Double standards on mn.

[thatwasme22]

This week so far:

1. I have seen various posters defend Caroline Flack for having issues. Maybe she did but then the same argument would not be made on Chris Browne.

1. A thread on the physical attractiveness on male politicians. Imagine a male forum did this on females.

1. A thread with a woman hiding her inheritance from her husband and encouraged to do so by many posters and him being called financially abusive for being sensible over money. When men do this on mn it's all ltb.

Am I missing something? I call myself a feminist so am pro equality and that's how I raised my kids but why is this not being called out on mn?

@NiceGerbil

So why is a tiny tiny amount of false reports of rape (in line with other crimes and less than stuff people want to claim on insurance) a much bigger problem than all those thousands of men and women never seeing justice, and I'd bet that the vast majority of assailants would lie and say they didn't do it.

Gerbil, you have jumped in and started some wild tangent.

If you bother to read the thread, as my job is not to quote time and posts for you so you can understand what is going on, the discussion was simply me and another poster discussing whether we should immediately believe someone who accused someone (in this context, it came from Johnny Depp). My point was simply that it's different when it's someone you know, but no I do not automatically believe every victim reported. Nor should I, and that can be dangerous ( a la Andrew Lancel and Roxanne Pallett where you jumped in).

PP made the point that AL was only cleared and that doesn't mean he's innocent, but my point is - how will we ever know? I wasn't really referring directly to his work (although thanks for his life story, but previous to that he was mainstream TV on which he hasn't been seen since ) but more that if even though he's cleared in a court of law, if PPs still claim he is guilty because false accusations are so rare (again, how do we know that ), what's the point in the court system ?

@TheReluctantPhoenix

Definitely double standards.

Too much NAMNALT on this thread...

Too much? How much is too much?

Perhaps they could make you a mod and you could give us time slots to be allowed in.

If the point you are making is that man get it easier on here, that is ludicrous.

@CandyLeBonBon

I'm afraid you lost me at 'couldn't be arse' *@Butwasitherdriveway*

I took the time looked up the media stories you mentioned. I don't happen to agree with your assertions but I took the time to check out what you were referring to.

It's a shame you didn't do the same as it does rather weaken your position.

No matter. As I said we'll just have to politely agree to disagree.

Well, you were so rude to me , I didn't see the point.

I'm not really interested in whether you think my position is strong candy. I don't answer to you.

Enjoy your day @Butwasitherdriveway

I haven't been rude. How you choose to read things is up to you.

@CandyLeBonBon

Enjoy your day *@Butwasitherdriveway*

I haven't been rude. How you choose to read things is up to you.

You too!

@Butwasitherdriveway,

My point was actually the opposite, but also a little tongue in cheek.

Men definitely get it harder on MN, as it is a woman’s forum. On some men’s forum’s, women get it harder.

Is tit for tat right? No, of course not. With today’s identity (rather than logic or argument) driven society, is it inevitable? Probably.

Forums

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@Butwasitherdriveway,

My point was actually the opposite, but also a little tongue in cheek.

Men definitely get it harder on MN, as it is a woman’s forum. On some men’s forum’s, women get it harder.

Is tit for tat right? No, of course not. With today’s identity (rather than logic or argument) driven society, is it inevitable? Probably.[/quote]
I don't disagree with that.

But I think the women absolutely outraged that we could possibly claim that men take a pelting on most threads are laughing.

@Butwasitherdriveway

You can believe who you like. Jurors found him not guilty in less than half an hour on six counts.

As I said before, a verdict of not guilty does NOT mean a declaration of innocence. It simply means guilt couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And considering just how high the bar is set for sexual violence claims even making it to court - even with physical evidence, witnesses etc, it's so incredibly rare - it's not just 'someone's word' as you believe

So unless you believe you know better than the judge in this case....

Well I know better than you. I have a law degree for a start, I teach law at A-Level and you thinking a judge has any say on a jury's decision shows how little you know.

[quote JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows]@Butwasitherdriveway

You can believe who you like. Jurors found him not guilty in less than half an hour on six counts.

As I said before, a verdict of not guilty does NOT mean a declaration of innocence. It simply means guilt couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And considering just how high the bar is set for sexual violence claims even making it to court - even with physical evidence, witnesses etc, it's so incredibly rare - it's not just 'someone's word' as you believe

So unless you believe you know better than the judge in this case....

Well I know better than you. I have a law degree for a start, I teach law at A-Level and you thinking a judge has any say on a jury's decision shows how little you know.
[/quote]
Ok. You're very clever. Well done. 🌟

So @Butwasitherdriveway until Andrew Lancel's victim is convicted of pervering the course of justice in inclined to say that it's absolutely incorrect that his accusation was false

Out of interest though, how do we know the difference between a false accusation and a lack of evidence etc?

The CPS takes a decision on a number of factors when they decide wether or not to charge a suspect. This isn't just evidence - but the likelihood of conviction. Meaning that sometimes if a victim doesn't paint a good picture of being a victim then, even if the evidence is strong, the case won't be taken to court. They have to weigh up if it's worth the county's time and money, and jury prejudice is a relevant factor. Sad but true - so any sexual violence fr case going to court has a fairly decent chance of the perpetrator being guilty, no matter what the jury decide.

What's more it's utterly fucking offensive to suggest that a not guilty verdict = a false accusation. Educate yourself before spouting dangerous and dim-witted views. Imagine you were a victim and were unfortunate enough (but highly likely) it to secure a conviction and people called you a liar who ruined someone's career. How would you feel about that? Because that's what you're doing.

