To wonder why so many famous people are publicly supporting...

[ThanksHunkyJesus]

Oritse of JLS fame who has been charged with the rape of a 20 year old fan, along with a friend of his who is accused of assaulting the same woman. Those who have publicly lent their support and well wishes to oritse include aston merrygold (also of jls), Alexandra Burke, Rochelle humes and olly murs amongst plenty of others. Falling over themselves to declare what a lovely guy oritse is.

Am I going mad or did #me too never happen? Why publicly throw your support behind someone who is accused of rape in the current climate? I wouldn't want to speculate whether he's guilty or not - but no consideration at all for the young woman did shock me.

I havent got a link yet

I dont know if anyone is interested but nothing so far

Original thread was should celebrities in the public eye be seen to be supporting a fellow celebrity charged with rape.
Has derailed subsequently but the Asia Argento links in to this theme:
as in should her previous adherents continue to support her or should they too await (any) court action. Some have already withdrawn their support for her. Others have talked of victims becoming perps. Others have said they abhor what she has been accused of (statuory rape of a 17 year old according to Californian law) but clearly that does not negate/should not cancel out the wrong done towards her (having cunnilingus forced on her by Pervy Wankstain aka oral rape acc to US law).

Her counter claims/statement drawn up by lawyer make little sense in relation to the fact that her now dead ex paid off her accuser: even if there was a 'shakedown'/extortion - that does not prevent the truth that she admitted to having sex with the 17 year old in question. To then say later horny little kid jumped her/she froze/the photos taken afterwards meant nothing/he was blackmailing her/he has done x,y,z etc means the lawyer's M.O to discredit the alleged victim based on his personal history is no different to how female victims are treated (eg Tyson's failed appeal 30 years ago wanted to use Washington's sexual history) and no different to how Weinstein tried to silence Asia herself by digging dirt on her when originally reported.

I think some people think that being accused of rape is as bad as being raped

Rape is abhorrent. Any man that commits it, I would be happily see face life in prison.

Being falsely accused of rape must be awful too though. I don't think you can compare them. But we shouldn't down play the fact that a fake accusation of rape, although rare, can destroy lives, reputation, and families.

Recent cases have rather shown that being accused, even charged even indicted on rape DOESN'T ruin an accused persons life - far from it, it's even got some more work, more fans etc

ffs just because celebrators do well after clearing there name does not mean the common person is equally able to bounce back i have seen the devastation i have seen peoples careers go down the drain off the back off an accusation even if found NOT GUILTY it will always remain on your file that you were accused of a sexual crime good luck EVER getting a job as a doctor / teacher with that on record.

If you have trained for years to be a doctor / teacher (the other DBS checked professions don't have as long commitment for training). Good luck telling them that they will be fine their lives are not ruined just that their career path they went to university racked up massive debts for and spent +5 years training is now closed to them.

Oh and there is NO FUNDING so they can retrain to something else.

How again is that not ruining someone life? losing forever their career and effectively being barred from EVERY single DBS check able job.

So even if they are found not guilty they are being punished anyway.

Oh and it also will be disclosed on any claire law requests as well good luck getting a partner with that on record.

I will get flamed for this but if you are found not guilty this should never appear on any disclosure otherwise you are effectively being punished even if NOT guilty.

Recent cases have rather shown that being accused, even charged even indicted on rape DOESN'T ruin an accused persons life - far from it, it's even got some more work, more fans etc

But if an innocent person is accused of a crime, I imagine it would affect their mental health which can have far reaching consequences. I don't think everyone would just be ok.

These are the conquences things that can be recorded and evidenced rather then the less obvious things of reputation and the large number of people that believe no smoke without fire or that he is just a rapist that got off.

Or the shittest phase banded on here not guilty does not mean innocent, then why the fuck do we need a justice system if people are guilty no matter what.

People have misunderstood the we believe you campaign, instead of its original meaning is that we are listening to you. It now taken as simply being the woman is always to listened too and the man accused is always a disgusting rapist, even if he is found not guilty he is simply a rapist that got away with it.

@worridmum
Or the shittest phase banded on here not guilty does not mean innocent, then why the fuck do we need a justice system if people are guilty no matter what
I understand what you're getting at but saying that the prosecution couldn't prove " beyond reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty does not mean that the accused has been proven to be innocent. The burden of proof is designed to give the accused the "benefit of the doubt" where the doubt is reasonable, however it is perfectly possible that the accused could have been found guilty if the jury was asked to give their opinion based on the "balance of probabilities" test. So even when a man has been deemed to be "not guilty" it could still well be the case that the majority of people sat on the jury believed he probably did it.

Can I ask what you would say if they were supporting a woman who had been accused of raping a man? (As it does happen)

Would you say they were wrong for doing that as ultimately it's the same. A man accusing a woman of rape is rarely believed either.

But worridmum as much as you don't like the "not guilty does not = innocent" rhetoric, I'm afraid it's true. You can dislike it as much as you like nothing changes that. Ive never had the guts to report the man who sexually abused me as a child, but if I did and it went to court and he was found not guilty, he isn't magically innocent. Those things didn't not happen. If the law defines not guilty as innocent then it would require many rape victims to be prosecuted if their rapist was found not guilty. So too right it should remain on his 'file' - it's entirely relevant. Not guilty verdicts should still always be on your record. Look at the rugby union men Ireland and what they did to that women they were somehow found not guilty - now imagine if any of them wanted to say work in a sexual health clinic. Would that be OK?

