Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be properly offended by this numpty?

241 replies

maighdlin · 06/12/2010 21:59

i love the BBC's have your say section. interesting read and you do get some clever people on it. today they were talking about "sexual" items aimed at children, t shirts that say "porn star" etc. one person said this

This does need to be addressed. Kids should be kids. I dispise seeing kids forced to give up fun for 'education' (some kids dont have a clue about fun) and I dispise seeing kids (usually young girls) wanting to look and act like tarts.

In my family I have cousins who were barely up to my knee in height but dance like lapdancers because of the pop singers at the time. Luckily their parents make them dress appropreately but I think if young kids were taught self respect there would be less rape cases. Being taught the difference between a prostitute/lapdancer/stripper and normal behaviour would make all the difference.

I completely agree with what they are saying except for the " I think if young kids were taught self respect there would be less rape cases" WTF????? I am very rarely offended but how bloody dare they say that a girl having low self esteem means she gets raped??? I hate this attitude that some people "deserve" or "ask for it" when it comes to rape. Rape is rape no matter what you are wearing or whatever. Its a stupid misogynistic way to think that only "good" girls get raped.

Im not sure im even making sense here but am so effing angry at this ignorance Angry AIBU to think that some uninformed ignorant dickhead wrote this?

OP posts:
MrManager · 08/12/2010 17:34

Your post advocates believing the complainant, not the defendant. That is not acceptable in a country with a presumption of innocence.

I didn't link some blog of a guy who agrees with me, I linked to a BBC article by a legal commentator. They were found not guilty of rape, which was why the trial attracted so much attention, though they were found guilty of attempted rape, and I don't think children that young are entirely aware of the consequences of what we call rape. The extract I used puts this better than I am currently managing to do.

ISNT · 08/12/2010 17:37

Right so the next time someone burgles your house or mugs you, and you call the police, you will be absolutely satisfied with them calling you a liar and telling you to piss off? Hmm

Plus the blog you linked (which is still just someone's opinion) is questioning whether a case with such young children should be tried in an adult court. A valid question. It does not say that the boys did nothing wrong, that the girl was not a victim.

MrManager · 08/12/2010 17:44

Certainly not, ISNT. I would want them to come and investigate, take fingerprints, etc.

Yes, it is someone's opinion. Juries are just people's opinions. I know it doesn't say that they did nothing wrong, it says that they didn't see what they were doing as particularly wrong, and at that age I think it's forgivable.

ISNT · 08/12/2010 17:47

So why should the police believe and investigate all crimes except for sexual offences against women.

The girl who was attacked had sustained injuries, was terrified, they took her scooter away, told her she's get in trouble with her mum if she didn't do what they said, forced her to take her knickers off and sexually assaulted her in a range of locations over a prolonged period. There were two of them and they were much older than her - the difference between a 10 yo and an 8yo is huge. you have no problem with that behaviour, put it down to childish high spirits or something. That is a grotesque attitude. None of your posts show any compassion or care for what that little girl went through at all - you only care about the boys. Nice.

MrManager · 08/12/2010 17:52

You've misread my post, ISNT. I said the police should come and investigate, collect evidence - same for a rape. Don't immediately believe or disbelieve, just come and establish the truth for themselves.

"None of your posts show any compassion or care for what that little girl went through at all - you only care about the boys. Nice."
You're clearly not interested in talking, as you're telling me what I believe. If I called you a 'man-hater', you'd just shut down any debate, because clearly I'm not worth the time, right? So why should I treat you any differently?

ISNT · 08/12/2010 17:57

I have not misread your posts at all mr manager. Maybe I can repost them here for teh avoidance of confusion.

ISNT Wed 08-Dec-10 16:46:20
mj the thing is, that I think edam was talking about the same case as me, the little girl didn't make it up.

But as soon as someone says "there was a case where a little girl was assaulted" the reponse is immediately "she made it up".

That reflects what happens in society and it adds to a culture where women and girls who complain of sexual abuse and assault are routinely disbelieved.

It goes as far up as the police, who disbelieved john warboys victims, even though they were working in the sapphire specialist rape unit and should have been the best for dealing with rape that there is.

this is why women and children keep it to themselves, don't tell their friends, family, teachers, police, and it eats away at them and the attackers are left free to keep on attacking.

Women and girls do not routinely lie about rape. Why on earth do people think they do?

MrManager Wed 08-Dec-10 16:51:03
There has to be a culture where women are disbelieved in order to have fair trials. Maybe not to the level of 'this ever even happened', but certainly to a level of 'well, prove that it happened the way you say it did'.

Seems extremely clear to me.

MrManager · 08/12/2010 18:01

"There has to be a culture where women are disbelieved in order to have fair trials. Maybe not to the level of 'this ever even happened', but certainly to a level of 'well, prove that it happened the way you say it did'."

What's the problem here? I clearly say that there should be some independent determination of the truth, I don't say that women should never be believed at all.

ISNT · 08/12/2010 18:05

It is not the job of the police to try and independently determine the truth. Yet they do it time and time again with rape victims, accusing them of lying and dismissing their claims. You posted in support of that approach. Even though apparently you do not support that approach for other crimes.

Read the posts.

MrManager · 08/12/2010 18:09

ISNT you either can't or won't read my posts.

"It is not the job of the police to try and independently determine the truth."

I think most readers will decide who is being sensible about this issue once they read this sentence.

