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?!

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

What the fuck?

It's "end violence against women." The UN would probably record worse stats globally.

This new way of flinging out "doesn't stand up to scrutiny" for various sources that provide evidence in opposition to your stance, really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

This has to be parody.

By the way AdamRyan, please could you refrain from using any expressions I don't understand? Cheers.

Which one? Sorry....

We aren't talking about Globally here though are we. We aren't even talking about the UN, and their great reputation with regards to their own 'peacekeepers' and rape. 😅

But if you want to use statistics, at least ensure they come from a reliable source.
If you pick one that pre-selects it's sample based on their opinion before asking questions, then of course you place yourself open to ridicule.

This is a crazy take. You know teachers and politicians and anyone who is seen as a role model have in their contracts to behave properly at all times.
The personal standards mean if you put pics of you say drunk or scantily clad online you can be disciplined and fired. No criminality at all, a hint of inappropriate behaviour in your personal life goes against professional and personal standards. Yet you seem to think men on TV can say whatever they want and that's just fine.

On the found not guilty, pretty sure they are all guilty. The police don't put to the cps any they are not certain of, and the cps then drop loads more they think a jury won't convict. If it gets to a jury at all at least 2 professional organisations believe they are a rapist on the evidence. The fact juries are idiots is irrelevant.
See the Luke student case from 2017 when he climbed in the window amd rapes her then went on sky news saying how she ruined his life and he is innocent. Because of a fantasy she wrote in a text that he decided to enact without her knowledge.

That's the guy upthread being presented as an example of having his life "ruined by false accusations"

callum you have presented no evidence at all to support your position. Also I think you are conflating two studies. The VAWG one was carried out by yougov, which is a reputable site.

By all means post some more reliable stats that show only a small minority of men are rapists....I don't think you can because they don't exist.

I wish I had the same faith in the Police or the Procurator Fiscal (Scotlands CPS). I've been involved with, and know others who have been brought before the courts and the fiscal is only reading the offence on the day of trial. And often clearly hasn't fully read it when they start questioning.

An example of the ridiculousness of this would be the man who was spending around £2k on a new bathroom suite in eg homebase. While wandering round he reached into his pocket for his notes of sizes and absent mindedly put a set of screws he was holding in his hands into his pocket when he returned the paper.

After checking out having paid circa £2k, he was stopped for shoplifting. At which point he was apologetic and did explain it was simply an absent minded mistake and of course offered to pay for them. The police were called and told the story, they didn't have the common sense to say to the store staff don't be so silly. It is unlikely somebody will pay £2k and try to skip on an 89p pack of screws.

But no, the police sent it to the fiscal, who then had the man before the sheriff. Who had the common sense to look at the fiscal in disgust and say, what on earth is this doing taking up court time.

Read the very first paragraph in the link you gave. The one that gives the methodology of the study. Yougov carried out the study using the parameters laid out there. As said given the astounding amount of variables, it could never reach results that would stand up to any scrutiny.

But to give you the figures you are requesting.
Male population approximately 29.2 million https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/male-and-female-populations/latest

Reported Sexual assaults 193,566
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2022

So if we look at that as a percentage 0.6% of the male population are responsible for all reported sexual assaults. This does not bring into consideration that some of these reports could involve one man being responsible for several assaults. Which would reduce the figure even further.

Was that what you were looking for?

What about the self report studies on men that show the majority would rape if they thought they could get away with it?

In England shoplifting is basically legal, thousands of pounds worth.

Which report and what were the parameters of those asked and the questions?

Shoplifting may well have increased and the police not dealing with it, but that doesn't mean we all want to go shoplifting. What a ridiculous comment.

???? You do this regularly, make stuff up. I assume not on purpose? Where did I say people want to shoplift? Separate replies to different points.

What on earth!!! You offered up a study, I asked to see it. You made a comment about shoplifting, I made a fair response to it. 😂

That's sexual assaults in a year, not in a lifetime. So the maths doesn't work.

Using your logic above, 1 in 6 women are raped in their lifetime (some more than once), ergo around 1 in 6 men is a rapist (17%)

or you could say there is a 0.6% chance in a year of a man raping someone and multiply it by their adult life. So let's say 30 years to be conservative. That gives an 18% chance of a man being a rapist.

Neither of those are a "small minority"

I was trying to find those but Google seems to wilfully want to tell me about how men are victims

Where are you pulling these figures from? To get lifetime likelihood, you need someone who can work out probability vs birth/death figures, repeat offenders, & probably several more variance. The math is nowhere near as simple as you are posting.

Incidentally even using the figures you have used. it is 1 in 6 sexual assaults, not rape.

But people are never convicted on someone’s say-so, are they? They may be arrested (if the say-so produces enough evidence) and put on trial and then may be convicted.

I think the phrase trial by media is a misnomer because it is what it is: not literally a trial but speculation and investigation; and we have a right to do that. The due process of law can’t take away our right to do that and victims of our speculation have recourse to the law of defamation if we take our speculation or investigation too far over the line.

it would be more accurate to say that people like Brand have been publicly shamed and lost income on the back of it because their brand has been tainted as a result. Do I believe people should be publicly shamed? Not usually but Brand did quite a bit of shaming himself even though his victims often seem to be laughing (albeit nervously) and making out they are in on the misogynistic joke.

unfortunately for Brand the woman accusing him of rape reported it straight after it occurred, attended counselling for it and had her evidence officially conserved. This will be very strong evidence regardless of public judgement. If he is brought to trial this will be a landmark case. I hope it happens.

