A very compelling reason not to report rape

quentin

Yy

take a look at any thread on Ulster rugby or Chef Evans. There's plenty of posters equating their appearance in court as guilt.

I think actually there's plenty of posters equating what they themselves said in evidence as proof they don't understand consent and therefore are dangerous to women.

The way those guys behaved is disgusting and I can't believe anyone defends them.

Actually fuck it I happen to believe Ched Evans IS a rapist, I’ll say it and he is welcome to take my ass to court with shiny big bells on. Of course the standard of proof is on the balance of probability and NOT beyond reasonable doubt. So he really wants to roll those dice he’s more than welcome...

My suggestion was only based on what I’d have advised Alexander if he was a friend of mine, I don’t need experience of the inside of a jail cell to do that, just like I do not need personal experience jumping out planes without parachutes to conclude its a bad idea!

Pity for him he doesn’t have better friends as he wouldn’t be staring down the barrel of court costs of £1.4 million and potential bankruptcy!
You are right though a man’s name IS important, but such is achieved through decent, consistent and honourable action. If you have a name based on principles you won’t need to fight constant scurrilous rumors.

What I've not made at all clear is that the Evans case posters would be correct in calling him a rapist up until his successful appeal. You can't fault people for using the word "guilty" after a verdict has been returned.

People's views of the Ulster rugby defendants were influenced by the Whatsapp conversations the men had after the incident. Regardless of their acquittal, they regarded her as disposable and that would make them very bad people in a lot of people's eyes including mine. The Evans case got a conviction prior to the retrial, and TBH the "evidence" they introduced at the retrial shouldn't have been allowed as the new "witness" didn't see what happened but was there to slut-shame her with details of her sex life after the rape, which is irrelevant because hypersexuality is a common reaction to rape. Keir Starmer (ex-DPP) condemned the decision to admit the "witness".

I honestly don't think that unless one has been arrested and spent time in a cell for a crime they didn't commit that it's fair to comment on what you'd do/or what you'd think is right.

You've been commenting on what you think is reasonable. Have you been arrested and held? If not, then you have no more right to comment than we do. What we think of his actions and how his actions make us feel about him as a person are fair comment. "Reputation" is basically what other people think about you and the thread consensus seems to be that he's a nasty piece of work.

Thanks, upstart, I was wondering whether I would have to trawl back to find what I wrote about people (wilfully, I suspect) conflating #ibelieveher with presumption of guilt

Not you personally metro but take a look at any thread on Ulster rugby or Chef Evans. There's plenty of posters equating their appearance in court as guilt.

TEMRA is right. In fact, it would do his name far more good than pursuing the vendetta has done

I honestly don't think that unless one has been arrested and spent time in a cell for a crime they didn't commit that it's fair to comment on what you'd do/or what you'd think is right.

Thanks, upstart, I was wondering whether I would have to trawl back to find what I wrote about people (wilfully, I suspect) conflating #ibelieveher with presumption of guilt.

I think showing a mote of compassion for the family who lost their daughter would hardly do his “name” any harm whatsoever.

TEMRA is right. In fact, it would do his name far more good than pursuing the vendetta has done.

Spot on trans

And another good post metro and plants

and it logically follows that if they're charged they did it.

No, thats your assumption. The actual position has been stated on page 1 of this thread;
''...recognising that presumption of the defendant's innocence and #ibelieveher can and should coexist. The victim has been raped but may be mistaken as to the identity of the attacker. The victim may not clearly remember details of the attack and that makes it impossible to prove the criminal intent and so guilt cannot be conclusively proved. The victim still deserves all support and to be believed, but that stops short of jailing the perp because our justice system is supposed to err on the side of presumption of innocence. ''

Come on mate someone lost their fucking life, whatever she did/didn’t do death was in no way a proportionate outcome. Besides she was never found guilty, so legally and in every other sense we treat her as innocent. Just a little tip if ever one her relatives googled her name and found this thread I’d rather nothing with my name attached added to their grief and sadness, just try to show a modicum of restraint and class.