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows

What's more it's utterly fucking offensive to suggest that a not guilty verdict = a false accusation. Educate yourself before spouting dangerous and dim-witted views. Imagine you were a victim and were unfortunate enough (but highly likely) it to secure a conviction and people called you a liar who ruined someone's career. How would you feel about that? Because that's what you're doing.

Well if is fucking offensive, which is why I'm glad I didn't say it.

I asked you how you determine the difference between not guilty and guilty but not proven, and how we know who to label for life and who not to.

Two very different questions.

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows

So *@Butwasitherdriveway* until Andrew Lancel's victim is convicted of pervering the course of justice in inclined to say that it's absolutely incorrect that his accusation was false

Out of interest though, how do we know the difference between a false accusation and a lack of evidence etc?

The CPS takes a decision on a number of factors when they decide wether or not to charge a suspect. This isn't just evidence - but the likelihood of conviction. Meaning that sometimes if a victim doesn't paint a good picture of being a victim then, even if the evidence is strong, the case won't be taken to court. They have to weigh up if it's worth the county's time and money, and jury prejudice is a relevant factor. Sad but true - so any sexual violence fr case going to court has a fairly decent chance of the perpetrator being guilty, no matter what the jury decide.

Thank you.

That's the question I asked and the response I was looking for, given as you've already pointed out, I don't know.

I just don't think it's black and white James. How can we live in a world where we read in a paper that someone we don't know had made an allegation and immediately believe it?

We have completely derailed so il leave it there but whether we butt heads or not I appreciate your input on that. Something to think about.

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows you're wasting your breath. I posted very similar last night, with reference to the judges comments after Lancel was acquitted. Pp refused to read any of the information, links or resources because I was being 'rude' (by calmly showing where flaws in their assertions could be seen)

So calm discourse doesn't appear to work!

[quote CandyLeBonBon]@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows you're wasting your breath. I posted very similar last night, with reference to the judges comments after Lancel was acquitted. Pp refused to read any of the information, links or resources because I was being 'rude' (by calmly showing where flaws in their assertions could be seen)

So calm discourse doesn't appear to work! [/quote]
Aw what a shame candy. If you'd have waited 30 seconds and read the thread instead of rushing to have another wee dig, you'd see I thanked James for her input and helping me to understand. Calm discourse, if you will.

What a shame.

It's also me that just gave you the tip about deliveroo for co op. Cause I'm not a weirdo who holds grudges against people I don't know based on a disagreement over a topic that in all honesty doesn't affect my life!

Well if is fucking offensive, which is why I'm glad I didn't say it.

You accused a victim of making a false allegation who had only in fact had to go through watching his abuser receive a not guilty verdict. Do you know how damaging that is? And is this your view on this isolated case or all cases where perpetrators are found not guilty? What about the Irish rugby players, whose victims had their underwear held up in court as some sort of proof that they were sluts, even though their rapists had texted each other the next day bragging about the rape - were those men innocent too?

It's just interesting to see @Butwasitherdriveway that @JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows posted exactly the same information as I did yesterday, that you 'couldn't be arsed' with. So forgive me if I'm less than bothered about your sudden pleasantries.

I just don't think it's black and white James. How can we live in a world where we read in a paper that someone we don't know had made an allegation and immediately believe it?

Ok then one last question @Butwasitherdriveway - what do you think is in it for anyone to make a false allegation? Considering the sheer hell of physical intervention, intense questioning, doubt and the public perception that they're a liar - why would anyone bother doing this?

@Butwasitherdriveway thanks for the co-op tip. Much appreciated. I still disagree with your approach on this thread though.

[quote CandyLeBonBon]@Butwasitherdriveway thanks for the co-op tip. Much appreciated. I still disagree with your approach on this thread though. [/quote]
Fair enough.

I think we've all lost it a bit.

I'm quite normal in real life, but lockdown seems to have sent my internet ways a bit bonkers.

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows

I just don't think it's black and white James. How can we live in a world where we read in a paper that someone we don't know had made an allegation and immediately believe it?

Ok then one last question @Butwasitherdriveway - what do you think is in it for anyone to make a false allegation? Considering the sheer hell of physical intervention, intense questioning, doubt and the public perception that they're a liar - why would anyone bother doing this?

I know you guys hate my celebrity cases, but look at Roxanne Pallett. Some people are just built like that.

She had 23 people come forward to say about their knowledge of her doing the same thing to other people . It happens.

You have me wrong. I would never , ever , genuinely accuse any abuse victim of being a liar. Nor do I genuinely believe that a not guilty verdict means they're a liar nor would I say that.

But, I do see both sides. And I think we demonise men as a society and stand solid with women. Whicb in some ways is a good thing. In others? Not so.

Haha me too @Butwasitherdriveway - anyway, robust debate is always appreciated even if it sometimes gets heated. Have some as it's Easter and it's too early for

@CandyLeBonBon

It's just interesting to see *@Butwasitherdriveway that @JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows* posted exactly the same information as I did yesterday, that you 'couldn't be arsed' with. So forgive me if I'm less than bothered about your sudden pleasantries.

I was grumpy yesterday.

Too much heat and afternoon gin and missing my family at Easter.

I apologise.

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows

Well if is fucking offensive, which is why I'm glad I didn't say it.

You accused a victim of making a false allegation who had only in fact had to go through watching his abuser receive a not guilty verdict. Do you know how damaging that is? And is this your view on this isolated case or all cases where perpetrators are found not guilty? What about the Irish rugby players, whose victims had their underwear held up in court as some sort of proof that they were sluts, even though their rapists had texted each other the next day bragging about the rape - were those men innocent too?

No I didn't! I never said his victim lied.

I asked you repeatedly how we know the difference. you have answered that and given me food for thought.

Absolutely not (not envy)