To be angry about the Oritse Williams rape case?

[prettyinpink23x]

He's been found not guilty today by a Jury.

So many people on twitter are saying 'name and shame the woman, she's lied' 'she deserves a prison sentence'. This is infuriating! Do these people not realise that 'not guilty' does not equate with innocent and it doesn't mean she's lied?

Is it unreasonable for me to be angry about this?

Good Lord. And 8 women bought that story?

Exactly! It's bullshit!

Deathgrip - excellent post! As the mother of a daughter I thank you. Dd is only 18 and has already had several years of being leched at, cat called, grabbed, harassed at work, "minorly" assaulted...

It's unfortunately and unacceptably part of life for girls and women.

The first time I was assaulted I wasn't even at high school!

Male entitlement to female bodies HAS to be challenged/reversed - yes it will sadly take a long time that doesn't mean we shrug our shoulders and quit!

Having known 3 falsely accused men I think YABU. He was found not guilty. With your attitude why have a trial if they are all guilty?

It's very telling, and very depressing, that so many people on this thread seem far more concerned with the very few false rape claims than they are with the many men who get away with rape.

You know 3 falsely accused men?

Were you there? With all three men at the time of the alleged assaults?

I’m sure the wives, families and friends of the men who assaulted / raped me would say the same if I’d accused them. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I don’t have any contact with an entire side of my family after being abused as a child by one of them because even as a 14 year old when I told someone, I was assumed to be a liar.

Crimes don’t just pop into existence with the reading of a guilty verdict, and vice versa. A guilty or not guilty verdict is for a court room, it obviously has no bearing on whether a crime actually happened in reality.

Having known 3 falsely accused men

You run in very unfortunate circles.

“In reality it means that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt”

It does mean that. It also means that his status as innocent is reaffirmed, by law.

Those decrying this outcome are pathetic. They were not in the court.

It may well be that the accuser did lie. It happens sometimes.

I don’t think accusers of any crimes, unless they are a child, should have any right to anonymity. Legal processes are matters of public record and should be treated as such. Transparency is important and there is no shame in being a victim of crime.

He should never have been named until found guilty. If he had to be named at the start, she should have had to be too. This will stick with him now.
We will never know the truth, but we will all think of him differently even though there is a chance he is innocent.

This, exactly. Neither of them should have been named.

“It's very telling, and very depressing, that so many people on this thread seem far more concerned with the very few false rape claims than they are with the many men who get away with rape.”

Neither has any bearing on the other.

I don’t think posters are saying they’re not concerned with men who get away with rape.

However, when a jury clearly and unanimously finds someone not guilty it is not up to the MN jury to insist that actually they are guilty and that the women jurors who returned that verdict after only two hours must be thick.

Yes, let’s double down on the shockingly low rate of rape reporting by ensuring that traumatised victims can be attacked in the press, on social media, on the streets and receive death threats.

Brilliant idea.

He was found not guilty. OP wasn't there. Why don't you people just leave him alone and leave off assuming his guilt.

Getting all about something you don't even know about.

Ridiculous. Just part of this horrible blaming culture, which MN loves.

I don’t think posters are saying they’re not concerned with men who get away with rape.

I said certain people seem more concerned with the few false rape claims.

We've become so used to rape as an everyday thing 'oh it's unfortunate but what can we do etc etc' but some people save their true outrage for the false claims, of which there are very few.

Having known 3 falsely accused men I think YABU. He was found not guilty. With your attitude why have a trial if they are all guilty?

Exactly Autumn.

I don't know whether he did it or not.

What is ridiculous however is all of these people now demanding she should be jailed and assuming she must have lied simply because of the result of this trial.

Legally he is innocent.

Legally she is also innocent as she hasn't been charged or convicted with perverting the course of justice.

Believing that he must be guilty is no more moronic than believing she is guilty yet only people who believe the former are made to justify their beliefs. Funny that.

Cut it out with the “mum to boys” shit. I have two boys and I will damn well raise them to understand that it’s enthusiastic consent to all aspects of every sexual encounter, or nothing.

But how will you tell your son's to record this should they ever need to prove it? That's part of the difficulty isn't it? That one side says it was consensual and the other side says it wasn't - how does a jury know what actually happened?

One thing that puzzles me - presumably consent should be sought and given by both parties? If both parties are very drunk why is it only the man who is charged with rape? Does a woman ever get asked to prove how she got consent from a drunk man to have sex? That must happen - does it ever get reported or prosecuted?

Or just maybe this thread was posted by a woman whose rapist got away with it, commented on by many women who have suffered at the hands of men who’ve abused them with no concern for the consequences, and are sick to the back teeth of the general public thinking that a lack of a conviction means that a victim is automatically full of shit.