If this Alexander chap was a friend of mine I’d advise him to let this go. I mean really? I think showing a mote of compassion for the family who lost their daughter would hardly do his “name” any harm whatsoever.

Hand on heart if I was in his position and I’d felt I’d been maliciously lied about being a rapist I’d be inclined to bring a private prosecution, although probably a civil one as opposed to a criminal one. However if she then went on to kill herself I would probably feel a bit shit about it, and give her relatives a pass for expressing their grief and take it all on the chin.

If he really IS that heartless it’s still rather stupid of him as I suspect to her parents there is literally NOTHING he can actually do that can trump the loss of their daughter and it’s a colossal waste of his money for him to even try....

hall we have a guess why we're not applying that to Eleanor

You speak for yourself

I take it case by case when i look at these cases

Freind of mine was falsely accused of sexual assault so i know that it happens for all sorts of reasons

there's no guarantee that she would have been had she gone to court

I guarantee that if she had stood trial and been found not guilty there would still be people screaming for blood. Innocent until proven guilty only works one way in some people's deluded minds.

and it logically follows that if they're charged they did it.

Citation or retract, @iloveirnbru.

He was not convicted because he was not even charged with an offence. She was.

Being charged with an offence does not = guilty.

Falsely accuse a man of rape

Why are you so convinced the accusation was false?

This is worth highlighting. She was never convicted, there's no guarantee that she would have been had she gone to court, and she deserves presumption of innocence, even in death.

Because the CPS did.

Wow. That's brilliant. Let's just abolish all criminal trials right now because clearly the CPS believing someone is guilty is enough to toss someone in jail and throw away the key.

That is an uniquely MRA approach. He is innocent of a crime because he was not convicted but she is guilty of a crime because she was not convicted

He was not convicted because he was not even charged with an offence. She was.

As I said earlier, whenever a thread about rape comes up here, posters fall over themselves to tell us how only a tiny proportion of rapists ever see the inside of a court room, and it logically follows that if they're charged they did it. (Regardless of the verdict) Shall we have a guess why we're not applying that to Eleanor de freitas?

17th rule of feminism. Do not apply the same standards to men and women in law. Ever. See rule 1 for further details.

metrorider

Yy

That is an uniquely MRA approach. He is innocent of a crime because he was not convicted but she is guilty of a crime because she was not convicted.

YY. And he is so innocent and has been driven, driven I tell you to making these websites that would be libelous if the subject weren't dead, whereas she is an evil scheming harridan for having the temerity to be so mentally-ill that suicide seemed like a good idea.

Never mind that he chose to make the websites, whereas suicide of a severely-ill bipolar patient isn't a choice.

@iloveirnbru I'm taking being called "disgusting" by someone who thinks vexatious libel claims against grieving fathers are ok as a compliment.

A severely mentally ill woman is not accountable for her own suicide because she's not able to make rational decisions. The same would go if it was a man. The CPS should have heeded her psychiatrist's advice. They, ultimately, are the reason why her case never saw court. Of course, if he'd just let it go in the first place, he wouldn't be doing a great job of convincing all of us how horrible he is and most of us would never have even heard of the case. As I said, Barbara Streisand...

That is an uniquely MRA approach. He is innocent of a crime because he was not convicted but she is guilty of a crime because she was not convicted.

I think the MRA is repeatedly defaming persons on this thread to get Mumsnet involved in a legal imbroglio

14th rule of feminism. If anyone disagrees with me they're a MRA/TRA.

I've not defamed anyone. She's dead, she can't be defamed.

@Racecardriver: The only way a man can defend himself from a false accusation is by making sure that he is never alone with a woman (kind of v like how a woman was once expected to never br alone with a man to avoid sexual assault). Do you really think that it OK to put men into that position?

Women spend their whole fucking lives trying to defend ourselves from rape. It colours most of the decisions I make, right down which windows I leave open at night in hot weather. So yes, it's A-OK to put men in that position. Oh no, they might find it harder to get laid. Boohoo.