In thinking DH's attitude is absolutely ridiculous? I'm seething!

[justkeeponsmiling]

For reference, we have 3 DC: DD (17), DD (12) ), DS (8). DH and I got together when eldest DD was 18 months old, he treats her like his own and her biological father is not on the scene these days (her choice, he was being a total cunt and she cut contact last year).

Eldest DD will be 18 in a couple of months. She has always been quite nerdy and generally a "good girl", always very responsible, never really going out on the piss, only ever had one boyfriend last year and too my knowledge hasn't even had sex yet - though I realise I might be wrong on this front. So we've never really experienced most of the trials and tribulations that most parents of teenagers experience.

So a couple of days ago DD asks if she can go to her (male) friend's house in the afternoon, after work. She has met this lad through a mutual friend last summer and met him a few times, never been to his place. Not that it makes much of a difference I suppose, but he is 18 and still lives at home. She informs me she will be taking public transport home and get home around 9pm. Of course, no problem. She then asks I'd she would be allowed to have a few drinks at this lads house. I say yes, sure but don't get drunk (last year, one one of the extremely rare occasions DD went for a night out she got extremely drunk and was very lucky she didn't die, due to engaging in some pretty stupid behaviour. It was awful and she knows I still get a bit twitchy when she mentions having a drink, hence her asking if I would mind). So as not to dripfeed, DD was diagnosed with depression last year, mostly brought on by her biological father's cuntish behaviour, and has had a course of ADs and counselling. She dropped out of school and lost a lot of friends at the time. She is much better now and to be honest I'm fucking delighted she is making new friends and going out socialising again!

So as promised, DD came home an out 9:30 last night, obviously quite tipsy. I made her some food, we sat down together while she was eating and she told me she had a fab time - this lad had another mate round who DD knew from school and together they had a few alcopops and played xbox. DH overhears this conversation and halfway through gets up from watching TV and stops upstairs to the bedroom without a word, where he stayed until all DD had gone to bed. When he eventually reappeared I asked him what the matter was as I could tell something was up.

Apparently "he didn't like what he was hearing", so to avoid an argument he thought he would go upstairs. Turns out DH thought it was not ok that DD was in the house with two lads drinking alcohol. He kept asking me if I was ok with it - umm yes?! It was the afternoon, she informed me of her plans, checked if she was allowed a few drinks, didn't get legless and came home as she had promised. I really fail to see the problem! But no - apparently DH, who used to get pissed and take drugs in his mother's shed with his mates from the age of 15 feels it's wrong for a girl to be in the hose with two lads drinking. At very nearly 18 years of age. I was absolutely gobsmacked. I feel that given his own youth he clearly has horrendous double standards, and it makes me really angry that in his head he is turning an afternoon of fun into something seedy and inappropriate. I wasn't even able to discuss this with him - apparently I can't criticise his view because "that is his opinion", and what is he possibly meant to do if this is how he feels?!
I suddenly feel like I am married to some matron from the dark ages and I now absolutely dread our middle DD starting to go out and be a teenager in a few years. His attitude makes me so angry and his complete refusal to discuss the matter is IMO just ridiculous. AIBU to really struggle to get past this? I have no idea how to deal with his attitude!

They weren’t deemed innocent. It was deemed that there wasn’t enough evidence to irrefutably say they’d raped her, ffs.

There’s a very important distinction there.

And witnesses who didn’t think she seemed like she was struggling doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped! This fucks me right off!

Did you follow the case? Did you see that she was interrogated for eight days, and the rapists for less than one? Did she see the statement from the taxi driver (the only impartial witness) that said she was bleeding and severely distressed?

Did you see the WhatsApp messages and the vile things they said?

Did you see that they deleted certain messages which weren’t retrievable?

Did you see her messages to her friend that said she didn’t want to report it because she knew they’d get away with it because of who they are?

Yes, a jury of EIGHT men and three women decided in less than four hours that she’d put herself through all of that for shits and giggles.

And let’s not forget that she was offered hush money and turned it down.

Let’s be very clear, that verdict absolutely does not mean that she wasn’t raped.

*They weren’t deemed innocent. It was deemed that there wasn’t enough evidence to irrefutably say they’d raped her, ffs.

There’s a very important distinction there. *

They are innocent unless proven guilty.
That's the distinction set out in law and by society. They were always deemed innocent from the very start. It's not going to be a popular view here, but that IS the case.

You’re a gobshite. Stop discussing something beyond your capabilities.

You can't be the arbiter of that case.
A jury reached a decision. They had more evidence presented to them than we are privvy too.

