IMF head Strauss-Khan charged with sexual assault, attempted rape and imprisonment of hotel maid in New York

[darleneoconnor]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13402845

Can these sroties ever be reported without a discussion of whether the woman is lying or provoked the man?

It's like Julian Assange all over again.

There was a french man being interviewed about it on News 24 and you could sense a different attitude between him and the British newsreader, Nicholas Owen. The french man was emphasising how bad a crime it was, whereas the newsreader seemed to be fishing for some 'rape myths'.

We'll see how this one pans out.

Well apparently he has a reputation as a 'lapin chaud' according to the the Today program yesterday. Which of course means it can't possibly be rape as the chamber maid would instantly have whipped off her knickers and said 'take me big boy' if he's so much as looked at her

Vile!

I didn't say they must be guilty greythorne. But generally the police are fairly sure of a conviction if they arrest and charge someone within hours of a crime having been committed

As I understand it from news reports, it is the Grand Jury hearing on 20 May 2011 where it will be decided whether the case will go to trial. As I understand it, the NYPD or District Attorney do not make that decision.

As the OP says, it's like Julian Assange all over again. Of course it is. Naturally, it is impossible that a so-called 'socialist' could ever do anything oppressive to women. Don't you realise, socialists are champions of the oppressed? This is why feminism is a distraction from the true cause of our oppression (capitalism) and so must be opposed. It may occur to the more cynical that the socialist here is by definition male. Any criticism of this people's tribune is therefore a conspiracy by the forces of reaction. I believe the woman. I believe that DSK dd exactly what she said he did. And I believe the other women who report his sexual harrassment, too. And I am sick to the back teeth of hearing 'socialists' defending rapists.

Quite, Alice. And yes dittany, it's just a teensy bit ironic isn't it?

I was listening to this on the radio yesterday and wondering why rape charges are almost always referred to as "allegations" rather than "charges"? Do we have "allegations" of GBH? "Allegations" of drink-driving? Surely once he has been charged, then that's clearly what they are - charges? No? [profoundly depressed emoticon]

Nowadays all you have to do is label yourself a socialist. There is no need actually to behave like one. All very post-modern.

Liking all your responses, sisters.

And as for this 'innocent until proven guilty' thing - it doesn't mean that he is innocent, it doesn't mean that he is probably innocent and it doesn't imply anything about the probability of either guilt or innocence.

It means that everybody is entitled to a fair trial, and that until the evidence is heard and judged, a person is in the state of legal non-guilt. It is in effect a very neutral statement when applied properly.

I don't like the way this phrase is often seized upon in the context of rape charges. Bandying it around without qualification, implies that the victim is lying/man in his position couldn't possibly/yada yada yada rape myth yada yada.

Bc you just articulated exactly what I tried to say (more clumsily) in another thread about "innocent until proven guilty".
Bless you for your clarity!

I see what you mean Bc but it does get used a lot more in rape trials than other kinds of trial. And I don't believe it is used in a neutral way (although I agree that it should be a neutral phrase).

I mean by people talking about the case, rather than in the trial itself

This just in from the New York Post:

Strauss-Khan's Defense: The Victim Consented:

'' Lawyers for IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn argued at his arraignment that the hotel worker who has accused him of a sexual attack consented to encounter. "The evidence, we believe, will not be consistent with a forcible encounter," said one lawyer, while a defense source tells the New York Post, "There may well have been consent." Neither Strauss-Kah nor his accuser had scratches or bruises, but the accuser?s hospital exam supports her account, as might forensic evidence at the scene of the crime. ''

BC that's why I was trying to say too! Thank you, am hopelessly inarticulate sometimes.

We should be cautious - a lot of information is being released here - wasn't he supposed to be having lunch with is daughter at the time, according to yesterday's news? Now he admits he was there, but that "she consented".

Is it cynical to be at the sequence of reported events;

sexual assault charge > "I've got an alibi" > talk of forensic evidence > "she consented guv".

Agree with celadron - how likely is it that a woman at work would have a quick sexual encounter with a stranger whilst carrying out her duties.

I hate that 'women are always sexually available and gagging for it' crap. I blame porn.

New York Post 'she consented' article here:

www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/seduced_and_she_said_oui_oui_Oj0Z4K8iFIheZa4gvTBUWN

I feel guilty now... you really made me laugh celadon... So, we give up on the conspiracy theories at least.