Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Last weeks metro report: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/893640-millionaires-daughter-laura-johnson-i-was-forced-to-join-london-riots No mention of rape there. Maybe she had not yet decided to claim it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Which by extension means that the woman is lying, this is the problem. The entire system is so heavily weighted in the man's favour that this distorts the whole picture. We should have a 3rd verdict of 'not proven' as in Scotland. Neither you nor we can know if she's telling the truth or lying. It must be one or other. Let's wait and see, shall we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodStar Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 She's the daughter of a millionaire and from the 'mitigating circumstances' (And I use the term loosely) I've heard in the news, she's throwing as much crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. The low class rioters all got lengthy prison terms, will this upper-middle class lawyer clad girl go to jail? I'd be hugely surprised if that happened. To be fair all she did was drive a car in which some rioters had a ride..hardly as bad as actually rioting herself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 If she says that she did take part in what shes accused of, but they made her do it, or she did it because she was under so much pressure from this relationship break up, mental health problems, rape, etc, does that mean she gets let off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 To be fair all she did was drive a car in which some rioters had a ride..hardly as bad as actually rioting herself Better or worse than stealing a bottle of water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodStar Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Which by extension means that the woman is lying, this is the problem. The entire system is so heavily weighted in the man's favour that this distorts the whole picture. We should have a 3rd verdict of 'not proven' as in Scotland. Not sure why this is needed. Beyond all reasonable doubt= guilty Reasonable doubt exists= not guilty What does Not proven mean?- 'we think he did it but cant prove it'? How does this benefit anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Not sure why this is needed. Beyond all reasonable doubt= guilty Reasonable doubt exists= not guilty What does Not proven mean?- 'we think he did it but cant prove it'? How does this benefit anybody? It means chiefly that there's no definitive criminal court finding- so it does not bind a civil court (and the victim can then sue the defendant there: remember the acquittal of OJ Simpson, later made liable in damages for the tort of causing death?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 Maybe she had not yet decided to claim it then. so this would not be old news in that case as the primary topic of this thread is the rape. Macky called this old news, which it is obviously not and has made comments like this before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 This is true. But how do you plan to prove or prosecute for false accusation? Bearing in mind that there will also be false accusation of false accusation. Oh I never said it would be easy, but it should not be easy to condemn someone on either side. But those women who are flippant with such claims, should be punished and its fitting they suffer the same fate they tried to impose on an innocent party. If a woman or a man for that matter makes a false rape allegation and its proven in a court of law it is untrue and they did so maliciously, they should suffer the same fate their accused would have suffered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 In which case why do you stand up for one side rather than the other? The man (I assume) she is accusing is innocent until proven guilty. The men have not been named. Why would I stand up for them until she says that she's lying and they've been named? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.