To think that “innocent until proven guilty” just doesn’t always apply, particularly in cases of sex offences?

[AngeloMysterioso]

It should… I know it should. In a fair and just world.

But the fact is that, in this country at least, because it’s almost always a he-said-she-said, the level of prosecutions and convictions for rape is so shockingly low that virtually every rapist out there is technically an innocent man.

I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t like trial by media, I don’t think someone should be convicted of a serious crime purely on somebody else’s say-so, but I also know that so many men are being able to get away with it that innocent until proven guilty has become a complete crock of shit.

Especially when the perpetrator is famous. Even setting aside the one in the news right now, we also have a recent case of a footballer whose crime was literally recorded and he still got away with it.

I mean what the fuck do we do?!

Do you think Brand is guilty of the crimes stated in the program?

Having been raped, the stories resonate with me. The evidence is pretty good. I am not God so I don't know exactly what happened.

@borninthe80esss you're so weird. Because I don't think it's ok to dismiss suicide I don't care about rape victims (myself, at under 18). Nice one.

Admit you're racist. You agree with @Nausea that we can blame all me for rape and therefore, if they commit suicide, 'and what?!'

But isn't that a bit like me saying
'I was assaulted by a black man, every time I see a gang they are always black, so that makes me believe gang violence is down to black men' ?

No, it's like saying 'I was mugged and the sort sounds like mine'. Race doesn't come into it.

However:
saying you don't care if innocent men kill themselves because men are responsible for rape.

Is exactly the same as saying:

I don't care if an innocent black man is falsely accused because some black men are involved in gang violence.

It's stupid and most of us learn in year 3 that this is not a good argument.

My apologies, I misread the thread. I think we are both in agreement, that making biased opinions without actual proved fact is incorrect.

*If men are responsible for rape, then:

Black men are responsible for gang violence. *

But only men commit rape (other than as an accomplice, before anyone starts with that argument). So yes, men are responsible for rape.

Gang violence could be anyone

Of course that is true, but it's clear the point I'm making. You can't use the actions of a minority to be an arse.

This is all as much about the bbc as it is Brand

It's looking like there were many more women who were going to be involved in the dispatches programme but then chose not to be.

The lack of action by the media companies who knew is why this is all happening.

Respectfully, you made this point And it would appear 48% (YANBU) would be content to have their own, or their partners, income removed on nothing more than a rumour (because we can't even call these accusations; none of the women have actually reported him).
So yes it is relevant.

The outcome of investigative journalism is not "a rumour". Politicians and business people lose their jobs over investigative journalists findings reasonably often. Government enquiries get launched.

Eh? Racist??

Dropping the allegations is not the same as a false allegation and nothing was heard in court. So that's just a rumour and that girl doesn't deserve to have her life ruined by the papers when there's no proof she did anything

Honestly. What are you even talking about.

Noone is going round, arresting men on suspicion of rape for no good reason.

And yes you are being extremely racist to draw a parallel between the way alleged rapists are treated and the experiences of mainly black men trying to go about their daily business in high crime areas. Ffs.

Also, we literally tell our daughters all the time to modify their behaviours to protect themselves from rapists. Don't go out after dark. Don't drink too much. Don't go home with a man unless you are sure you want sex. Don't dress provocatively. Etc etc.

There is no way to tell a rapist from a non rapist, apart from the fact they will be male as rape is a crime involving a penis.

So your whole point is bonkers. The whole of society tells women to be wary of men, in case they are rapists. Then claims its unfair to be wary of men, because NAMALT

If this was a football match, you'd be charged with moving the goalposts.

Will you tell his family to get over it, or shall I ?

Statements like that are Misandry. The NAMALT acronym is entirely true. It isn't all men, it isn't most men. it isn't many men, It is a very small proportion that will carry out sexual assaults.

As previously said, we all modify our behaviour to our surroundings. A Liverpool football fan won't walk into a pub round White Heart Lane wearing his team colours on match day.
A person from certain parts of London won't walk through other parts due to gang reprisals.
Not getting so inebriated we cannot assess or deal with situations applies to everyone.
Going home from a night out with a person of the opposite sex you don't know does of course carry risks.
These are just sensible precautions we all should be taking.

To go through life with the view that all men are bastards is incredibly sad and a disservice to everyone.

But did the lad deserve to have his life ruined before being found guilty? Until it is before the court and convicted, he is an innocent person.