Yes, the men's behaviour was sordid in the extreme, utter tossers to a man, but that does not make them rapists. The girl's own behaviour was also highly questionable too. None of them came out looking like angels.

I am not defending the men, or the woman, I am defending the principle of innocence unless proven guilty, which I will stand by until my dying days.

You’re a gobshite.
If that's your response to debate, all is lost.

Argue the case, rather than throwing out personal insults.

He is worried for his little girl and handled it well. He is entitled to his opinion based on experience of being a horny teenage boy. Id be glad he gives a shit.

They are innocent unless proven guilty.
That's the distinction set out in law and by society.

Absolutely wrong.

The distinction is that the state does not have the right to impose the very draconian infringements on civil liberties a conviction permits. It absolutely does not mean that the general public must also assume factual innocence, and that the accuser therefore lied. Your mistake is a common one, but that does not alter its being utterly mistaken.

By definition, the threshold for criminal conviction is extremely high. Beyond a reasonable doubt; not merely balance of probabilities. It isn't about who seemed most likely to be telling the truth, it's about the accused being so clearly guilty that no reasonable person could believe otherwise.

To declare that the men must be innocent because they were not convicted is, ironically, often to state that the women accusers are guilty of a raft of criminal offences of their own - and not only are they unconvicted, but uncharged. Rather glaring logical fail, there.

Oh, and you're a gobshite.

The girl's own behaviour was also highly questionable too.

The girl didn’t commit a crime, genius.

Although by your reckoning she actually did. By falsely accusing innocent men.

So tell me; do you think she’s a criminal who lied?

Sorry, @perfectstorm I didn’t see your great response.

By definition, the threshold for criminal conviction is extremely high. Beyond a reasonable doubt; not merely balance of probabilities.

That threshold does not change the central tenet.
The presumption of innocent is a legal right in the UK and is defined in law under the Human Rights Act article 11.

You may not like it. May not agree with it. But it's right there in law and is fundamental to our justice system.

Your insults let you down. There's no need for it.

Nobody said she committed a crime.
Nobody said the men did either.

A jury reached a verdict, not you, not me, a jury. Either we stand by our laws, or we become vigilantes and just carry out our own trials by internet.

I'll stick with the law, and accept that it will fail less often than trial by internet does.

Somebody is lying, so somebody committed a crime.

You do get that, don’t you?

The husband wants to protect the girl and some here think that is wrong. No wonder things have become so fucked up.

Men know how other men think.

These were not friends. One she has met a couple of times, one she has never met before. She is not a confident outgoing 17 year old. She is vulnerable, recently diagnosed with depression, has lost many of her friends, and the last time she got drunk she behaved in a way so dangerous that she could have died. I think that it is entirely appropriate to be concerned about her in that situation. I agree. Why you're seething OP I have no idea.

No, somebody doesn't have to lie. One persons version of events doesn't have to agree with another's, thus one is lying. That MIGHT be the case, but doesn't have to be.

Lots of cases are based around two people's interpretions of consent, where one reasonably believes consent was not given and another reasonably believes it was.
In this specific case, there were inconsistencies on both sides, some of which may or may not have been lies.

It does not hold that if a woman loses her case, that she is a liar, nor does it hold that if a man is found not guilty, that he probably did it anyway.
Some will guilty people will get off. Some innocent people will be convicted, but we can't just go around assuming we can easily tell which is which.

I think he did ok, to be honest. He took himself off so as not to give his opinion on a subject he knew you and she would not agree about.

I suspect my DH is the same - my dad certainly was. They were both 17 year old boys and so in their heads they 'know what lads are after'.

They don't want other 17 year old lad having those thoughts about their little girl.

Oh, and you're a gobshite.

calling someone a name because you disagree with them...clever

Thanks, willy! Nice of you to join the discussion. :)

@TheBrilliantMistake you’re a man, aren’t you?

@TheBrilliantMistake
So you are happy with 5.6% of rape cases being bought to court result in a rape conviction (bear in mind only 15% of people who are raped even report the crime).
No doubt because of not being belived and dragged through a system that favours the accused.

The so called justice system stinks, look at Worboys, his bloody victims had to bring the case against the Parole board, they even had to fund their costs, Worboys came from the tax payer ffs.

A socially naive 18 year old spends an afternoon drinking with two lads, in one of their homes - and her father is a dinosaur because he thinks that’s a problem?

Mumsnet is a parallel universe at times.

No I'm not at all happy with it.
Not in the slightest, but that won't make me assume guilt either.

The justice system has lots of failings, I don't disagree, but I still believe it's better than trial by internet.

Are you a man?

You already know the answer.
I've stated it many times.

It shouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I expect you'll want to use that as ammunition for more insults. Feel free.