Guilt by association for Prince Andrew? Or yet another case of a lying scheming opportunistic manipulative gold-digging woman trying her luck in a rape hysteria witch hunt culture, safe in the knowledge that even if she is proved to be a liar perverting the course of justice she will probably get away with just a slap on the wrist?
Guilt by association for Prince Andrew? Or yet another case of a lying scheming opportunistic manipulative gold-digging woman trying her luck in a rape hysteria witch hunt culture, safe in the knowledge that even if she is proved to be a liar perverting the course of justice she will probably get away with just a slap on the wrist?
I heard this on the news earlier today and just knew that when I logged in you would have mentioned it somewhere
Insufficient evidence does 'not' in any way mean this was a false allegation against the said MP. As far as Price Andrew is concerned I'm not going to waste much more than the few second I already have, he's senior Royal, even if there was evidence, what does any one think will happen to it, enough said.
Remember when the Jimmy Saville story broke, what did most people say ? Since then I look at the number of people convicted, some fully admitting their crimes and the backgrounds they've come from, I no longer trust anyone.
Is nobody safe..?
Posted: 06 Jan 2015, 22:55
by Gullscorer
You're quite right, Forever, 'insufficient evidence' does not necessarily mean an allegation was deliberately false. It could equally be that the accuser was totally mistaken. There have been cases where young women have completely and genuinely believed (thanks to the modern rape hysteria culture) that they were abused/molested/raped despite all the evidence to the contrary. In this particular case, a false accusation was my considered opinion. And my considered opinion, too, that the MP is innocent.
The lynch mob mentality assumes there is no smoke without fire and so he must be guilty. There have been cases where innocent young men have been beaten to death by mobs after being falsely accused. Yes, there have indeed been a number of high profile rape/sexual abuse cases in recent times; some have been found not guilty, some have been convicted. There have also been more and more proven false accusations.
Many false accusers get away with their lies and are never brought to court, because of 'insufficient evidence'. (Yet a mere accusation, even if false, can be enough for an innocent man's career and reputation to be ruined for life). It is more often the case, however, that the CPS prosecutes accused men with little, if any, corroborating evidence. So if an accused man is not charged and brought to court, the authorities must be pretty certain that he is innocent. There is a strong case for maintaining the anonymity of the accused in these circumstances (http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2015/01/07/ ... anonymity/).
Most importantly, we should all remember that the law is emphatic that accused people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they are found not guilty, then they are innocent. If there is insufficient evidence, then they are innocent. If they are not even charged (even false accusers), then they are innocent in the eyes of the law. They are most definitely not 'probably guilty and would have been convicted but for insufficient evidence and there's no smoke without fire'.
There are very good reasons why the law has developed this way over centuries, to keep the lynch mob at bay and to ensure due process for the accused and the proper administration of justice. Even so, there are still cases where innocent people are convicted, and culpable people found not guilty.
Following a lawful sexual encounter, if a man or boy acts "normal and reasonable," such conduct might be used as evidence to convict him of rape. And, no, we're not making that up. In the UK, new guidelines issued to police and prosecutors warn that ‘offenders may take steps which, on the face might seem normal or reasonable, to distance themselves from an offence or to reframe the offence … in order to undermine or pre-empt any allegation’."
Police are being told to "check social networking sites as standard practice for evidence and to check if the defendants had posted comments putting a deceptively innocent spin on the night." And "other examples of behaviour to try to conceal an offence of rape include boasting to friends, pretending to fall asleep afterwards, or making counter-allegations."
No doubt, some people use ruses to cover their tracks after committing a heinous crime, but to posit a blanket rule making "normal and reasonable" and "deceptively innocent" behavior evidence of guilt is absurd, unjust, and frightening all at once.
But why am I not surprised? In the loopy, politicized world of sexual assault, "up" is "down," "right" is "wrong," and there's more topsy turvy than a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. When the innocent actions of the innocent are used to prove the innocent are rapists, that is a policy not just bordering on pathology, it is a policy sick beyond all measure. http://www.cotwa.info/2015/01/in-uk-if- ... nable.html