The victim blaming on these posts is disgusting.
I'm about to start a new job next week that will mean every evening I will have to walk down a pretty dark and deserted road to get to the bus stop.
This will take around 15 minutes and to make matters worse I'm particularly blind. I can't afford to not take the job or take a taxi. I'm already worried about the risk of sexual assault.
Last Christmas a woman was kidnapped not far from there. She was raped and murdered and they found her body in a skip weeks later.
So it's very well saying women know the risks. Of course we do and it's horrifying.
I also know that if I am sexually assaulted the rapist probably won't face a jury. But that will be my fault for being stupid enough to walk on my own in the dark. Let's not worry about that though.. That 1/5 women are at some point are sexually assaulted. Let's concentrate on men and the reputation of men who might falsely be accused of rape.
Your right these stupid women should shut up and go to the police, because you know that seems to make a huge difference.

To go through life with the view that all men are bastards is incredibly sad and a disservice to everyone.

I hear this point above, and I also hear @Its5656 . When you have no choice but to use those alleys, then you know you are taking a risk. (If you are visually impaired, then I think you are immensely brave.)

I lived and worked in NYC during the early 80s when it was not the (fairly) safe city it is now. I used the subway at 3.00 am alone, and yes, I encountered all the barking mad people. I was loudly abused for not being Native American once, despite obviously Caucasian, and bodyguarded by young Caribbean men on another trip. But on none of those trips across the city did I expect to be raped. Rape is a crime that requires the woman to step in (via a family relationship (yuck) or a friendship or a romantic dalliance or a quick flirt) even if only a little bit, before it can be committed, unless it's a Flintstone drag her into a cave situation. Most are more nuanced than that.

If my relative is convicted of rape, I shall be ashamed and appalled. But I do trust the legal system to reach the correct result. This will probably be my last comment, but my thanks to @AdamRyan and @CallumDansTransitVan for their contributions.

Ha! It sounds like double standards to me! A newspaper report calling a man a rapist is a ",rumour", potentially ruining his life and needs to be proven in court. But a newspaper report claiming a man killed himself due to "false allegations" is definitely true and proof as to why "innocent until proven guilty" is so important

It's almost like lots of posters think there should be different rules for men and women, I wonder why

There is no such thing as misandry, that's an MRA phrase and shows where you get your info from.

1 in 6 women will be raped. A third of men think if a woman flirts on a date, it doesn't count as rape, a third of men think women can't change their mind once sex has started, 40% think removing a condom during sex without consent isn't rape.

https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/22262-publics-attitudes-sexual-consent?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Fresources%2Farticles-reports%2F2018%2F12%2F01%2Fpublics-attitudes-sexual-consent

This isn't a small minority of men. And there is no way for women to tell which men it is.
By making out women are "man haters" for wanting to tackle sexual violence against women, you show very clearly what your views are. Crying Misandry is pure darvo.

There is no such thing as misandry, that's an MRA phrase and shows where you get your info from.

Obviously there is such a thing as misandry. And it's a word, not a phrase.

There is not.
Misandry is a thing made up as a smokescreen by particular kinds of men who cannot bring themselves to admit women might be discriminated against.

People saying that rapists are all men, and there are significant numbers of them walking free is a fact, not misandry. It can be backed up amply by statistics and research.

People saying that false allegations of rape are common and ruin lives is misogyny, not a fact. It can't be backed up and is motivated by a distrust of women and a feeling women are more likely to lie than men.

Just because you write "obviously..." in front of something doesn't make it true. It just illustrates you don't understand what misogyny is (as is common amongst anyone who uses the phrase "misandry")

Can you stop with the acronyms, I have no idea what MRA or Darvo mean. I had to google it.

Your statistics above from a womans rights group are incredibly flawed and would not stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

Read how they conducted their research. They sent out 3,900 questionaires. They don't tell you how many were returned. Then from those questionaires they 'recruited' some respondents from those that did return one. No explanation on how they decided who to recruit. At that point they had them participate in three online focus groups.

Given the ridiculous amount of variables and no 'control' to measure against, that piece of writing is about as reliable as a motor off arfur daley!

PS Misandry most certainly exists, it's even a word in the dictionary. 😂

Good luck in the new job. Hope it goes well for you. Hopefully with your situation you are able to meet a colleague heading the same direction to share the journey home.

Nobody is attempting to victim blame. What is being discussed is how difficult a crime sexual assault is to convict.

PS Misandry most certainly exists, it's even a word in the dictionary. 😂
So is ghost. Humans have plenty of words for concepts that don't actually exist.