Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 really pissed off at the Lib Dem party re sexual abuse?

136 replies

Scarletohello · 15/01/2014 20:03

So Lord Carlisle was being interviewed on C 4 news tonight about the other guy ( can't remember his name) who was accused if sexually assaulting 4 women and not only is he being allowed back in the party, he doesn't even have to apologise to the women he allegedly sexually assaulted. And why should he? Said Lord Carlisle. It's just one fuckwit entitled male standing up for another one! He gave me the creeps, couldn't even look at the camera! Did anyone else see this?? Am just so angry! The news is full of sexual abuse cases today, and most of them get away with it ( unless they are an ethnic minority, in a gang etc)

Sorry for the rant but just pissed off...!!

OP posts:
Lioninthesun · 16/01/2014 10:17

Lovely. Well, at least we will be sued by a bastard, and not a nice person...oh wait...Hmm

SuzanneUK · 16/01/2014 10:19

I'd love to know, if the women are simply out to discredit him, how they managed to get the evidence (that Carlisle acknowledges does exist there just isnt enough of it)?

Do you have any thoughts on that, suzanne?

My immediate thought is that you're suggesting that I believe the complainants conspired to discredit him and that you're not not really asking me to tell you the various ways in which evidence might be acquired.

SuzanneUK · 16/01/2014 10:25

Pagwatch is right on this.

Au contraire. She could hardly be more wrong.

LokiIsMine · 16/01/2014 10:29

Suzanne

Evidence can only be written, as emails, texts and so on. Then, if the complainants were many, they were cross interrogated to see if their stories colluded and if the complainants were validating each other, maybe having some points in common.

if the accused is famous, rich or politically involved, police officers need to be 200% sure of the evidence. All trials ALWAYS start with blaming the complainants, then if the complainants keep being steady, they take into account the accused could be guilty

Lioninthesun · 16/01/2014 10:30

The Tories really don't have to do anything to dismiss Lib Dems in the public view. You are all so busy doing it directly they needn't bother!

LokiIsMine · 16/01/2014 10:41

mumoftwoyoungkids

If I was to be scared, I wouldn't have reported my rapist and abuser for fear of being judged a liar. Which is the fate of every single rape and abuse victim, to be judged a liar.

The problem just doesn't start at a police station, it starts with society who regularly dismiss popular cases with "well if it was not proven, it didn't happen".
WRONG very often it happens, it is the evidence not judged enough to convict someone else.

After a few hours, a rape is not visible anymore on a person, mild injuries after a week, after that time you enter the "not proven" area. If you didn't have the courage to report it within a certain time (for reasons like rapist is your husband, a friend, a relative, parent...), you can kiss goodbye to the conviction.

For sexual harassment cases, I guess everything is ten time more difficult?

Unfortunately the whole social system is plagued by legends, misinformation, wrong headlines (like the independent defining, this morning, a rape gang as a "sex gang" FGS they don't know the difference between sex and rape?) and beliefs.
Until we change what society thinks about sexual assault, rape and abuse, we are not going anywhere with any of these cases.

SuzanneUK · 16/01/2014 10:51

the fate of every single rape and abuse victim, to be judged a liar.

I can think of several rape cases where, at no stage, was the victim even suspected of being a liar by anybody connected with the investigation. The police, the medics and even the perpetrator agreed from the start that she was telling thee truth.

Pagwatch · 16/01/2014 10:52
Grin

Well that's marvellous.
I think I obviously could be more wrong. But I guess that passed as witty repost in your big book of bollockd.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 16/01/2014 10:52

So you dont have an answer then?

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 16/01/2014 10:55

Pag, hmm, lets see, examples of you being more wrong...

"I think anyone tweeting about this case must be a lizard"

Hows that? Grin

Pagwatch · 16/01/2014 10:55

Just out of curiosity - are you saying that falsely outing MCAlpine - a wholly innocent man - as a paedophile is the same as complaining about an insufficient evidence decision in an employment tribunal.

Because I could do with a laugh this morning.

Pagwatch · 16/01/2014 10:57

Beyond
Hmmm - David Icke would think that totally reasonable so I'm not sure.
It's quite a high measure of wrong we are looking for....