But people are never convicted on someone’s say-so, are they? They may be arrested (if the say-so produces enough evidence) and put on trial and then may be convicted.

Exactly ! Just like Andrew Malkinson.

Yes, an example off the top of my head was "Death On The Rock" about the SAS killing three members of the Provisional IRA in Gibraltar 1988.

That documentary was put out well before any court case and contained a number of inaccuracies plus falsehoods. The worst claim being the SAS stood over each Provo on the ground and shot them in cold blood.

In reality, all three were shot well before any hit the ground.

A witness on the documentary also admitted lying at the inquest too. Another witness, Carmen Proetta, was contradicted by several witnesses after she claimed the Provos had their hands up in surrender when they were shot (they hadn't).

But if you'd watched that documentary, you'd have come away believing the SAS had murdered the three in cold blood.

Later, the ECtHR judgement concluded the SAS had NOT carried out premeditated murder by any means. The actions of the SAS was reasonable and the court warned against placing an unreasonable burden on security agencies across Europe in counter-terrorism operations.

Planning of the operation by superiors was a different matter, but the SAS themselves were exonerated of allegations of murder.

So, documentaries are NOT vehicles for truth since they are made by people with a particular agenda, slant or point of view.

It's VERY telling when any documentary is put out into the public domain well before any criminal investigation has concluded or proceedings have started.

It's good to err on the side of caution, mostly.

Police probe after Brand sexual offence claims https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66918331

The Metropolitan Police says it will investigate allegations of "non-recent" sexual offences following news reports about comedian Russell Brand.

I totally agree. A vast amount of these documentaries and fly on the wall shows are edited to show what the producer wants the audience to see.
As I've said upthread, I think Brand is a prick and very likely a sex pest. But media coverage like that show, can hinder any investigation.

Yes, quite often the makers stage scenes in order to basically setup the subject of their interview as well. We now know that Martin Bashir's most famous interviews was done by lying to their famous subjects in order to lure them in too. Footage has also emerged of Bashir fawning to their faces whilst saying something completely different in the editing room.

And so on it goes for documentaries other than "Death On The Rock".

Problem is, once these manipulated, skewed documentaries are broadcast many people take them at face value, believe them and NEVER go beyond them to actual court documents. Evidently, this is too much effort for most people.

Inevitably, this also means that not every opinion is valid or equal. Indeed, as you point out such documentaries CAN prejudice criminal proceedings as well as investigations.

Very often, you really do have to wade through tons of propaganda in order to get at the established facts. Unfortunately, the fact media publications ARE businesses FIRST and FOREMOST also means that established facts are easily buried. The aim is to sell enough copies or pull in enough viewers as this means money.

Media publications are reluctant to acknowledge when they were wrong or their methods were unethical. At most, you'll see a TINY retraction buried on page 13 or so. Maybe a financial settlement. But nothing explicit in case it damages their own credibility with their target audience.

Terrorist groups that understand the value of propaganda also know most people cannot detect bias if it hit them on the head. It easily plays into their hands.

Indeed, it was naive for anyone to think the Leveson Enquiry into media hacking would fundamentally change things. It hasn't.

There is STILL no substitute for letting criminal proceedings follow due process. Unfortunately, many argue against this by using a logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning amongst others.

If we are to automatically believe anyone who makes a claim, then people such as Carmen Proetta would be believed OVER actual evidence and established facts. It would mean the allegation the SAS shot the PIRA 3 in cold blood on the ground with one soldier with his foot on Savage's neck would stand.

The reality is, of course, rather different as that actually didn't happen. Pathologist's report disproved those allegations, for example.

It is dangerous to believe a, b and c because of allegations made by x, y and z. Allegations and the case against MUST stand on its own feet with corroborating evidence.

A documentary isn't necessarily evidence or reliable evidence as shown by the blatant lies in "Death On The Rock".

Facts aren't about feelings either. This would be falling into the Affective Logical Fallacy, for one.

With Russell Brand, let the authorities do their jobs without undue external prejudicial Interference.

The problem is that (in the UK at least) the judicial process concerning the crime of rape is a product of its environment and therefore extremely flawed. In the event a woman reports a rape to the police, she will then be subject to a physical rape kit, and extensive and unpleasant questioning - what were you wearing, what is your relationship with the defendant, could you have led him on, etc etc - it's a very distressing and brutal process, which is recorded for use at trial if required. Should the case then go to court, the current legislation does not allow cross examination of the claimant, which actually weakens their case - without a strong testimony from the victim, usually the evidence is circumstantial at best. UK law requires the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - any other outcome and the defendant is acquitted. Despite scientific studies which show that sexual predators cannot be rehabilitated, the current judicial system is not equipped to adequately handle and punish sexually violent crimes , and this affects wider society by reinforcing the idea that sexual violence is a minor issue as opposed to a horrific and brutal crime .