shitty happens to them, I'm going to feel bad for them like most normal people. I'm not going lose empathy for this young man because some people have a political ideology that says all men are lying rapists and even those who aren't deserve to be assumed and treated as such anyway.

sorry Capt obv. not addressed to you

If you RTFT these points were addressed way up-thread.

No one has been 'presumed guilty'. He wasn't being asked to jump from a job - it's an elected position in a university society which lasts a term. It will not ruin his career. All people were asking was that he have consideration for any rape victims at the university and in the Union and step down pending investigation.

Not to mention speakers cancelling because he refused to go.

FFS

I am a rape survivor and yes, I would expect a person accused of a serious crime to step down from their role, at full pay while the investigation continued. I would expect the same if they were accused of armed robbery, murder or assault.

Couldn't give a shiny shit if you think it casts me in a good, bad or indifferent light to be fair.

Neither the police nor a court has come to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty.

StewiesBack that Telegraph article is bloody awful. And I call Godwin's on it.

I wasn't there, so no idea if he's guilty or not of course...

I'm trying to think of other crimes where people are still presumed to be guilty, despite police or courts coming to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty

I would hope that if I was a rape survivor that I would not expect men accused of rape to jump from jobs just because they have been accused.

Else it does not shed rape survivors in a good light.

This Telegraph article is one long rape myth.

Bluebelljumpsoverthemoon You might want to read the
The Mumsnet We Believe You Campaign before spouting rape myths as fact as that is far more damaging to rape victims. And, the term "witch hunt" is about as offensive, ignorant and nasty as you can get when discussing rape and sexual violence.

Yup, it's all about menz feelz.

He was not found innocent, he was simply not charged. He, like anyone else in a position of authority being investigated for a serious crime, should have stood down from that position until his name was cleared.

It only harms the credibility of rape victims if people keep perpetuating the lie that most rape victims lie.

Why on earth should be stand down from his position to show the seriousness of rape? We all know rape is a horrible crime, being falsely accused is fairly shit too and you can't blame victims of that for refusing to welcome further victimisation from a mob demanding their blood to prove their hate of a crime they have been wrongly accused of.

These witch hunts don't benefit rape victims, quite the contrary when they gain so much publicity and it turns out that texts sent after the fact from the accuser prove otherwise. Massive publicity before all the evidence has been collected doesn't just cause huge distress for innocent people on the receiving end of a false allegation, it also highlights that some women do lie. That harms the credibility of rape victims.

There's a discussion about it on Jeremy Vine now...

That's true, but to me, it's beside the point.

He should have stood aside, no matter what. It should be completely separate from his guilt or innocence - just a routine gesture of basic respect to rape survivors.

The irony is, if it were typical for people to do just that, I don't think there would be such a stigma against men accused of rape. But try telling the 'men's lives' ruined' bunch that.

What a crap article.

They've completely missed the point.

He should have stepped aside - it is not about whether he's innocent or guilty, whether he was going to be charged or not - it is (oddly enough) about his attitude towards rape survivors. Which, he's proved, is shit.