Just a thought.

@Plinney

But people are also harassing the woman involved. I take it you will be heading over to Twitter to put all of those people in their place?

Legally she hasn't done anything wrong either.

If he had to be named at the start, she should have had to be too.

The benefit of naming the accused is that it may encourage other victims of the accused (if there are any) to come forward and report.

What is the benefit to the case, or anyone involved, in naming the alleged victim?

I can’t give them a way to prove that. I can make sure that they know they should treat their sexual partners with the utmost respect - and as I said earlier, how many men do you think do that and are then accused of rape?

If false accusations, particularly against celebrities, are so common, why aren’t there accusations against every famous man - and especially those who are very wealthy (eg Bill Gates) or who’ve had a lot of sex? Take Russell Brand - that guys had more sexual partners than I’ve had hot dinners and yet remarkably there haven’t been any accusations that I’ve heard of. How does that happen? Statistically he should have loads, right?

Does a woman ever get asked to prove how she got consent from a drunk man to have sex? That must happen - does it ever get reported or prosecuted?
How many women do you think are able to have sex with a man who’s so drunk he’s barely conscious? How many men have you been with who are physically capable of having sex when they’re that intoxicated? It’s such a false equivalency.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is there for a reason. Rape is a serious crime that (I think) carries a mandatory life sentence. I don't understand how you can say that it should be reduced to balance of probabilities. I don't want to live in a society where someone's freedom comes down to "he says/she says"

However, I do agree that the woman should not be accused of lying unless there is good evidence for it.

The media should not be allowed to report on any offence until there is a conviction, not just rape.

Does a woman ever get asked to prove how she got consent from a drunk man to have sex? That must happen - does it ever get reported or prosecuted?

Yes it does and while I cant remembers the details I do recall a conviction for this, it isn’t called rape as in the U.K. rape is with a penis, I think maybe it is sexual assault if a woman does it?

How many women do you think are able to have sex with a man who’s so drunk he’s barely conscious? How many men have you been with who are physically capable of having sex when they’re that intoxicated? It’s such a false equivalency.

Why a false equivalency? Being drunk doesn't render all men impotent. How about if the man is asleep? Consent needs to be obtained by both parties surely? And if being drunk means that a woman is unable to consent (I'm not talking about being unconscious) then that must apply equally to men being drunk too?

I believe it’s called forced penetration.

Rape is a serious crime that (I think) carries a mandatory life sentence
Seriously? No it doesn’t.

Some gems from the 2018 data
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffendingvictimisationandthepaththroughthecriminaljusticesystem/2018-12-13#convictions

In 2017, there were 1,026 offenders found guilty of rape of a female, and 102 offenders found guilty of rape of a male

for rape cases, conviction ratios have decreased since 2012 (41% to 36%)

The picture is similar for completed rape-flagged prosecutions, which fell from 5,190 in the year ending March 2017 to 4,517 in the year ending March 2018 – a decrease of 13% - this despite an increase in reported rapes

The proportion of prosecutions not resulting in a conviction due to conflict in evidence has increased by 37% since the year ending March 2012 (CPS Table 7). Complex decisions around consent and one person’s word against another may partially explain the legal complexities around investigations and prosecution of sexual offence cases. In addition, the CPS Annual Report 2017 to 2018 (PDF, 3.9MB) recognised that there were a higher number of complex cases than previously. There was a huge growth in digital evidence and in the case of sexual offences, very often a heavy reliance on vulnerable victims and witnesses. These factors create substantial additional challenges for case management.

Rape-flagged offences have a lower guilty plea rate than other sexual offences and can involve complex court cases, especially where consent is a significant issue for the court to consider. yeah, I’ll bet they do

Average custodial sentence length (ACSL) has risen across all sexual offences between 2012 and 2017 (Figure 16; MoJ Table 9). The number of life sentences for sexual offences has been slowly increasing over the last six years, from 23 in 2012 to 42 in 2017 (MoJ Table 10). The majority of these life sentences (34 or 81%) were for rape

Why a false equivalency? Being drunk doesn't render all men impotent. How about if the man is asleep? Consent needs to be obtained by both parties surely? And if being drunk means that a woman is unable to consent (I'm not talking about being unconscious) then that must apply equally to men being drunk too?

Because it’s much easier to penetrate someone who’s severely intoxicated than to be penetrated by someone who’s severely intoxicated - this is a fact of nature. It’s not impossible and I’m sure it happens but do you think it happens often?

It’s a false equivalency because of the power imbalance between men and women and the fact that the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults / rapes are perpetrated by men.

Ok my mistake. Just checked the sentencing guidelines. My point still stands though. It should not be reduced to balance of probabilities