IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home Forums |
A new CPS Boss and vital changes
TOPIC: A new CPS Boss and vital changes
|
|
A new CPS Boss and vital changes 5 Years ago
|
|
A good sign; watching Liam Allan (my lunch guest last Friday with Fry and Gambaccini) fighting the good fight; it seems perhaps, at last, the Establishment is starting to realise the truth; there are FAR MORE false accusers than genuine victims. If you include allegations against dead people - I reckon 90% of all sex claims are exaggerated and a hefty amount of those totally false. Might this be the sea change at last we've fought for, over 20 years?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
Last Edit: 2019/04/29 10:10 By JK2006.
|
|
|
|
Re:A new CPS Boss and vital changes 5 Years ago
|
|
Outrageous reports on the BBC, Sky etc about "victims" having to hand over their phones when rape is alleged.
they aren't victims..complainants until an offense is proved in court.
It's not too different to referring someone charged with murder as the "murderer" in media reports.
Highly prejudicial as idiots hyperventilate..including the so-called "Victim's Commissioner" claiming it will stop "victims" reporting crimes..why?
Those alleging rape will probably just clear their phones now..yet again anyone foolish enough to have sex these days should get an agreement in writing..or perhaps on their phone.
Record the entire event !!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:A new CPS Boss and vital changes 5 Years ago
|
|
Don't agree; I think the majority are genuine delusion encouraged by others (including media, police, lawyers) to exaggerate. Example; most young girls who claim Justin Bieber had sex with them really believe he did although they never met him.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
Last Edit: 2019/04/30 08:27 By JK2006.
|
|
|
|
Re:A new CPS Boss and vital changes 5 Years ago
|
|
wyot wrote:
Yes Honey but this still doesn't amount to rape or malfeance; it recounts a "conversation". No more, no less. Can a man now feel encouraged to rape a woman who has traded sexual messages about"restraint", can a false accuser feel emboldened having a few texts from a man that are sexually "aggressive"?
It is certainly not ideal, but when you can convict without any evidence other than someone's word, circumstantial evidence is even more important.
This would make it impossible for me to report a rape though.
Firstly, having been a victim of both physical assault and hacking of personal messages, it is the violation of the hacking that stays with me more, though it may be less important to others.
Secondly, my phone is a helpline for very vulnerable people with mental health challenges who are often suicidal.
The service is completely confidential, so how could I expose their personal details and conversations to some unknown drongo at the cop shop?
It would be my choice to not report, and accept that if you accuse someone you have to give them the chance to defend themselves.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:A new CPS Boss and vital changes 5 Years ago
|
|
Misa wrote:
hedda, I share your distaste at the use of the word victim. It's original meaning as 'a creature killed as a religious sacrifice' perhaps indicates why it is so popular in certain circles now.
But if it is to mean 'person harmed as a result of a crime', then that person is a victim when the crime is committed, and not only when that person is found guilty. The 'victim' of a murderer is surely a victim long before the perpetrator is convicted.
Of course, our problem here is that there may be little evidence of harm from rape, indeed little evidence that any illegal activity has occurred. Prior to convincing evidence being located, it would seem quite wrong for the police and members of the legal profession to describe the accuser as a victim.
But referring in general terms to how 'victims' may be affected by changes in law or police guidelines is quite appropriate. Of course, victims may only be a proportion (some would say 'small proportion') of that larger group known as 'accusers'.
On the broader point, am I alone in being concerned that we had a bad siuation: police were able to raid homes and confiscate electronic equipment owned by someone accused of a sexual crime. And to make things 'better' we are now going to expect both accuser and accused to give up their electronic devices.
Misa My Dear ( I mean the sincerely )
To claim someone is a victim before a trial infers that a crime has been committed.
Claims of rape or sexual assault are no different to other crimes except, it's a crime where often there is no "evidence" apart from the accusation.
Of course I am reversing the situation here but for a very good reason : words have meanings and can affect the way other's think (others who may end up on a jury)
If you say "victim" it means a crime has been committed.
Of course in a murder a crime obviously has happened....but if you label the accused a "murderer" it will color how the public (or a jury) thinks.
If you say "victim" it means a certainty that a crime has been committed when it may not have happened
It means t here is a guilty party somewhere even if it 's not the accused.
In reality few people (perhaps on jury) think beyond that..they assume a crime has happened.
## I am a rape victim and a victim of an attempted murder. I got "over it" but it took about 18 months and fucked up my life during that time.
I did learn..apart from the BULLSHIT perpetuated about "victim behavior" from self -appointed "survivor" groups ( I hate them because they all tell my me life has been ruined.. it wasn't) is what is only now talked about now: genuine victims can feel it's their fault for being in a situation... wearing the wrong clothes..being drunk ( I was drugged in perhaps one of the first "date rape" case..1970s).. genuine victims can feel guilt because they put themselves into a situation where they were raped.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:A new CPS Boss and vital changes 5 Years ago
|
|
Dearest hedda,
If we are to use the term victim to denote someone who has suffered harm as a result of a crime, then a victim is a victim the moment the crime is committed. A crime is committed, and harm is done, in the real world, irrespective of whether a court examines the matter. So it is perfectly reasonable to express the hope that victims will not be discouraged from coming forward because of whatever change in law or procedure. Of course, we might also hope that only victims come forward to report crimes. And, unfortunately, we seem to have a number of people who, having suffered no harm whatsoever, also wish to make allegations. Those people are, by definition, not victims, and if they can be discourged, without discouraging victims, that is a good thing.
In a murder trial where the deceased has not been proven to have died at the hands of another, presumably, it would be inappropriate for those involved in the case, or those reporting on it, to refer to the deceased as the victim, though I imagine there are rather more murder cases in which the matter of whether or not someone has been deliberately killed is uncontested.
Wherever the matter of whether the alleged victim has suffered harm as a result of a crime has yet to be resolved, it would seem inappropriate for those involved in, or reporting on, the case to refer to that person as a victim. Clearly someone campaigning on behalf of victims may reasonably refer publically to victims, but must avoid making any such pronouncement with regard to an ongoing case.
Are we not, by and large, in agreement?
wjlmarsh makes a number of interesing points, which I think are worthy of discussion, and I can't help but think these things would all be so much simpler if Randall were in charge.
What I still struggle to understand is why the police (apparently) automatically raid the home of someone accused of a sexual crime in search of potential evidence of something...anything, taking away phones, computers, diaries, photo albums, etc., sometimes not returning them for months, or years. This seems to be highly speculative, hugely inconvenient and upsetting, and has the potential to greatly handicap the accused's chances of mounting a decent defence.
Would it not make much more sense for all involved if police were able to demand whichever source of evidence they required, only where there was already evidence that the source contained pertinent information? And then, only withhold such devices or materials from their owner under very strict and frequently reviewed circumstances?
At the moment we seem to be addressing injustice by balancing it with further injusice (e.g. anonymity for accuser + anonymity for accused; accused to give up electronic devices + accuser to give up electronic devices) when the real problem is that people can be convicted of a crime for which there need be no 'real' evidence.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|