weirdly this was the banner ad I got for this thread
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
News Premier League star arrested on suspicion of rape
- Thread starter Shadydan
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I disagree, you can believe them without punishing the accused (until they are proven guilty in court) but if two sides are giving contradictory accounts and you believe one, then by default you dis-believe the other.
I don't see that as a healthy starting point for investigating a matter and eventually establishing the truth, and it's important to remember that not immediately believing someones claim is not the same as dismissing their claim.
These are different legal tests. Police and CPS must believe a victims account if they are going to charge a suspect. If they don't believe the victim, then it would be misconduct (or potentially perverting the course of justice) for the prosecution to still charge.
It is very common for a criminal jury (or single Judge in some jurisdictions) to believe a victim and yet find there is not enough evidence to prove the prosecution case to the high criminal standard.
It's an example of the damage that can be done to a falsely accused individual, and the kind of witch hunt that can ensue when following the "always believe the woman" mantra.
If a woman comes forward with an allegation of sexual assault you should believe her and support her. The legal system will presume the innocence of the attacker but that does not mean that it also it presumes the that the alleged victim is a liar. It’s not a zero sum game. In this case there is a mass of evidence that Partey is at least a horrible Misogynist and possibly a rapist. Civil law is balance of probabilities and on that case I believe Woolwich can at minimum suspend him and are quite within their rights to terminate his contract for bringing the club into disrepute
But I'm not investigating the matter or establishing truth. I'd expect a different response from a judge & jury as they're part of the legal process, which is very different.
If someone came to me claiming they'd be raped, my immediate reaction would be to believe what they're telling me & to try to comfort them. That doesn't mean I think the person they're accusing shouldn't be given the right to a fair trial.
Great, but there is some investigation carried out between accusation and charge isn't there? The tweet posted suggested that belief of the accuser be the starting point, I just can't see how that would be a viable option.
The options gave were the Amber Heard is either proof that all women are evil witches OR a one off.
I read this as suggesting that Amber Heard made false accusations. This is indeed what the jury in Virginia found. However the U.K. high court in effect found the opposite ie that Depp had abused Heard at least 12 times.
To suggest Heard made false accusations means you prefer the Virginian court to the British court.
Apologies if I’ve misunderstood.
Got you. Sorry, my wires were crossed & I thought those posts were still directly related to this case, not the Heard/Depp one. My bad.
To be honest I was just using the Amber heard case as an exaple as quoted by
Herclueless
Fair enough!
By the way
Herclueless
I just spoteed how clever you user name is. I never spotted the litle pun in there. very funny 
Herclueless
I just spoteed how clever you user name is. I never spotted the litle pun in there. very funny 
Who cares he's boring
Where there's a conflict between accounts, one account can be be preferred over the other without having to disbelieve anyone. It's the old scales of justice symbol. It's quite rare for a judge to say they disbelieve someone (unless the evidence supports that position)
It’s self interested.
They do not have to do that from a legal perspective and claiming that they do is getting the balance wrong between free speech and protecting the victim.
That being said they would need to moderate the spaces which they might not be willing to do. Reddit in particular can quickly descend into abuse which clearly harms his reputation. If you’re not abusing the accused and you’re going off information in the public domain and holding truly believed opinions then you are safe.
That was the same here in the uk not so long ago, so I'd not be to quick to look down at 'other cultures'. Its not in the front of my mind but was the law only change on this as late as 1992? (Don't quote me on that, or someone do due diligence). We have a very fake cultural perception of who we are here and how long we have been enlighten. I'd also point out that there is a very active campaign by people who like to throw around the term woke, to overturn lots of the rights people seem to think we're always part of our "culture ". They weren't they were fought for bitterly . By 'woke' campaigns.
And if someone comes to you in a state of distress telling you that they've been falsely accused of rape, would you believe and comfort them?
Some further whatabouttery from me, if you believe the accuser in every case, they then go to court, and the accused is found innocent. Do you then change your stance, or continue to believe the accuser and thus that the accused IS in fact a rapist who simply evaded justice? Or is there some scenario where you are able to believe both the accuser and the accused that I haven't thought of?
Probably phase him out and tell him to find a new club.