How would we have fair trials if we do not at least presume the defendant is innocent? Should the complainant's word be enough, no forensic evidence?

ISNT · 08/12/2010 18:15

I didn't put that very well.

It is not up to the police to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth, who is innocent and who is guilty. The police are supposed to investigate and gather evidence.

You quite clearly said that the existing culture of disbelief in the police force and society are correct in the case of sexual offences, although that is not the correct approach for other crimes.

Read back what I wrote. Then read back what you replied.

ISNT · 08/12/2010 18:16

So you think the police were correct to turn John Warboys victims away, that is what you said. Stop wriggling and read back what I wrote, then read what you wrote. It is very clear.

MrManager · 08/12/2010 18:19

There should be a culture of non-acceptance in the police force (that belief changing as they gather evidence, statements, etc.), and a slight culture of disbelief in the courts (to be challenged by evidence, testimony, etc.). For any and all crimes.

Evidence needs to be produced if one wants to punish another. No-one should be taken completely at their word, not when there are such big consequences for a defendant.

HerBeatitude · 08/12/2010 18:20

"There has to be a culture where burglary victims are disbelieved in order to have fair trials."

"There has to be a culture where GBH victims are disbelieved in order to have fair trials."

"There has to be a culture where fraud victims are disbelieved in order to have fair trials."

Does any of that sound reasonable?

HerBeatitude · 08/12/2010 18:22

The point is, the police don't bother to collect evidence in the case of rape and sexual assault.

Actually, sometimes they don't bother to collect evidence for other crimes either, but not because they don't believe they happened, just because they can't be arsed

MrManager · 08/12/2010 18:22

Yes, when you look at the other side and see:

"There has to be a culture where alleged burglars are believed in order to have fair trials."

"There has to be a culture where alleged attackers are believed in order to have fair trials."

"There has to be a culture where alleged fraudsters are believed in order to have fair trials."

ISNT · 08/12/2010 18:22

?

So when anyone contacts the police to report a crime, the police's inital stance should be that they are lying, and treat them accordingly?

That's a new one on me Hmm

ISNT · 08/12/2010 18:24

That's not the other side. And we aren't talking about trials (sorry HB) we're talking about the police and society.

HerBeatitude · 08/12/2010 18:25

Hello? Burglars, attackers and fraudsters, are the fucking perpetrators, Mrmanager, not the victims.

Your sentences are completed by:

"There has to be a culture where alleged rapists are believed in order to have fair trials."

Oh, wait, there is.

ISNT · 08/12/2010 18:25

MrManager is arguing that the police should automatically disbelieve anyone who reports a crime to them.

I think he has developed this proposition, which is clearly bonkers, in order to defend his earlier "there has to be a culture of disbelief in the police force when it comes to rape" comments, on the realisation that that stance is not really defendable.

ISNT · 08/12/2010 18:27

Sorry to go on HB but we're not talking about trials, I don't want to sidetrack from what mrmanager said, which was how the stance of disbelief of victims in society and in the police was the correct stance.

TheFeministParent · 08/12/2010 18:27

MrManager Wed 08-Dec-10 17:34:07
Your post advocates believing the complainant, not the defendant. That is not acceptable in a country with a presumption of innocence.

Utter rubbish. This country does not 'believe' anyone or anything, but has a burden of proof and all parties are innocent until proven guilty. Not really the same thing is it. There is nothing that advocates not believing someone who accusing someone else of a crime, unless you are saying that all accusers are liarsConfused.

HerBeatitude · 08/12/2010 18:33

Yes fair enough.

That culture of disbelief, stops them bothering to gather evidence.

They do come round and do some desultory finger-printing if there has been a burglary, e ven if they think there's very little chance of tracing the burglar - they keep it on file for 5 years down the line when s/he turns up having had finger prints done in 10 houses. But quite often, they don't bother to search an alleged rape perpetrator's house, look at their e-mails or texts (which would possibly be incriminating) or do any of the other bog standard investigative steps they would do for other crimes.

And another thing - if a burglar walks free, nobody thinks the householder made it all up in order to do an insurance scam (although that is absolutely just as likely as an alleged rape victim doing so).

MrManager · 08/12/2010 20:38

ISNT: "MrManager is arguing that the police should automatically disbelieve anyone who reports a crime to them."

Nope. Misrepresenting me again. The police should neither believe nor disbelieve anyone, they should remain independent and impartial until evidence reveals the truth.

TheFeministParent yes, that is what I have been trying to say, but I got mixed up with all this 'believe' terminology. Of course I am not saying that all accusers are liars, but I won't pronounce a person guilty until the evidence is overwhelming or a court has said so.

The problem with rapes is that forensic evidence like fingerprints and semen is not conclusive. It only proves that sex took place, not that the sex was non-consensual.

ISNT · 08/12/2010 21:17

So you didn't really mean what you said earlier? About it being correct that society and the police should disbelieve rape victims?

I'm too tired to argue any more and you seem to be saying that you didn't mean it. Is that right?

ISNT · 08/12/2010 21:19

Plenty of rapes do have additional evidence - evidence of violence, tearing, bruising, fingermarks, and worse. It is not always the case that the victim is unmarked.

Unfortunately the approach of the police in the past has been to question the victim relentlessly about whether they like "rough sex", rather than treat it as a crime and actually record the evidence.