And you may have known men who're allegedly innocent and have had their 'lives ruined' (however that's defined) but you know the few and far between. These instances should have NO effect on how we treat and charge for rape. When people say it doesn't ruin lives they aren't talking about every individual person - they're talking about men as a class. Because men as a class are held in such high regard it doesn't matter what so many have done or have been accused of, they will generally bounce back or even be lauded as a victim of crime by people like yourself. People feel sorry for Cher Evans FFS

Can I ask what you would say if they were supporting a woman who had been accused of raping a man? (As it does happen

No it doesnt, not in this country a rape can only be committed with a penis. That's not to say women can't sexually assault a man, and that it carries a heavy sentence

A man accusing a woman of rape is rarely believed either.

It rarely happens when it does, but I've always found people to be sympathetic to Male sexual assault victims (as they should), there's NEVER any talk of what he was wearing or if he was drunk if he actually wanted sex with the person but regretted it the next day, the fucking slag

I will get flamed for this but if you are found not guilty this should never appear on any disclosure otherwise you are effectively being punished even if NOT guilty.

At this point I want to point out that after Ian Huntley and the Soham murders, the DBS (then CRB) checks cane into force, the very point of them being that you could check an array of details about a person. If Ian Huntley had a DBS check today he'd never get a job in a school. BUT he was never actually convicted of any of the sexual and assault crimes he undoubtedly committed, so if your rules are in place then his DBS would come back clear. Is it really worth risking the safety and lives of so many vulnerable people for the sake of the vanishingly few falsely accused men? Yes it's a bit like collateral damage and it's not ideal - but if someone has to be collateral damage I'd rather it be a couple of dozen men than thousands of vulnerable men women and children

@GunpowderGelatine

"BUT he was never actually convicted of any of the sexual and assault crimes he undoubtedly committed"

You might be an intelligent person but this statement makes everything else you say pretty worthless. Do you have the faintest idea about how our legal system (or logic) works?

@moreThanFantastic what's wrong with what I said and I studied law at u I so yes I do

When I say he was never convicted I OBVIOUSLY mean the crimes he committed and was accused of prior to the murders he committed. The many assault and sexual assault crimes.

I think if someone is consistently accused of sexual offences but never charged it should be recorded.

Ian Huntley wasn’t accused once or twice of violence or sexual assault, it was numerous times, to the point where the police force where he lived before Soham were extremely concerned.

Mick Philpott is another deviant who was repeatedly reported and known for abusive behaviour.

So it’s all very well saying what should and shouldn’t happen, but it doesn’t help the 8 dead children and god knows how many victims left behind by 2 men who slipped through the cracks of an unfit for purpose system.

Surely these cases alone demonstrate that change is needed?

GunpowderGelatine

I suppose I am worrying more about genuinely innocent men who get accused, not men like those in the above posts. I know this will be rare, but it has happen.

Do you think that once the police charge the person, in the overwhelmingly majority that person is guilty ?

Yes, I do Perfectly

The thing is how do we know the innocent from the guilty? We don't, which is why the legal processes are in place to help us decide. We can't "protect the innocent men" without protecting the guilty ones.

Do you think that once the police charge the person, in the overwhelmingly majority that person is guilty?

In the overwhelming majority, yes, I do. Is it foolproof? No. But no system is, and devising a system which will protect the guilty is not the way to go.

False accusations are extremely rare. Men would like you to believe they are more common so that when she drops the charges, or it doesn't make it to court or he gets a not guilty verdict, you believe he must be innocent.

The fact is, men abuse women on a monumental scale. They get away with it again and again and peddle this - she was a nutter making it up crap.

It's much much much more likely the assault took place and the man has avoided justice, then the woman made it up. But men want to keep the myth going that women are all whores and fantasists.

GunpowderGelatine

I think you are probably right, I have always thought that i should only base my thoughts on what happens at the trial. I have now come to the conclusion that if the police decide there is enough evidence to go to trial, that speaks volumes. The police must feel incredibly frustrated when people they know are guilty, are found not guilty. I still feel incredibly worried for those occasional cases where men are genuinely falsely accused and they go to trial, even if found not guilty though due to this.

It's depressing reading, it really is.

YANBU

Onlyhappenswhenitrains1 do you have any evidence to support what you're saying? I actually tend to agree with you and think that's exactly what happens, but it would be good to have evidence!

Onlyhappywhenitrains1 sorry not happens!

DP was a juror on a trial about sustained abuse and rape. There was reams of evidence but the guy got off. DP was utterly in despair at the attitudes shown in the jury room.

As a society, we seem to have reached a place where saying a man is guilty of rape is the Worst Thing Ever.

But men actually committing rape, well somebody else can sort that out.

If nobody is willing to convict then the whole system is a huge, pointless waste of money. I often wonder if it might be easier to give up prosecuting rape altogether, and encourage victims to seek private redress ie send the boys round.

It's just depressing.