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 16/01/2014 11:03

There are quite a few long term posters who are open about supporting lib dems, I wonder what their views on this are?

LokiIsMine · 16/01/2014 11:04

SuzanneUK

You are the only one to know about those cases, given that any statistics possessed by all rape/abuse associations what you said is the exception, not the norm.

You actually gave it away with the word "medics". In a rape trial, you don't undergo a medical examination unless you've been recently raped.

Care to tell us if you are Ian Joseph or his PA? Judging from what you wrote in two threads, you could be:

  • a lawyer defending the accused in sexual harassment/rape cases
  • a rape/abuse apologist stumbling down on a MN thread by mistake.
BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 16/01/2014 11:07

By the way suzanne, do you happen to know what the harassment victims were wearing? You know, just so you can be sure of their guilt?

SuzanneUK · 16/01/2014 11:09

what you said is the exception, not the norm.

Yes, it's very much the exception but I was responding to the suggestion that women who report rape are deemed to be liars in every single case.

SuzanneUK · 16/01/2014 11:15

There are some very strange posts appearing here.

Have I given the impression that I support Lord Rennard and/or do not support the women who complained of harassment?

If anybody thinks so, I'd be obliged if they'd refer me to the relevant postings.

LokiIsMine · 16/01/2014 11:16

Suzanne

You're clearly not able to read English. Where did I mention investigation or case?

I said that the fate of every single rape/abuse victim is to be judged a
liar, didn't mention by whom. Many victims are judged as liars by society, parents, families, and also investigators yes.
Or do you want to act like the victim-blaming attitude is an invention of feminists? Hmm

LokiIsMine · 16/01/2014 11:19

Suzanne

You're coming off as a rape/abuse apologist. Sorry for you if that was not your intention.

SuzanneUK · 16/01/2014 11:31

You're coming off as a rape/abuse apologist

Sorry about that.

I'd hoped I was coming off as a seeker of justice for all but, sadly, there are always people who think sexual assault cases should proceed directly from accusation to punishment without troubling a judge and a jury.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 16/01/2014 12:08

Suzanne, regardless of what party you support, as a woman in the uk, are you really happy with the way sexual assault and rape victims are treated?

You are aware that, as a female, you are not safe from these things, no matter who you are? And that in britain, the majority of these crimes go unreported because of the treatment of the victims?

SuzanneUK · 16/01/2014 12:24

Suzanne, regardless of what party you support, as a woman in the uk, are you really happy with the way sexual assault and rape victims are treated?

No, I'm not

You are aware that, as a female, you are not safe from these things, no matter who you are? And that in britain, the majority of these crimes go unreported because of the treatment of the victims?

Yes, I am.

Solo · 16/01/2014 12:32

You can't convict people on a sneaky feeling! Hmm
I've seen loads of people (men) get acquitted that should have been convicted (going by the actual case notes/file, plus their behaviour in custody on remand), and some who are quite clearly innocent, but have been convicted. Maybe the jurors had a 'sneaky feeling' about them.

There are generally only 2 people that know whether they are guilty or innocent. The victim and the accused.

SuzanneUK · 16/01/2014 12:42

You can't convict people on a sneaky feeling!

You most certainly can. Juries agree to return a verdict based upon the evidence but in reality they return verdicts based upon all sorts of things and, if they wish to convict a defendant based upon sneaky feelings, no power on earth can prevent them from doing so.

ProfPlumSpeaking · 16/01/2014 12:43

As a seeker of justice, Suzanne, do you not want justice for the women?

Or do you not believe them?

Presumably, you will you only call those women liars if you can prove that beyond reasonable doubt? It seems unlikely you would succeed as their testimonies have been judged to be credible.

Why are you willing to assume Rennard is telling the truth unless proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, but not prepared to believe the women on the same basis? Why do you set a much lower bar for Rennard than for the women? It would seem much more realistic, when judging between 2 people, to apply a test of balance of probabilities - the usual civil test - and reserve the "reasonable doubt" test for when you have the might of the state pitched against an individual whose liberty is at stake.

Your idea of justice seems a little skewed.